One innocent, one guilty

Does anyone here think that it is possible that one of the Ram's are guilty and one is innocent, that one knows what happend and one doesnt?

Lets say, John was abusing Jonbenet and it came about that he thought she might tell someone , so he silenced her.
Could he have wrote the note and never intended for Patsy to ring 911 and spoil his plans of getting rid of the body?

Maybe at the time of the slaying one of the two could have been innocent of the act,but after 8 years the truth would have had to slip out.Murdering your daughter is a fairly big secret to keep,if i were in a position like that I think I would have been talking in my sleep along time ago

dingo said:

Maybe at the time of the slaying one of the two could have been innocent of the act,but after 8 years the truth would have had to slip out.Murdering your daughter is a fairly big secret to keep,if i were in a position like that I think I would have been talking in my sleep along time ago

Click to expand...

i think if one of them did it and the other was initially uninvolved, the other partner would see the "signs" of involvement soon enough, and eventually, within a maximum of a few days i think, they BOTH became either explicitly or implicitly involved in the coverup.

But yes i do think it's possible that initially, one knew and not the other.

I also think that, just like Schiller says at the end of PMPT, it's entirely possible that neither has ever looked directly into the eyes of the other, and asked: "Did you kill JonBenet?"

After all is said and done about the Rams, I m still not getting a sense about how close they really are. I can read my husband like a book,he gets away with nothing I think with Patsey being sick at the moment and her menfolk not being by herside is speaking volumes .imo

I've heard it said that the police believed from the beginning that initially John Ramsey was not involved but Patsy was. Whether she was involved because SHE caused her daughter's death or she was covering for Burke who did (not only from the police but from John initially as well.... something I think the note may indicate as a big part of her motivation).

So many scenarios are possible as to who knew what and when they knew it.
I think it's important to evaluate the circumstances, evidence we know of AND the choices the Ramseys made early on in the case.

Indicators Patsy knew or was involved:
*She was in the house that night.
*She cannot be eliminated as the author of the note either in handwriting (which was disguised purposely in the note) OR - the linguistics and language in the note which are very Patsy.
*Her clothing fibers of the clothes she wore that night were discovered in the paint tote where the broken paintbrush came from and most importantly entwined in the knot of the cord wrapped around JonBenet's neck.
*She was wearing the exact same clothing she had on the night before lending to suspicion that she never took her clothes off or went to bed that night but was up through the night dealing with the horror of what had happened to her daughter and desparately trying to come up with a staged scene to deflect suspicion away from their immediate family.
*Police reports stated that John and Patsy were behaving more like a "death" had occured rather than a kidnapping.
*She readily allowed her young son Burke to LEAVE the safety of their home and protection and go to the White's where he was very vulnerable to these kidnappers as the note had said their every move was being monitored.
*She did not, as emergency personal report is the norm with parents who have just been told their child is dead - ask any questions like how did she die, are you sure?, I don't believe you... they say DENIAL is the norm and I believe Linda Arndt observed neither John nor Patsy exhibited this but were already "resigned" to the fact that JonBenet was dead.
*Ignoring Burke till later that night - not worried about his safety even after "discovering" JonBenet dead in their home.
*In her book DOI, Patsy "slips" and in recounting her family back in Atlanta that morning she says that they were "sitting around discussing the DEATH of JonBenet".... then goes on to say how later the phone rang giving them the news of JonBenet's death. Curious.
*Her claim of being "too distraught" to speak to the police after the death but having no problem pulling herself together to go on national t.v. only the day after burying her daughter so that she and John could "thank people."

Of course there is a list for John and a list for Burke. No time here to post them but feel free to add.

dingo said:

Maybe at the time of the slaying one of the two could have been innocent of the act,but after 8 years the truth would have had to slip out.Murdering your daughter is a fairly big secret to keep,if i were in a position like that I think I would have been talking in my sleep along time ago

Click to expand...

I think it was Ben Frankilin who said back in the days when the Declaration of Independence was signed "Gentlemen we must all hang together or surley we will all hang seperatly" I feel that this is why all Ramsey mouths have stayed closed.

John was not involved in the murder but after reading the ransom note...knew that it was Patsy who wrote it and then covered for her.

John and Patsy Ramsey are innocent of the murder but are involved in the coverup of the persons who did it.

IF what happened to Jonbenet wasn't an accident, then there must have been a motive.
Is bed-wetting or sibling rivalry a motive for murder?
Why does everyone dismiss JR so quickly?
Two reasons we could suspect JR are
*signs of prior abuse
*fibres found in her crotch that were black, consistent with the shirt JR was wearing the night of the 25th.

I dont know who the guilty Ram is....I just know one of them is.....and I like to think it was a tragic accident, that noone would want to harm Jonbenet on purpose. But what if that werent the case.....what if someone did kill Jonbenet on purpose.....unless it really was a foreign faction...it has to be someone with a motive.

I agree Narlacat, re: ppl dismissing JR too easily. Apart from the fact that the guy is weird as hell, and gives me the creeps big time (and has given an awful lot of others the creeps too, even before the murder/accident, according to many sources), he's escaped a lot of the more emotional finger-pointing which Patsy attracts.

He shouldn't - in my opinion, he's just as likely as Patsy to have been involved. It's quite possible for instance that the coverup, if any, was JR's idea, and Patsy had the task of executing it. People say that the coverup was theatrical, and therefore it has Patsy's fingerprints all over it (literally!).... But it could be that the "jist" of the coverup was JR's idea, and Patsy just followed through in her normal over-the-top fashion.

and there is evidence of sexual abuse in this case. If Burke or JAR didn't do it, who are we looking at, then? A man. An intruder, perhaps, but more likely a family member or close friend.

Actually in general i wish there were more bold, radical theories about this case. Everyone seems either to believe BDI, PDI, IDI, or perhaps JAR-DI.. Even if you don't actually think a theory's the most probable, i think everyone should have the creativity (if that is the word!?) to explore as many options as possible.

e.g. where are the FW theories????????????

the Santa theories? the RS theories? The paedophile ring theories? etc

Yes... i know they're all on this forum I suppose i'm just exaggerating a bit, to encourage MORE "left of centre" attempts at explaining the murder/accident.

you (i mean a generic "you" - i.e. folks on this forum) personally may not believe these theories, but that's not the point.

it appears we're allowed to "skirt around" private individuals, using allusions, initials etc. (Personally I think that's highly idiotic and, legally, 100% pointless, but no matter)

So come on! Let's do some skirting

How many kidnappers are out there who stop mid-kidnapping to feed the victim pineapple and then proceed to molest her????

How many kidnappers change their mind about taking the victim and instead leave her in the home and then proceed to bash her head in and choke the life out of her????

Let's get off this kidnapping scenario...THERE WAS NO KIDNAPPER!

THERE WERE NO INTRUDERS!

THE THREE SUSPECTS ARE JOHN, PATSY & BURKE.

If it was Burke...then he choked JonBenet because she ruined his game play from the N64 he was playing.

If it were John...then he took his little JonBenet down to the den and molested her, got caught by Patsy and instead of striking him with the flashlight...she accidently hits JonBenet.

If it were Patsy...then she bashed poor JonBenet over the head in a fit of rage over some type of argument.

If it were John...then he took his little JonBenet down to the den and molested her, got caught by Patsy and instead of striking him with the flashlight...she accidently hits JonBenet.

If it were Patsy...then she bashed poor JonBenet over the head in a fit of rage over some type of argument.Today 07:06 AM

That is assuming the bash to the head came first. I think its the other way round.
Which makes it hard for my accident theory....its easier to accidently bash someone on the head than it is to accidently strangle someone.
Could Patsy have strangled Jonbenet with the red turtleneck?? Seems strange to leave it all balled up in the bathroom if she had.
The flashlight was used somewhere along the line....if not as a weapon maybe it was used to check Jonbenet's eyes to see if she was dead.
Does anyone think that the Ram's decided to bash Jonbenet on the head to make sure she was dead, in case what had already happened to her, would leave her with say, permanent brain damage....maybe they felt they had no choice at that stage. Noone would want Jonbenet to have been a vegetable for the rest of her life.


I agree Narlacat, re: ppl dismissing JR too easily. Apart from the fact that the guy is weird as hell, and gives me the creeps big time (and has given an awful lot of others the creeps too, even before the murder/accident, according to many sources), he's escaped a lot of the more emotional finger-pointing which Patsy attracts.

You would think they were as suspect as each other, but Patsy definelty came off worst in the eyes of....everyone. There's the whole pagent thing....which was obviously Patsy's idea, but JR allowed it also.....he seems to get away with stuff Patsy doesnt.

No one has ever answered the question why the Ramseys have filed slander lawsuits against an array of media sources on behalf of both Patsy and Burke - but never on behalf of John! WHY? He's been fingered and accused many times himself.
That, and the police statement to him that they discovered black fibers from the shirt he'd been wearing the night of the murder in JonBenet's crotch - leave a possibility open for me that it may indeed be JOHN Ramsey afterall and not Burke or Patsy.
And he was overheard saying over and over that night, "I'm sorry...I'm so sorry!!"

K777angel said:

No one has ever answered the question why the Ramseys have filed slander lawsuits against an array of media sources on behalf of both Patsy and Burke - but never on behalf of John! WHY? He's been fingered and accused many times himself.
That, and the police statement to him that they discovered black fibers from the shirt he'd been wearing the night of the murder in JonBenet's crotch - leave a possibility open for me that it may indeed be JOHN Ramsey afterall and not Burke or Patsy.
And he was overheard saying over and over that night, "I'm sorry...I'm so sorry!!"

Click to expand...

The possibility that it may indeed be JOHN Ramsey after all and not Patsy or Burke is open for me too K777angel.
IF there were signs of prior abuse (I know there are differing opinions on that but I think the general concensus is that SOMEONE had been abusing Jonbenet) doesnt it make more sense that it was the father, and not the brother? I know kiddies play Mummy's & Daddy's and Doctor's & Nurses, but would that kind of exploratory gameplay be enough to damage Jonbenet the way some experts say she was damaged?

narlacat said:

The possibility that it may indeed be JOHN Ramsey after all and not Patsy or Burke is open for me too K777angel.

Click to expand...

i'm also open to the possibility that it was JR and FW - together!

hell i'm open to anything

but seriously.... i'm open to the possibility that the S's the W's and the R's were a part of a paedophile ring.

This case is so weird, that bizarre explanations like that can't be dismissed for being bizarre! The case is bizarre, no matter WHAT happened.

The showdown between FW and JR; FW's behaviour, JR's lawyering up; the inexplicable [***reported***] comments from the Rams like "I'm so sorry" and "we didn't mean for THIS to happen"....

did they ever interview Daphne by the way? I spose she was far too young to be interviewed usefully. I know a lot of people get very, very pissed off when FW's name is thrown around without proper evidence as a suspect. I'm sorry if that makes you mad. IMO, and i have a lot to learn about this case, but in IMO, for some reason, from what i've read about FW in PMPT, the guy doesn't add up.

I read his letter, the one that followed ST's resignation letter, and i do admit it was passionate, well written and indicated an innocent man who was simply fed up and frustrated by the BS going down in Boulder.

But he's a very smart man, just like John. I am sure the Rams aren't the only ones who know the value of spin.