The Ramseys are Cleared

[LI_Mom]

A neophyte homocide detective stirs his cauldron and comes up with an idea that a tier 4 cancer patient survivor killed the daughter she adored on Christmas based on a suspicion that Jon Benet wet her bed.

I'll tell you this much, if I were the D.A and Thomas brought that asinine motive into my office, he would have left my office with a shoe's imprint on his backside.

Yeah because everyone knows that you NEVER start an investigation by looking at people who had close contact with the victim....

it was a real fluke that police had the audacity to consider the victim was killed by people who were inside the locked house when the crime took place.

 

[ttrachel04]

LOL!!!

Don't you feel better now that you confessed? Did you dispose of the evidence at least? lol

no .... i put it right back in the fridge and will probably eat it later.

:woohoo:

(ironically -- im a nutrition freak. oh well, we all have our days !!!)

 

[LI_Mom]

no .... i put it right back in the fridge and will probably eat it later.

:woohoo:

(ironically -- im a nutrition freak. oh well, we all have our days !!!)

Hmmmm...... I guess that just goes to prove that anyone can snap at any time.

 

[DeeDee249]

Hmmmm...... I guess that just goes to prove that anyone can snap at any time.

And that could very well be what happened. She didn't just kill her daughter because she wet the bed. There had to be something else that triggered her rage. She didn't just decide she had changed one set of sheets too many.

 

[wenchie]

Patsy let hairs grow on her arms that were long enough to be visible and found? I'd think that she would have removed them since she was so conscious of her looks, clothes, style, make up, etc.

We all have a fine growth of hair on our body. When a person is at a scene, moving around, doing things - they shed.

I've never heard of a woman getting her arms waxed.

 

[txsvicki]

We all have forearm hair. PR didn't look to be the type that was overly furry, so I doubt she'd wax her forearms. Most women do shave or wax their legs, and shave armpits but most don't wax or shave their forearms. We all shed hair from our heads and bodies every day. The "ancillary" hair was a forearm hair and not an "axillary" (armpit) hair. It's not a matter of "letting the hair on her arms grow long". Hair in this part of the body does not grow very long anyway, unlike underarm hair which will grow much longer. In most women, forearm hair is not very noticeable, but it can be found and identified when shed.

I just figured that most dark haired women, especially beauty queens, remove their arm hair. I don't know anyone fashion minded who has any dark visible arm hair. It was Winter though, so maybe she didn't do anything about it during those months.

 

[wenchie]

I just figured that most dark haired women, especially beauty queens, remove their arm hair. I don't know anyone fashion minded who has any dark visible arm hair. It was Winter though, so maybe she didn't do anything about it during those months.

It doesn't have to be dark, visible hair in order to be found at a crime scene.

 

[BBB167893]

sometimes cancer survivor's can become deranged.

i dont mean to offend anyone here. i have many cancer survivors' in my family, and know that it's a huge struggle. but my best friend's mom was the most amazing person in the world. then she got cancer. since she's been in remission, she's been an absolutely horrible person. my friend is the "perfect daughter" and the mom takes everything out on her. i don't want to get into details, but it's truly devastating. doc's blamed it as an aftermath of cancer.

another friend of mine was beat up many times by her mom who had severe cancer.

im just saying, just because you have cancer doesn't mean that you suddenly become an amazing person overnight.

ttrachel, as someone who has lost both parents to cancer myself, I am NOT offended, because you're absolutely right. It turned my father into a live grenade, emotionally.

 

[coloradokares]

ttrachel, as someone who has lost both parents to cancer myself, I am NOT offended, because you're absolutely right. It turned my father into a live grenade, emotionally.

My husband started Chemo 3 weeks ago. Already I know this. It is a battle that changes them.

 

[BBB167893]

She wasn't at stage 4 when JB was killed, she was a diva pageant mother with low tolerance for uncooperativeness. The bedwetting was caused by the sexual abuse.

THANK YOU!

Do you think a parent would kill their child, then turn around and write their own ransom note?

Not much surprises me anymore.

Nancy is delusional. Her sidekick, Wendy Murphy is a fourth-tier toilet attorney with a brain to match.

Well Wendy, what do you think of John Ramsey? He's a pedophile!

What about Santa Clause. He's also a pedophile!

The Easter Bunny? Another scummy pedophile!

WTF are you on about?

And PLEASE, don't anyone waste my time with that polygraph BS. Any fool can beat a polygraph 3-1/2 years after the fact. There's a reason why they're not admissable in court.

There was no evidence of long term sexual abuse; that was disinformation put out by the Boulder PD.

Like hell! At least seven experts were ready to testify that there was.

So if he is wrong about that, according to several posters, she was molested. What else is he wrong about???? Who was she being sexually abused from??? If not John, and according to Steve it was NOT him, then who? Why would Patsy cover for anyone except her husband and Burke???

I'd be happy to answer those questions, if I were sure myself...

To say that Mary Lacy is giving a parting gift is also ridiculous.

is it?

Why do so many people WANT the Ramsey's to be guilty of this crime?

I have yet to find anyone who wants them to be guilty!

I would like to say something about those who are saying Mary Lacy is giving this as a parting gift. Are you all serious??? I mean really serious???

Deadly serious.

Yes. But they killed EVERYBODY, that's the difference. They didn't kill one person in the house full of people and leave everyone else alive while they hung around.

THANK YOU!

Or are you saying that an investigator hired by the boulder Police Department to find evidence AGAINST the Ramseys - who then did what an investigator should do and that is investigate with an open mind - found evidence of an intruder simply can't be believed?

Hired by the DA, not the police, and made up his mind after only three days, not nearly long enough to have studied the whole case file, who prayed with them and from then on said he wouldn't go after them, who said he'd follow evidence against them, then tried to discount it when it did come, and made up evidence as he went along? I'm talking about the stun gun. He decided, based solely on his last case, that one was used, then shopped around until he found an expert who agreed with him (who had already said there wasn't one). I've said it before and I'll say it again: if it had been the other way around, he'd have more credibility. I mean, if the coroner had come up to him and said, "I think such and such was done, but the cops won't listen to me. Maybe you will," and he went from there, it might be a different story. That's not what happened. So why SHOULD I believe him?

Patsy wrote that note. The scale that you and others keep referring to does NOT exist. Every graphology association in the country has been asked and no such 1-5 scale exists, so that half point nonsense is just that...nonsense!

Damn straight. I've talked to several Document Examiners, and they've never heard of it. There's a 1-9 point scale, no 1-5.

I'll take your word for it that she is corrupt. I have no reason NOT to believe you, however, do you really believe she is lying about the DNA evidence???

Not lying, just biased.

if your other evidence is so amazing and important then the ramseys would have been put in jail a long time ago.

If Boulder had a DA worth a tinker's damn, maybe.

Strange that Hunter would take it to a GJ then not indict. I think it is logical they didn't go for it and he was trying to save face.

He was against the idea and had no real experience with grand juries. though. Plus, Colorado law says you have to determine which party did which act. And in cases of domestic homicide, that's usually done by putting them in jail and seeing which one will take a deal first.

Do you know if they had more than one handwriting expert compare the note with Patsy's known handwriting? If so, were the conclusions the same from everyone?

Yes, several. Most were in the "definitely wrote it" to the "might have written it" lot. Some were less gung-ho.

Link that supports Hunter was found to have performed "unethically" in Jon Benet's case?

I have a link that shows he undecut his own witnesses.

My notes have Patsy's handwriting samples having been reviewed and graded by 6 handwriting experts at the request of LE. Their consensus being that she was a "low probabilty" (4.5 out of 5 with 1 being a match) as regards the liklihood that she wrote the ransom note. I don't have it in my notes, nor do I ever recall reading or hearing anywhere, that any of the experts had any disagreement or concern with Patsy's consensus score.

(As Dusty Rhodes): Uh-uh, baby. You got that all wrong. (Normal): In PMPT alone, Chet Ubowski told his boss, Pete Mang that he believed she wrote it. (Page 740) He also told FOX News in 2002 that the bleeding ink and disguised writing was all that kept him from saying she wrote it.

And what type of mentality is that exactly?

The kind that has to believe that the mom next door is a killer.

What is the sufficient, reliable and material evidence that you hold would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that JonBenet's death was a homicide that resulted from the actions of one or more of the Ramseys?

How much time you got, buddy?

If you were the D.A., what charge or charges would you have wanted the Grand Jury to approve?

Where would you like me to start?

Name a handwriting expert who evaluated the ransom note for the BPD or the FBI and said it was written by Patsy ?

Gladly: In PMPT alone, Chet Ubowski told his boss, Pete Mang that he believed she wrote it. (Page 740) He also told FOX News in 2002 that the bleeding ink and disguised writing was all that kept him from saying she wrote it.

LIN WOOD, RAMSEY ATTORNEY: Well, even innocent people need to be protected from overzealous and less than objective prosecutors such as Michael Kane.

If Michael Kane is an overzealous prosecutor, may the gods help us all.

They took a DNA sample from Karr. It did not match the DNA in the underwear. That proved he was not the killer (even if he WAS in the state of CO!) and he was not charged because of this fact.

Wrong again. He was not charged because nothing in his story matched the evidence. The DNA would have HAD to have been his.

I'll tell you this much, if I were the D.A and Thomas brought that asinine motive into my office, he would have left my office with a shoe's imprint on his backside.

Hope you had enough shoe leather for the other cops, Dr. Werner Spitz, and the freaking FBI, among others.

 

[Tricia]

Very Well Put SuperDave.

This is why you are a SuperHero :Banane47::Banane47::Banane47:

Sorry, this is the closest thing to a "super hero" smilie I could find.

 

[BBB167893]

Never count the Man Behind the Mask out!

In all seriousness, that was just the tip of my iceberg.

What's really sad is that we ALL should have seen this move coming from Mary Lacy.

 

[reefshadow]

Take away the ransom note and staging and you have a six year old little girl with a head wound so severe it would appear she was dead. Call 911 at that point and guess what happens to Patsy? She wasn't stupid, arrogant and self-righteous oh yeah, but stupid no she was not and it only took a nanosecond for her to figure (crystal clear) "I'm screwed" .... you look at the evidence and that is the only plausible explanation for everything else that got 'added' to this tragedy.

I agree that it is possible that the Ramseys carried out this crime start to finish, but certain elements just don't make sense to me.

1. She vomited between attacks. I believe she was probably struck in the head first and *then* garroted. The vomit and breathing had to have been obvious, and there was no scalp laceration with the massive head trauma. Patsy couldn't have know the extent of the damage, only that her daughter was severely injured but still alive. Why would she take all that time to stage all the evidence and make the garrote when all the while her daughter was still alive. It just seems like it would be so much easier to make up a BS story about the head injury and call 911. Parents do that sort of crap with frightening frequency.

2. I don't buy the sudden Patsy rage attack, since IMO JonBenet *had* to have been struck on the head by a very heavy blunt instrument. Baseball bat, maglite, or golfclub- they were all at the scene and any one of them could have caused that massive damage. A suddenly enraged parent doesn't search the house looking for the perfect bashing instrument- they slap, push, punch or use whatever is immediately at hand, and personally I think the attack started in the bathroom or JonBenets room. Neither would have had those items present. I don't believe that head trauma was caused by pushing against a tub surround or counter as some seem to. The main area of impact was toward the top of her head and was very focused. Fractures from falls don't tend to have an area of skull that large completely broken out. Unless she was thrown head first at high speed against a sharp projecting point I just don't see it happening. Her head was literally cracked in half from front to back with a large piece completely broken out.

IMO there is no way Burke could have caused that head injury, at least not with a direct blow- he wouldn't have been tall enough or strong enough to focus that much energy at the top of her head. Someone has suggested something being dropped on her head from the top of the stairs and I suppose that is entirely possible, but if that was the case staging a murder as a result would have been overkill x 9000. In addition if Burke was responsible they would have sent him to his room while they carried out the rest and he would not have been heard on the 911 call asking what they had found, and they also wouldn't have sent him to friends after her body was discovered. They would have wanted to keep him close so he didn't give himself away. IMO Burke is entirely innocent

In my mind this was either A. An intruder or B. A *premeditated* murder committed by one or both parents. I think all of the staging would have taken quite a bit of time and couldn't have been done between the head injury and garroting. Someone was working on items and staging for quite some time, and she was still alive when garroted.

I really vacillate between both theories, they both have merit IMO from the evidence that has so far been gathered.

I have a few problems with the idea that the Ramseys did it (their methodology), but I'm thinking from the perspective of a sane parent.

One thing that *really* bothers me about the RDI theory is the violence and *intent* of the garroting. I think everyone can agree on two things:

A. The garrote was constructed solely for the purpose of killing JBR.
B. It was done with intense violence.

Assuming that this was a set-up and she was accidentally injured leading to her murder as a cover-up, why would a garrote be the instrument of choice, and why would there be no indications of hesitation while using the garrote? I would think that if you were grieving and "had to" finish off your kid, it would be difficult to put that garrote around her neck and start tightening it with no hesitation, with such force that it sunk that far into her skin. IMO the garroting was also done in violence and anger. If you have seen the pics you will know what I mean. I don't believe a grieving parent who was acting out of self interest would be able to do this. I would imagine there would be hesitation or "practice" marks, much like we often see on suicides- unless of course somebody was acting out at the time in rage and intense aggression. Another indication of this rage and intensity is the fact that the garrote trapped multiple hunks of her hair which would speak to it being placed swiftly about her neck with no regard for her appearance or "comfort". It seems that her body was only treated with "care" and "tenderness" after the killing was completed, and we *know* the killing was in 2 stages and took some time. Sudden rage theory just doesn't cut it IMO, and I can't think of any parent motive that would have led to premeditated murder...

Gosh this turned out long, sorry

Any thoughts?

 

[BBB167893]

I agree that it is possible that the Ramseys carried out this crime start to finish, but certain elements just don't make sense to me.

1. She vomited between attacks. I believe she was probably struck in the head first and *then* garroted. The vomit and breathing had to have obvious, and there was no scalp laceration with the massive head trauma. Patsy couldn't have know the extent of the damage, only that her daughter was severely injured but still alive. Why would she take all that time to stage all the evidence and make the garrote when all the while her daughter was still alive. It just seems like it would be so much easier to make up a BS story about the head injury and call 911. Parents do that sort of crap with frightening frequency.

2. I don't buy the sudden Patsy rage attack, since IMO JonBenet *had* to have been struck on the head by a very heavy blunt instrument. Baseball bat, maglite, or golfclub- they were all at the scene and any one of them could have caused that massive damage. A suddenly enraged parent doesn't search the house looking for the perfect bashing instrument- they slap, push, punch or use whatever is immediately at hand, and personally I think the attack started in the bathroom or JonBenets room. Neither would have had those items present. I don't believe that head trauma was caused by pushing against a tub surround or counter as some seem to. The main area of impact was toward the top of her head and was very focused. Fractures from falls don't tend to have an area of skull that large completely broken out. Unless she was thrown head first at high speed against a sharp projecting point I just don't see it happening.

IMO there is no way Burke could have caused that head injury, at least not with a direct blow- he wouldn't have been tall enough or strong enough to focus that much energy at the top of her head. Someone has suggested something being dropped on her head from the top of the stairs and I suppose that is entirely possible, but if that was the case staging a murder as a result would have been overkill x 9000. In addition if Burke was responsible they would have sent him to his room while they carried out the rest and he would not have been heard on the 911 call asking what they had found, and they also wouldn't have sent him to friends after her body was discovered. They would have wanted to keep him close so he didn't give himself away. IMO Burke is entirely innocent

In my mind this was either A. An intruder or B. A *premeditated* murder committed by one or both parents. I think all of the staging would have taken quite a bit of time and couldn't have been done between the head injury and garroting. Someone was working on items and staging for quite some time, and she was still alive when garroted.

I really vacillate between both theories, they both have merit IMO from the evidence that has so far been gathered.

I have a few problems with the idea that the Ramseys did it (their methodology), but I'm thinking from the perspective of a sane parent.

One thing that *really* bothers me about the RDI theory is the violence and *intent* of the garroting. I think everyone can agree on two things:

A. The garrote was constructed solely for the purpose of killing JBR.
B. It was done with intense violence.

Assuming that this was a set-up and she was accidentally injured leading to her murder as a cover-up, why would a garrote be the instrument of choice, and why would there be no indications of hesitation while using the garrote? I would think that if you were grieving and "had to" finish off your kid, it would be difficult to put that garrote around her neck and start tightening it with no hesitation, with such force that it sunk that far into her skin. IMO the garroting was also done in violence and anger. If you have seen the pics you will know what I mean. I don't believe a grieving parent who was acting out of self interest would be able to do this. I would imagine there would be hesitation or "practice" marks, much like we often see on suicides- unless of course somebody was acting out at the time in rage and intense aggression. Another indication of this rage and intensity is the fact that the garrote trapped multiple hunks of her hair which would speak to it being placed swiftly about her neck with no regard for her appearance or "comfort". It seems that her body was only treated with "care" and "tenderness" after the killing was completed.

Gosh this turned out long, sorry

Any thoughts?

Yeah, a few.

1) if JB vomited, this is the first I've heard of it. You say: Patsy couldn't have know the extent of the damage, only that her daughter was severely injured but still alive. Why would she take all that time to stage all the evidence and make the garrote when all the while her daughter was still alive. It just seems like it would be so much easier to make up a BS story about the head injury and call 911. Parents do that sort of crap with frightening frequency.

How would she know she was still alive? A person in shock can easily appear dead, especially to someone who may not know what vital signs to look for, panicked or not. As for why she would do all that, I made a posting a few weeks ago on that subject. The short version of it is: JB was spectacular in life, so she had to be spectacular in death. I'll direct you to the whole thing if you want it.

2) You're right about Burke. No argument.

3) If JB was struck on the head with a heavy object, it wouldn't necessarily have to be someone of great strength. Leverage is a big part of it. Let me lay this illustration on you: if I come up behind a person about my size and swing at their head with a baseball bat, being right-handed, I'd swing right to left, shifting my body weight. But if the person is a lot shorter than me, I can swing straight down like an ax, putting my back into it. You see?

That, and the reason why the idea that she was shoved into something is plausible to so many is because of the reverse: by that I mean that, if my head were to strike the floor, the force would be spread over my skull. But if I hit against the edge of say, the coffee table, the force is concentrated on a much smaller area, the sharp projecting point you describe. And why wouldn't those items be present? I keep a flashlight in my room (along with a shotgun and several samurai swords!).

4) I don't think ALL of it WAS done between the blow and garroting, although, since the pathologists agree anywhere between 20 minutes to and hour passed between them, some of it. Didn't HAVE to be premeditated.

5) You say: Assuming that this was a set-up and she was accidentally injured leading to her murder as a cover-up, why would a garrote be the instrument of choice, and why would there be no indications of hesitation while using the garrote? I would think that if you were grieving and "had to" finish off your kid, it would be difficult to put that garrote around her neck and start tightening it with no hesitation, with such force that it sunk that far into her skin. IMO the garroting was also done in violence and anger. If you have seen the pics you will know what I mean. I don't believe a grieving parent who was acting out of self interest would be able to do this. I would imagine there would be hesitation or "practice" marks, much like we often see on suicides- unless of course somebody was acting out at the time in rage and intense aggression. Another indication of this rage and intensity is the fact that the garrote trapped multiple hunks of her hair which would speak to it being placed swiftly about her neck with no regard for her appearance or "comfort". It seems that her body was only treated with "care" and "tenderness" after the killing was completed.

Norm Early is a former Denver prosecutor. They asked him about those points you make. He said that if you are staging a garroting, you WILL pull it tight, because you don't want the coroner to come back and say," oh, this strangulation couldn't have killed somebody." So you pull it deeper and deeper. Yeah, maybe it would be hard. But if you've assumed she's dead, and nothing can help her anymore, and you're convinced you'll got to prison and get raped with a broomhandle if you don't, what choice is there? As for choosing a garrote, it looks really nasty. And since they probably already thought she was dead, they needn't have had any regard for pain. And I don't much care for the way you phrase this: It seems that her body was only treated with "care" and "tenderness" after the killing was completed Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but the care and tenderness you refer to with such sarcasm is no mere fantasy. Indeed, it was one of the first things the FBI overseers spotted when they talked to the cops, telling them no stranger would do that. Perhaps it was compensation for the strangling, ever think of that? There's something else, too: JB was facing AWAY from the person who strangled her. That may not mean anything to some people, but it means a LOT to me. I'm old-school. To me, if a killer can't look their victim in the eyes, it means one of two things: they're a coward, or they just can't bear to look at the damage done the the face during the act. For centuries it was considered dishonorable to kill someone from behind.

I have a few problems with the idea that the Ramseys did it (their methodology), but I'm thinking from the perspective of a sane parent.

Sane, insane, all the same. It's the perfect storm of ego, desperation and showmanship. It needed all the right elements. THAT's why this case is so unique.

Now, it's your turn. Let's assume it was premeditated. For what reason? Any ideas?

 

[Grainne Dhu]

Some random thoughts that probably don't matter:

1) Since the advent of DNA testing, it's becoming clear that quite a few burglars are also rapists. Quite a few burglaries that take place with someone in the house are actually wanna-be rapists who are working themselves up to actually committing the crime. It used to be assumed that burglars who raped were opportunistic: they broke into the residence to steal and discovered a victim at home. It's beginning to be thought that it is the other way around: many burglars are actually rapists who grab a few things opportunistically.

2) It has been known for a long time that sexual assault using a object of some sort is usually motivated by the assaulter's inability to get or to sustain an erection at the time of the assault. Rapists using objects are often described by their victims as being enraged.

3) DNA is DNA--there's no controversy over DNA itself. Where the controversy arises with the private companies offering genealogical DNA testing is how good their databases are. Some of those companies are basing their reports on databases with fewer than 100 individuals of known lineage!

4) In every crime that is solved, there are elements that were initially thought to be evidence that turn out not to be related to the crime. In many crimes that the perpetrator is convicted for and, at some point, decides to talk about, there's something on the scene that the perpetrator thought would be used as evidence that was overlooked by investigators.

5) So much of the evidence in this case is the type that is equivocal. I am beginning to think that this crime may never be solved.

 

[reefshadow]

Yeah, a few.

1) if JB vomited, this is the first I've heard of it. You say: Patsy couldn't have know the extent of the damage, only that her daughter was severely injured but still alive. Why would she take all that time to stage all the evidence and make the garrote when all the while her daughter was still alive. It just seems like it would be so much easier to make up a BS story about the head injury and call 911. Parents do that sort of crap with frightening frequency.

How would she know she was still alive? A person in shock can easily appear dead, especially to someone who may not know what vital signs to look for, panicked or not. As for why she would do all that, I made a posting a few weeks ago on that subject. The short version of it is: JB was spectacular in life, so she had to be spectacular in death. I'll direct you to the whole thing if you want it.

2) You're right about Burke. No argument.

3) If JB was struck on the head with a heavy object, it wouldn't necessarily have to be someone of great strength. Leverage is a big part of it. Let me lay this illustration on you: if I come up behind a person about my size and swing at their head with a baseball bat, being right-handed, I'd swing right to left, shifting my body weight. But if the person is a lot shorter than me, I can swing straight down like an ax, putting my back into it. You see?

That, and the reason why the idea that she was shoved into something is plausible to so many is because of the reverse: by that I mean that, if my head were to strike the floor, the force would be spread over my skull. But if I hit against the edge of say, the coffee table, the force is concentrated on a much smaller area, the sharp projecting point you describe. And why wouldn't those items be present? I keep a flashlight in my room (along with a shotgun and several samurai swords!).

4) I don't think ALL of it WAS done between the blow and garroting, although, since the pathologists agree anywhere between 20 minutes to and hour passed between them, some of it. Didn't HAVE to be premeditated.

5) You say: Assuming that this was a set-up and she was accidentally injured leading to her murder as a cover-up, why would a garrote be the instrument of choice, and why would there be no indications of hesitation while using the garrote? I would think that if you were grieving and "had to" finish off your kid, it would be difficult to put that garrote around her neck and start tightening it with no hesitation, with such force that it sunk that far into her skin. IMO the garroting was also done in violence and anger. If you have seen the pics you will know what I mean. I don't believe a grieving parent who was acting out of self interest would be able to do this. I would imagine there would be hesitation or "practice" marks, much like we often see on suicides- unless of course somebody was acting out at the time in rage and intense aggression. Another indication of this rage and intensity is the fact that the garrote trapped multiple hunks of her hair which would speak to it being placed swiftly about her neck with no regard for her appearance or "comfort". It seems that her body was only treated with "care" and "tenderness" after the killing was completed.

Norm Early is a former Denver prosecutor. They asked him about those points you make. He said that if you are staging a garroting, you WILL pull it tight, because you don't want the coroner to come back and say," oh, this strangulation couldn't have killed somebody." So you pull it deeper and deeper. Yeah, maybe it would be hard. But if you've assumed she's dead, and nothing can help her anymore, and you're convinced you'll got to prison and get raped with a broomhandle if you don't, what choice is there? As for choosing a garrote, it looks really nasty. And since they probably already thought she was dead, they needn't have had any regard for pain. And I don't much care for the way you phrase this: It seems that her body was only treated with "care" and "tenderness" after the killing was completed Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but the care and tenderness you refer to with such sarcasm is no mere fantasy. Indeed, it was one of the first things the FBI overseers spotted when they talked to the cops, telling them no stranger would do that. Perhaps it was compensation for the strangling, ever think of that? There's something else, too: JB was facing AWAY from the person who strangled her. That may not mean anything to some people, but it means a LOT to me. I'm old-school. To me, if a killer can't look their victim in the eyes, it means one of two things: they're a coward, or they just can't bear to look at the damage done the the face during the act. For centuries it was considered dishonorable to kill someone from behind.

Sane, insane, all the same. It's the perfect storm of ego, desperation and showmanship. It needed all the right elements. THAT's why this case is so unique.

Now, it's your turn. Let's assume it was premeditated. For what reason? Any ideas?

The coroners report mentions stains on her face and shirt consistent with mucous from her mouth or nose, and they are easily visible in the pictures. I guess "vomit" may be an overkill term, but it should have been obvious that she had some kind of discharge. I'm talking from the perspective of someone in the medical profession though, so I am probably prejudiced about what I would look for in someone with a massive head injury.

You said- "But if the person is a lot shorter than me, I can swing straight down like an ax, putting my back into it. You see?"

Precisely, that is why I don't believe Burke could have done it, same point I made already.

You said- "And I don't much care for the way you phrase this: It seems that her body was only treated with "care" and "tenderness" after the killing was completed Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but the care and tenderness you refer to with such sarcasm is no mere fantasy. "

I think you misunderstood my intent. The sarcasm isn't out of fantasy or disbelief, it is regarding the abrupt mental switch that had to have taken place in the perp between the murder and aftercare of the body. It almost has a ritualistic flavor to me and contrasts strongly with the violence done to her. I still believe the garroting was most likely done with intense violence, and only after it was complete was there the regard that so many comment on. I personally don't think this aftercare points more strongly to the Ramseys, it is something that many murderers have engaged in after their violence has climaxed.

The extensive petechial hemorrhages are fairly certain indications that she was still breathing often and deeply at the time of the garroting. I just have a very hard time believing that her breathing went unnoticed with that kind of capillary damage. It is very likely that with such an extensive head injury she had other signs of the trauma such as seizing, but that can't be proven- it is only speculation on my part. What is certain is that she was breathing enough to cause those hemorrhages, which are extensive.

You said- "But if you've assumed she's dead, and nothing can help her anymore, and you're convinced you'll got to prison and get raped with a broomhandle if you don't, what choice is there?"

Place her at the bottom of the stairs and call 911 immediately. Say nothing except you heard a loud noise, a scream, and found her there. Stick with the story no matter what, not even confiding to family members. Gamble on the idea that if she lives she won't remember. That's *alot* less crazy than what they are theorized to have done, and if PR had done this we wouldn't be talking about the Ramseys even if JB had died at the hospital.

You said- "The short version of it is: JB was spectacular in life, so she had to be spectacular in death."

I agree with that *for sure* whether it was premed or not, seeing how her mother used her in life. It just seems so overblown and weird to me, but as you stated, nothing is quite like this case or like this family it seems.

You said- "As for choosing a garrote, it looks really nasty."

I can go either way on this. On the one hand it does look very nasty and so would have the effect of throwing the investigation off. On the other hand it seems like it would be totally contrary to the essence of the Ramseys. They seem to me to be people who were obsessed with outward appearances, and would probably suffer all kinds of indignities in the pursuit of keeping up with appearances. Of course that statement I just made could again point to precisely the reason they would chose the garrote and follow through with using it. Ughh.

In the end, unless the DNA turns out to match somebody who had motive and was in proximity, this case will likely never be solved, so all of this is "spitballing" as you would say.

I still vacillate between what I think all the time and am open to any new info or theory.

 

[angelwngs]

ttrachel, as someone who has lost both parents to cancer myself, I am NOT offended, because you're absolutely right. It turned my father into a live grenade, emotionally.

Chemotherapy Impacts Cognitive Functioning Up to Ten Years After Treatment

Results of a study on long term effects of chemotherapy and in addition, bloggers mention 'mood swings, depression and anxiety'.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...rapy+and+mood+swings&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

 

[RiverRat]

sometimes cancer survivor's can become deranged.

i dont mean to offend anyone here. i have many cancer survivors' in my family, and know that it's a huge struggle. but my best friend's mom was the most amazing person in the world. then she got cancer. since she's been in remission, she's been an absolutely horrible person. my friend is the "perfect daughter" and the mom takes everything out on her. i don't want to get into details, but it's truly devastating. doc's blamed it as an aftermath of cancer.

another friend of mine was beat up many times by her mom who had severe cancer.

im just saying, just because you have cancer doesn't mean that you suddenly become an amazing person overnight.

Thank you for sharing how different it can be from person to person. It's truely heartbreaking....

 

[angelwngs]

We cannot discount the fact that another little girl in Boulder, "Amy" was assaulted by a pedophile who lyed in wait for her in her own home for hours before sexually assaulting her in her bedroom just 9 months after JonBenet was killed. Her and her mother came home at which time mom set the alarm (meaning he HAD to already be in the house). They went to bed but some time later she heard whispering and the sound of a struggle. When confronted the perp ran away from her and escaped. The little girl *attended the same dance class as JonBenet* and the perp threatened to *"bash her head in"* if she made a noise.

The evidence for either side is compelling but the possibility of an intruder cannot be discounted IMO.

Has Mary Lacy tested for unidentified male touch dna in the evidence collected in this 2nd Boulder Case and compared it to the unidentified dna in JBR's case?

If one was to be thorough, it seems one would have indeed done this?

I haven't heard any reports of this having been done? Has anyone else?

Had these tests been done and a match was found, no doubt it would have been highly publicized.

Oh wait a minute, I think I understand why tests here were either never done or never reported...

Reports which 'cleared' this intruder would not 'help the R's and support their intruder theory', would it? Also, it would remind people of that nasty little ML/John Mark Karr fiasco a couple of years back...

Yet, ML has pubically 'cleared the R's'...Go Figure... :waitasec:

 

[lilywhite]

Interesting link for reading about the fiber evidence:

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

That looks like a great link. I'll be sure to read it more carefully when I'm not at work but I did skim the part about the fiber evidence. It seems to me that the fiber analysis, like the DNA analysis, is too easy to dismiss due to the possibility of transference. Do you think that's an accurate statement?