JAR's semen on the blanket in a suitcase in the basement

[PremeditatedCrime]

What puzzles me is why the Ramsey's would go to all the trouble of covering up JBR's murder by moving suitcases, hitting her on the head, cleaning her up etc. when they could have put JBR in their car and got rid of the body. Wouldn't burying her body be the logical thing to do if Patsy wrote the ransom note? Why leave JBR in the house and face all the scrutiny, it doesn't make sense.

"No Body, No Crime"

Well, since I tend to think that Patsy is innocent, I think John (who did it! And he framed Patsy as well) wrote the ransom note to frighten Patsy so that she would not call the police, once she realized that her daughter was missing. That would give John the time to dispose of the dead body (and the incriminating JAR suitcase if John Andrew was also involved).

But then Patsy ruined the plan by calling the police, when she discovered the ransom note. According to testimony from Patsy (though John insists otherwise), she made the decision to call the police, she TOLD her husband that she was calling the police.

So had Patsy NOT called the police, then John would have disposed of the dead body.

Would neighbors see John carry over the dead body? Could he possibly hide the body in a suitcase? Do you know? Thank you!

 

[PremeditatedCrime]

What puzzles me is why the Ramsey's would go to all the trouble of covering up JBR's murder by moving suitcases, hitting her on the head, cleaning her up etc. when they could have put JBR in their car and got rid of the body. Wouldn't burying her body be the logical thing to do if Patsy wrote the ransom note? Why leave JBR in the house and face all the scrutiny, it doesn't make sense.

"No Body, No Crime"

Well, since I tend to think that Patsy is innocent, I think John (who did it! And he framed Patsy as well) wrote the ransom note to frighten Patsy so that she would not call the police, once she realized that her daughter was missing. That would give John the time to dispose of the dead body (and the incriminating JAR suitcase if John Andrew was also involved).

But then Patsy ruined the plan by calling the police, when she discovered the ransom note. According to testimony from Patsy (though John insists otherwise), she made the decision to call the police, she TOLD her husband that she was calling the police.

So had Patsy NOT called the police, then John would have disposed of the dead body.

Would neighbors see John carry over the dead body? Could he possibly hide the body in a suitcase? Do you know? Thank you!

 

[root661]

I think the thought of not having a real funeral and burying her body stopped them from disposing of the body. They wanted a big funeral for her.

 

[PremeditatedCrime]

I think the thought of not having a real funeral and burying her body stopped them from disposing of the body. They wanted a big funeral for her.

Yes, of course. Makes sense that they want a proper funeral and burial.

Do you either of these two theories seem farfetched?

1. JAR might have committed the murder, OR
2. John and Patsy tried to frame JAR, by putting his suitcase with the incriminating evidence in front of the window?

There was also a story circulating not long ago after the crime that JAR had tried to hire a male person to kill JB. And I wonder if John Ramsey did purposely promote that narrative, which would shift blame away from him and Patsy, and onto JAR.

(JAR's motives would be: 1) to silence JB to prevent her from reporting PREVIOUS sexual abuse; and 2) to frame Patsy, who was his stepmother.)

 

[root661]

I think it was BDI. However I am in the minority in suspecting that he did A LOT more of this than people think (not the RN) and I think it was intentional. I doubt it was preplanned but I think he knew what he was doing and he's not sorry.

 

[PremeditatedCrime]

I think it was BDI. However I am in the minority in suspecting that he did A LOT more of this than people think (not the RN) and I think it was intentional. I doubt it was preplanned but I think he knew what he was doing and he's not sorry.

If that is true, the Ramseys should have prevented Burke from going to the funeral. I'm sure they could just say that he was too shocked or upset. Burke's behavior at the funeral raised suspicion, and it would have been better had he not attended.

Well, that would explain Patsy covering for Burke. Obviously, Patsy would cover for Burke long before she would cover for JAR. But why stage a "sexual crime" when you can claim that the girl fell and hit her head on the bathtub?

And do you think Burke garroted her? I can't imagine Patsy doing that! (Even when Susan Smith killed her children, she never staged a "sexual crime.") And if Patsy did it, pretty foolish to use your own paintbrush!

The ransom note does appear to be written by a reckless young man - perhaps intended that way?

Curious what you think. I am JDI and JARDI and believe it was premeditated murder.

Glenn Meyer (the Barnhills' neighbor) - not likely. His handwriting matched, better than Patsy's. But I cannot see the Ramseys covering for him.

 

[icedtea4me]

<snip> (Even when Susan Smith killed her children, she never staged a "sexual crime.") And if Patsy did it, pretty foolish to use your own paintbrush!<snip>

Patsy alluded to Susan Smith in her and John's 1 Jan 1997 interview.

RAMSEY, P: You know, America has just been hurt so deeply with the -- this -- the tragic things that have happened. The young woman who drove her children into the water, and we don't know what happened with the O.J. Simpson -- and I mean, America is suffering because have lost faith in the American family.

01011997ramseysoncnn

Susan Smith killed her children because they stood in the way of a relationship she wanted to have with a man.

 

[PremeditatedCrime]

Patsy alluded to Susan Smith in her and John's 1 Jan 1997 interview.

RAMSEY, P: You know, America has just been hurt so deeply with the -- this -- the tragic things that have happened. The young woman who drove her children into the water, and we don't know what happened with the O.J. Simpson -- and I mean, America is suffering because have lost faith in the American family.

01011997ramseysoncnn

Susan Smith killed her children because they stood in the way of a relationship she wanted to have with a man.

Yes, that's my point. Susan Smith drowned them, and claimed that two men had killed them. But she didn't stage a "sexual crime." And I cannot imagine any woman garroting her child.

Glenn Meyer (Barnhills tenant) and Chris Wolf (journalist) - handwriting match but no way that Ramseys would cover for them.

 

[root661]

But why stage a "sexual crime" when you can claim that the girl fell and hit her head on the bathtub?

And do you think Burke garroted her? I can't imagine Patsy doing that! (Even when Susan Smith killed her children, she never staged a "sexual crime.") And if Patsy did it, pretty foolish to use your own paintbrush!

The ransom note does appear to be written by a reckless young man - perhaps intended that way?

Curious what you think.

Remember, this is just my opinion, but I don't think they had to "stage a sexual crime". I think BR actually did those things to JBR. I think the order of the attack went something like this....
1. The kids ate the pineapple in the kitchen. I doubt there was really a fight over it though.
2. BR says he is going downstairs (to the basement) to play/unwrap presents/whatever
3. JBR follows him down there
4. While down there BR attempts some type of inappropriate act (which I think he had done before) and they end up pushing and shoving which causes the triangular shaped bruise was thought to have been caused by the twisting of JBR’s shirt while tightened around her neck
5. She breaks loose and is going upstairs to tell
6. The head blow stops her
7. The train track poking occurs
8. The sexual assault happens while JBR is unconscious but still alive
9. The "garrote" is used but not in the "garrote" sense...it's actually a toggle knot that is taught in boy scouts. Maybe he wanted to pull her around with it to move her from the train room into the wine cellar? Not sure
10. PR comes downstairs and finds the scene with JBR outside the wine cellar.
11. PR sends BR to his room, springs into action, and at some point JR is involved. I think PR wrote the note but exactly who cleaned up the body, put on the extra large underwear, or staged anything else we will probably never know for sure.

 

[PremeditatedCrime]

Remember, this is just my opinion, but I don't think they had to "stage a sexual crime". I think BR actually did those things to JBR. I think the order of the attack went something like this....
1. The kids ate the pineapple in the kitchen. I doubt there was really a fight over it though.
2. BR says he is going downstairs (to the basement) to play/unwrap presents/whatever
3. JBR follows him down there
4. While down there BR attempts some type of inappropriate act (which I think he had done before) and they end up pushing and shoving which causes the triangular shaped bruise was thought to have been caused by the twisting of JBR’s shirt while tightened around her neck
5. She breaks loose and is going upstairs to tell
6. The head blow stops her
7. The train track poking occurs
8. The sexual assault happens while JBR is unconscious but still alive
9. The "garrote" is used but not in the "garrote" sense...it's actually a toggle knot that is taught in boy scouts. Maybe he wanted to pull her around with it to move her from the train room into the wine cellar? Not sure
10. PR comes downstairs and finds the scene with JBR outside the wine cellar.
11. PR sends BR to his room, springs into action, and at some point JR is involved. I think PR wrote the note but exactly who cleaned up the body, put on the extra large underwear, or staged anything else we will probably never know for sure.

_________________

Well, if that is true (more or less), then we can assume that it was JR who moved the body to the wine cellar. I don't think Patsy was physically strong enough to move the body.

And if that did happen (more or less), then that sexist detective (was it Thomas?) who created a mass hysteria that exists to this day that Patsy had beaten the daughter to death. Maybe it was more her idea than John's, but I would NOT say that she killed her daughter! Talk about sexism and bias!

Boy, what a crazy family. And I suspect that Patsy's parents were even nuttier!

 

[icedtea4me]

Yes, that's my point. Susan Smith drowned them, and claimed that two men had killed them. <snip>

Smith claimed that a Black man took her car with her children in it and, in a way, she told the truth. John D Long Lake was named after a man and its water at nighttime was black.

 

[DeDee]

Yes, of course. Makes sense that they want a proper funeral and burial.

Do you either of these two theories seem farfetched?

1. JAR might have committed the murder, OR
2. John and Patsy tried to frame JAR, by putting his suitcase with the incriminating evidence in front of the window?

There was also a story circulating not long ago after the crime that JAR had tried to hire a male person to kill JB. And I wonder if John Ramsey did purposely promote that narrative, which would shift blame away from him and Patsy, and onto JAR.

(JAR's motives would be: 1) to silence JB to prevent her from reporting PREVIOUS sexual abuse; and 2) to frame Patsy, who was his stepmother.)

Do you either of these two theories seem farfetched?

1. JAR might have committed the murder

JAR has a solid alibi of being in Atlanta the night of JonBenet's murder.

2. John and Patsy tried to frame JAR, by putting his suitcase with the incriminating evidence in front of the window?

That pesky blue Samsonite luggage was moved by Fleet White before police crime scene detectives could photograph the room. We don't know it's original position. (See: Steve Thomas' notes)

 

[DeDee]

Well, since I tend to think that Patsy is innocent, I think John (who did it! And he framed Patsy as well) wrote the ransom note to frighten Patsy so that she would not call the police, once she realized that her daughter was missing. That would give John the time to dispose of the dead body (and the incriminating JAR suitcase if John Andrew was also involved).

But then Patsy ruined the plan by calling the police, when she discovered the ransom note. According to testimony from Patsy (though John insists otherwise), she made the decision to call the police, she TOLD her husband that she was calling the police.

So had Patsy NOT called the police, then John would have disposed of the dead body.

Would neighbors see John carry over the dead body? Could he possibly hide the body in a suitcase? Do you know? Thank you!

Could he possibly hide the body in a suitcase?

Only before rigor mortis set in could the body be hidden inside the luggage. After that time, he'd have to break her bones, possibly dismember her, in order to get her body to fit inside the suitcase.

The bedding inside JARs bleu luggage matched, or were consistent with, fibers found on JonBenet's body.

15 Q. And CBI had at one point come up
16 with a conclusion that there was a
17 consistency between fibers found on a blanket
18 in the suitcase that matched fibers on
19 JonBenet's body or were consistent with, is
20 that the right term?
21 A. I heard Mr. Smit and Mr. DeMuth
22 refer to that but I didn't hear Trujillo ever
23 offer a report or an explanation concerning
24 that.
25 Q. But the FBI disagreed with the

247
1 CBI, didn't they?
2 A. On what point?
3 Q. On the question of whether there
4 were fibers inside materials found in the
5 suitcase found under the window in the
6 basement consistent with fibers found on
7 JonBenet?
8 A. No, I'm aware of Smit and DeMuth's
9 position or stating this consistency of these
10 fibers, but I'm not aware of a disagreement
11 between the FBI and that finding.

JonBenet had been on that bedding that night in order for fibers to be found on her body.

John explained moving the blue suitcase on the evening of the Dec 23 party in an effort to tidy the second floor. Apparently, JAR had left the suitcase outside his bedroom door near the washer n dryer. John said he took it to the basement the evening of the Dec 23 party. However, he claims he did not place it into the room in which it was found, att.

 

[PremeditatedCrime]

Only before rigor mortis set in could the body be hidden inside the luggage. After that time, he'd have to break her bones, possibly dismember her, in order to get her body to fit inside the suitcase.

The bedding inside JARs bleu luggage matched, or were consistent with, fibers found on JonBenet's body.



JonBenet had been on that bedding that night in order for fibers to be found on her body.

John explained moving the blue suitcase on the evening of the Dec 23 party in an effort to tidy the second floor. Apparently, JAR had left the suitcase outside his bedroom door near the washer n dryer. John said he took it to the basement the evening of the Dec 23 party. However, he claims he did not place it into the room in which it was found, att.

So, I'm not saying JAR is guilty (I have gone back and forth on this, but now tend to believe that John framed JAR, Patsy, and Burke) but it's common sense that that should have been allowed as part of the evidence. If I am correct, the suitcase and its incriminating evidence was not allowed in the official evidence.

Maybe I am wrong about this?