Thoughts and Logic

armywife210

Active Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
575
Reaction score
82
I am of the belief that RDI. However, as I sit here right now I am trying to be openminded and just think about LOGIC... while all of these far fetched ideas roll around, and perhaps one of them is right, I tend to lean a bit more to the logical side of things. Unless a RDI, the only logical thing I can come up with is some sicko meant to kidnap her after silencing her. He then got a bit excited, brought her downstairs. Began sexually abusing her, torturing her through the garotee. Sometime, whether it was when he was bringing her downstairs or when he was down there he banged her head hard. Perhaps he dropped her on the cement. Perhaps he banged her head on a doorway. Its hard for me to believe though that such a bad injury would be caused by an accidental bang.
Also there are just so many other things that I just can't fit into the IDi theory.
 
Me too armywife. I think the crack in her skull was way too big to have simply been 'knocked' against something. That would mean the intruder was careless and rushing - hardly fits in to not waking anyone up and Lord knows with the length of the RN we know the perp was in no hurry.
 
armywife210 said:
I am of the belief that RDI. However, as I sit here right now I am trying to be openminded and just think about LOGIC... while all of these far fetched ideas roll around, and perhaps one of them is right, I tend to lean a bit more to the logical side of things. Unless a RDI, the only logical thing I can come up with is some sicko meant to kidnap her after silencing her. He then got a bit excited, brought her downstairs. Began sexually abusing her, torturing her through the garotee. Sometime, whether it was when he was bringing her downstairs or when he was down there he banged her head hard. Perhaps he dropped her on the cement. Perhaps he banged her head on a doorway. Its hard for me to believe though that such a bad injury would be caused by an accidental bang.
Also there are just so many other things that I just can't fit into the IDi theory.

Added to that, the "kidnapper" washed her, redressed her, drew a heart in her palm and wrapped her up in a blanket.
 
And was considerate enough to give her a little late night snack.
 
What a nice guy that wackjob intruder must have been! People with that kind of consideration for others, well I just can't say enough good things about them!:rolleyes:
What do you think is the deal with the heart? To me it looks nothing like a heart in the autopsy photos. Even if you take into account that it could have been rubbed off a bit over time, it still doesn't look like a "perfectly formed heart".
 
Hi Armywife,
I don't think it looks like a heart either and don't how Patsy thought it was a "perfectly formed heart". I guess it could have rubbed off partially mkaing it look more like a U....
 
pervert---but loving parents who had absolutely no history of violence, perversion, or mistreating their children. Where's the logic in that? God only knows how many senseless crimes are perpetrated against innocent people, because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or happened to come to the attention of the sicko. Who would have thought some l6 year old goth kid would kill a well-known defense attorney's wife?

Besides no history whatsoever of the Ramseys having a criminal mind, if you think they're involved then you have to believe one of them would use a garrotte to strangle their daughter to death, while she was clawing at the cord. And they could look into her face while doing it. Then, they knew all the movie lines, and had seen all the movies referenced in the note, and they had a stun gun to add to the torture.

And then one of them just for kicks clobbered poor JBR in the head with a blunt object with a lot of force.

After all that, then they were able to site down and write the note, with the lights off in the house---no panic or terror, running around in the dark to cover everything up....and THEN...calmly went back to bed.

The logic, when you look at the crime scene-the acts against JBR, and the note, is that this was done by someone that wasn't a stranger to violence; to breaking and entering; and possibly an attraction to little girls. They had a stun gun, possibly a bat and rope---a toolkit for a kidnapping--one they had no idea as to how to pull it off.

As far as the heart on the hand, an article about JR was found that was marked up like a scene from "Ricochet." X's on the other entreprenaur's winners (in red), and a red heart around John Ramsey's face. Ricochet was all about revenge----the two heart's could be connected---another movie theme.
 
did not show loving care. JBR was simply dragged into the cellar room (arms were outstretched).....and the blanket thrown over her---her face and feet were sticking out. She was left with the garotte around her neck, and a crushed skull, and was stungunned in the face and back. The perp made an attempt to wipe her, leaving navy blue fibers on her. He wasn't that good--he left his DNA and footprint and handwriting on the note.
 
Maikai said:
did not show loving care. JBR was simply dragged into the cellar room (arms were outstretched).....and the blanket thrown over her---her face and feet were sticking out. She was left with the garotte around her neck, and a crushed skull, and was stungunned in the face and back. The perp made an attempt to wipe her, leaving navy blue fibers on her. He wasn't that good--he left his DNA and footprint and handwriting on the note.
Mostly all of this is blatent misinformation.
The blanket was wrapped around her "papoose style", it wasn't just "thrown over her" at all.
There is absolutely no evidence to support Lou Smit's stun gun theory. The only way that theory could have been proven to have been correct is if JonBenet's body was exhumed.
We all know it wasn't.
The DNA was useless, it cannot be relied upon to point to the killer. It was degraded and could not be dated. " This is not a DNA case".
 
Maikai said:
pervert---but loving parents who had absolutely no history of violence, perversion, or mistreating their children. Where's the logic in that? God only knows how many senseless crimes are perpetrated against innocent people, because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or happened to come to the attention of the sicko. Who would have thought some l6 year old goth kid would kill a well-known defense attorney's wife?

Besides no history whatsoever of the Ramseys having a criminal mind, if you think they're involved then you have to believe one of them would use a garrotte to strangle their daughter to death, while she was clawing at the cord. And they could look into her face while doing it. Then, they knew all the movie lines, and had seen all the movies referenced in the note, and they had a stun gun to add to the torture.

JBR was the furthest thing from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. How can being in your bed at night be classed as 'wrong place / wrong time?'
Also, there was an RN - addressed to Mr. Ramsey.
Wrong place / time suggests chance - the only people taking a chance, IMO were the Ramseys. It worked!

Also, people snap all the time. It's not all that rare.
 
narlacat said:
Mostly all of this is blatent misinformation.
The blanket was wrapped around her "papoose style", it wasn't just "thrown over her" at all.
There is absolutely no evidence to support Lou Smit's stun gun theory. The only way that theory could have been proven to have been correct is if JonBenet's body was exhumed.
We all know it wasn't.
The DNA was useless, it cannot be relied upon to point to the killer. It was degraded and could not be dated. " This is not a DNA case".

Doberson did the scientific research of stun gun articles worldwide---he replicated the marks on pigs, and he's gone on record saying he thinks they'e stun gun marks with a high degree of certainty. Doberson should know--he missed stungun marks in the Bogg's case, and when the police found a stun gun in a suspect's trunk, they exhumed the body and did the tests and matched the stun gun marks. It was the only piece of evidence the police had to tie the suspect to the crime and he was convicted.

The DNA is not useless. It was only last year they found another blood spot that was never tested, and it had most of the markers--it was a good sample, and matched the others, including DNA under JBR's fingernails. You can't discount the DNA---and JBR got a piece of the perp.
 
Brefie said:
JBR was the furthest thing from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. How can being in your bed at night be classed as 'wrong place / wrong time?'
Also, there was an RN - addressed to Mr. Ramsey.
Wrong place / time suggests chance - the only people taking a chance, IMO were the Ramseys. It worked!

Also, people snap all the time. It's not all that rare.

I also said someone can happen to come to the attention of the wrong person, which is what happened in the Ramsey case. It could have been the pageants...could have been the Access Article 5 days earlier which was the trigger. Wealthy father and beauty queen daughter are the perfect combination if someone was looking for a kidnap victim....someone that was inspired by "Ransom" and other movies.

People can snap, but there's usually some history there, or other factors such as alcohol, drugs, financial problems, or history of mental instability.
 
Maikai said:
I also said someone can happen to come to the attention of the wrong person, which is what happened in the Ramsey case. It could have been the pageants...could have been the Access Article 5 days earlier which was the trigger. Wealthy father and beauty queen daughter are the perfect combination if someone was looking for a kidnap victim....someone that was inspired by "Ransom" and other movies.

People can snap, but there's usually some history there, or other factors such as alcohol, drugs, financial problems, or history of mental instability.
You're right. Serious problems don't just pop up. Whoever killed JBR is seriously disturbed and IMO can't hide it very well.
 
armywife210 said:
..... Its hard for me to believe though that such a bad injury would be caused by an accidental bang.....QUOTE]

As you imply, we get into problems by explaining the head injury either way. The biggest thud heard in these parts in a long time was awhile back when I suggested the injury could have been caused by the garage door accidentally coming down on JonBenet's head...either by the door "reversing" or someone closing it carelessly after a plan to drive JonBenet somewhere was aborted after seeing a snow dusting on the driveway that would show tire tracks if they drove.

The significant factor of a garage door fracture would be that it doesn't give an impact injury but one of compression, in which pressure builts over a brief time frame and could pop a child's skull with little apparent external injury. This suggests a scheme that went wrong and what remained are elements of the original plan and a panicked and emotional coverup after the accident.

"Thoughts and Logic" suggests to me a scientific approach, which is a process of seeking answers with the least "explaining away", i.e., those needing the fewest (or no) excuses as to why any elements of the observations don't fit that answer's theory. This is the basis of Ockham's Razor, which is more of a way of thinking and approach than a final determinant. It is very useful in comparing merits of theories, however.

For example, consider a theory that the ransom note was an integral part of a family scheme or plan (that went awry) to cover up sex abuse, an accidental or intentional sexual injury by friend or brother, or other problems, including even a scheme by one parent to create an excuse to get out of Boulder. Many possibilities exist that create an explanation and use for the note, and no explaining away is required, since hypothetical family involvement mandates need for the note. Indeed, if the family did it, that in and of itself fully explains the bizarre note...a need to implicate someone else, since an intruder shifts blame to family by NOT leaving a note.

In contrast to that, a hypothetical intruder creates many conflicts regarding the note. One has to explain away first why the intruder would want to write such a bizarre note, then how he could have known the family info contained, explain the time required since family pen and notepad were used, explain why he would write at length but ignore the "plan" just written when the victim is successfully abducted from her room, explain why he leaves the body thereby thwarting his ransom effort, why he would leave the note with possible evidence while not taking the victim, and, as seen above, make and leave a contrary to interest arrow pointing toward himself. And if "he" really hated the Ramseys as a motive some suggest, he just had to take away the note and let them try to explain their dead daughter. Each justification or explanation of these is explaining away issues about the note in a way to fit a theory and diminishes the theory's validity.

I realize that the threads of this forum abound with explanatory reasons why some think an intruder did this or that unusual act with respect to the note. But each of these makes that theory less and less likely. A theory that a family scheme involving a note already written (but which also allows for an after the "accident" note) is internally consistent with virtually every element known...and I also think Blue Crab's theory could be consistent with the overall concept or some variation of it.
 
The things that go on in families can be hidden for years and years. Most would think it not appropriate to discuss this with themselves and certainly not outsiders. Please venture over to Crimes in the News from time to time to see how dysfunction plays out in our country everyday. It is not always a class situation i.e. abused wives and/or children, it happens across the board.
 
Maikai said:
did not show loving care. JBR was simply dragged into the cellar room (arms were outstretched).....and the blanket thrown over her---her face and feet were sticking out. She was left with the garotte around her neck, and a crushed skull, and was stungunned in the face and back. The perp made an attempt to wipe her, leaving navy blue fibers on her. He wasn't that good--he left his DNA and footprint and handwriting on the note.

JonBenet was not "dragged" into the cellar room. The forensic examination in the autopsy report does not have the back of her heels, legs, buttocks, back, or hair filled with loose cement dust from being dragged across the floor.

The blanket was not thrown over her. John Ramsey said that she was wrapped with the blanket under her, and on that matter, the autopsy supports his statement forensically.

Her face and feet were sticking out? So what? I have a picture of John Ramsey holding the infant JonBenet. In it, she is wrapped papoose-style in a blanket, with her face and feet sticking out. Would you like to see it? Would you take it to mean that John Ramsey hated his daughter when she was an infant?

The ligature was left around JonBenet's neck, true, but all that can mean is the possibility that whoever put it there was more afraid of leaving even more forensic evidence behind, through fiber evidence or DNA, via the process of needing to force the killer's fingers through the nonexistent gap between the cord and the neck skin in order to help loosen the cord up for removal.

The crushed skull? Nobody, whether intruder or Ramsey parent, knew she had a crushed skull. It is a fact that nobody has X-ray vision, which is what would have been needed to see the fracture. All that person knew was that JonBenet had been hit on the head, and that she became unconscious. I have a hint for some people: this is a routine thing to see in comedies. Remember that when looking around for movies the killer may have enjoyed, and remember that the Ramseys loved comedies.

Stun guns marks on face and back? Not proven. Since John Ramsey said he had to practically manhandle JonBenet's unconscious body to get her out of the car, he could have inflicted abrasions on her then, banging her against the car door frame on the way out of the back seat.

Navy blue fibers left on her? Every single item of navy blue fabric that John, Patsy, Burke, JonBenet, John Andrew, Melinda, and every other relative and friend who lived or visited the house ever owned were not taken into evidence, therefore it is to this day premature to say that whatever blue fabric left the fiber evidence was never in the house prior to that night.

The footprint could have been deposited years before, as proven by photos showing that the so-called "mold" which is really concrete dust can persist, completely unchanged, for many years. Shall I trot out that proof again, comparing the "mold" from the crime scene with "mold" that a certain other forum owner took pictures of a long time later?
 
concernedperson said:
The things that go on in families can be hidden for years and years. Most would think it not appropriate to discuss this with themselves and certainly not outsiders. Please venture over to Crimes in the News from time to time to see how dysfunction plays out in our country everyday. It is not always a class situation i.e. abused wives and/or children, it happens across the board.
Exactly concernedperson! We don't know that John wasn't a violent person, we don't know what went on in that home behind closed doors. He could have been abusing JB for years and noone knew about it! Who says it was his first time, but even then look at the rage killing of Pamela Vitale... I'll bet that was that kid's first killing too. A criminal has to start somewhere.
 
LinasK said:
Exactly concernedperson! We don't know that John wasn't a violent person, we don't know what went on in that home behind closed doors. He could have been abusing JB for years and noone knew about it! Who says it was his first time, but even then look at the rage killing of Pamela Vitale... I'll bet that was that kid's first killing too. A criminal has to start somewhere.

I so appreciate your thoughts backing mine up. If we had to be brutally honest some people would cower in the background. But we go gently into the night. Thanks for being my friend. Hoping for justice for victims everywhere. :blowkiss:
 
LinasK said:
Exactly concernedperson! We don't know that John wasn't a violent person, we don't know what went on in that home behind closed doors. He could have been abusing JB for years and noone knew about it! Who says it was his first time, but even then look at the rage killing of Pamela Vitale... I'll bet that was that kid's first killing too. A criminal has to start somewhere.

Exactly! People are not born with a history of violence.
 
LinasK said:
Exactly concernedperson! We don't know that John wasn't a violent person, we don't know what went on in that home behind closed doors. He could have been abusing JB for years and noone knew about it! Who says it was his first time, but even then look at the rage killing of Pamela Vitale... I'll bet that was that kid's first killing too. A criminal has to start somewhere.

The day before John began the affair that would result in his divorce, would anybody have been able to say, "Sure, I know John Ramsey really well, I know he's going to ruin his marriage and behave so badly his wife will refuse to accept counseling in her eagerness to get rid of his lying *advertiser censored*"?

I somehow think nobody predicted that turn of events, which means that John Ramsey can behave unpredictably, even to the most intimate of his family like his wife.

And let us not forget that Patsy Ramsey, who has gone on the official record as saying that she experienced several panic attacks in her life, had those attacks denied by John, who knew her well enough to have sex with her and father children with her, yet insisted that even though he knew her so well, he could never even imagine her having panic attacks.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
2,384
Total visitors
2,482

Forum statistics

Threads
590,006
Messages
17,928,892
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top