Can you explain the conclusion you have come to?

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by AmAGypsy, Aug 10, 2004.

  1. AmAGypsy

    AmAGypsy New Member

    Messages:
    847
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have been following the Peterson case, but last night I saw the program on JBR. I had followed it originally and was confused because it went in all directions. I guess when it comes to such a beautiful, angel child I didn't want to add pain and focus to what I felt would never be solved. Can the sleuthers give me a short version of who you think did it? I know this is close to Tricia and all of you and I apologize for my ignorance in the case. I need to clear up my own instincts on who I think did it. Thanks WS I can always count on you.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe a person very close to someone who was fairly close to the Ramseys did it. I do not believe the murder was committed by a stranger, IMO she was selected, stalked and killed by someone who didn't like John Ramsey or the Ramsey lifestyle, someone who is a felon and has served time in prison for other crimes.
     
  4. twizzler333

    twizzler333 Inactive

    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with Sissi. I think it is someone who has a beef with the Ramsey's and also has a connection in some way to child pornography or has a sexual disorder of some sort. I think they intended to actually kidnap the child and wrote the ransom note BEFORE and things went in a different direction.

    I think if the Ramsey's had done this, whether it was a cover up for Burke or Patsy killing her, they would NOT have written the note about kidnapping and then leave the child's body in the house. Also, after listening to the 911 call, Patsy does sounds honestly hysterical and distraught. She is not an actress by any means, and I don't think even Meryl Streep could have sounded so incredibly frightened as she sounded, so how could anyone be that distraught and have just previously written a ransom note, and practiced it a few times. The handwriting would have reflected someone in a panic. It was by far too thought out and written in a calmer manner. It is obvious by looking at it. A parent could NOT write that lengthy and thought out of a cover up ransom note if they had just murdered their daughter and then staged it to make it look like a sexual sadistic crime had occurred. Makes absolutely NO sense. And despite what some believe on here, Patsy DID NOT write that note. Crap, my handwriting could have been linked to it. I have some of the same characteristics as the author of that note and I KNOW I didn't write it.

    They would have taken the child's body out of the house THEN called and reported the note, etc. Why, even Mark H. had enough sense to remove the body before he came up with his phony story. You would have to be nuts to make up a kidnapping story and then not even move the body from the premises, knowing someone could possibly find it within a couple of hours (which didn't happen either, it was several hours). They had plenty of time to take her out of the house, dump her body in any place around Boulder and get home in time to make up this story and hope they didn't find her little body. I just don't buy it. They may be a lot of things but they are not THAT stupid. I realize to some there is so-called "evidence" pointing towards their guilt but it is evidence that could definitely be explained away by the child being murdered in the house where they all lived (fibers, etc.).

    The person that did this was not new to this criminal activity. Murder may have been the ONLY thing new to them but they had sexually molested someone else before. This time, they did it to someone they, in some strange way, cared about but was sick of the Ramsey's for some reason and took this avenue to get to them in some way. Had the perp actually achieved getting JonBenet out of the house and kidnapped her, I don't think she would have made it home again alive and I think that was their intention because they knew she would be able to identify this person. This wasn't about the money, it was about some sicko wanting to make the Ramsey's pay in a different way for something that upset this person. Sounds to me like the perp had a big problem with Patsy and her lavish lifestyle and her putting her little angel out there for all to see, showing her off like a trophy or something. IMO.
     
  5. AmAGypsy

    AmAGypsy New Member

    Messages:
    847
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Twizzler and sissi, Thanks. That is an excellent explanation for me and answered a lot of questions I've had in my own mind. It's a hard one to figure out.
     
  6. Sabrina

    Sabrina Former Member

    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One or both parents were involved. Without a doubt.

    The case will never be able to be prosecuted.

    The crime scene was contaminated and there were too many initial errors in the investigation. The amount of evidence which was released to the public is unheard of in an open case -- not only did the civil cases open the door to this, but the Ramsey's interviews and the crime scene photos and evidence have been leaked or released to the public in many other ways. This is UNHEARD of in an open case. Even if there was an intruder (which I don't for a second believe) they could NEVER be prosecuted because of the multitude of information which was released, it's a defense attorney's dream.

    Lou Smit, whose status I am unsure of,( according to the documentary and some tabloid articles he is in charge, yet the official notices from the D.A.'s office name Tom Bennett) was in on the latest folly- Tracey's documentary naming a "new suspect who is on the run." (This is the one that the internet sleuths fround with Google in 5 minutes....) The vast majority of the public in the U.K. where the show aired, do not read the internet forums and have no way of knowing what a fraud this show really was.


    These side shows were orchestrated to sway public opinion-- probably timed to be released while John was seeking the political nomination. Because the vast majority of the public is largely uneducated about the case, and criminal investigations in general, they have gotten away with it. The icing on the cake is a bully of a lawyer that threatens to sue every media outlet if they dare say the Ramseys are the prime suspects.
     
  7. TLynn

    TLynn New Member

    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The person who did this - is the same person who knows that JonBenet was awake and ate pineapple approx. 1.5 hours before her death. They just didn't realize it would show up in the autopsy.
     
  8. Cherokee

    Cherokee Member

    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    AmAGypsy, go to www.acandyrose.com and read for yourself the history behind the case. You'll see why 80% of the posters here (and a comparable amount of the American public) think the Ramseys are guilty of, in the very least, the cover-up of what happened to JonBenet. Some of us think it was an accidental death, some of us think it was premeditated ... but the outcome was the same. JonBenet died because of something that happened with a family member in the house that Christmas night.

    Patsy Ramsey wrote the "ransom note" to explain JonBenet's dead body being in their house. There is no other reason for a FAKE ransom note, and a staged crime scene to exist. Why would some nefarious intruder STAGE a crime scene??? And why would they stage it in the basement? Why not on the first floor since intruder theorists have to believe the perp spent HOURS in the Ramsey house concocting the scene, in addition to practicing and writing a three page ransom note.

    When you go to the above mentioned web site ... be sure and click on the links to Patsy's handwriting exemplars and the ransom note. Also, read some of the linguistic analysis.

    Next, click on the investigative interview transcripts. Read Patsy's answers (and John's) and see how Patsy wanders all over the shop, never really answers questions, and can't give a straight "yes" or "no" answer to many of the questions. She uses linguistic stiff-arming and verbal slight-of-hand to squirm out of answering the most basic questions from investigators. She is hiding something, and she is lying, and her words prove it.

    The Ramseys have never been truthful about what happened that night. There is a reason for that. Someone in the family (either accidentally, or on purpose) caused JonBenet's death. There is no other scenario that fits all the available evidence.


    IMO
     
  9. Toltec

    Toltec New Member

    Messages:
    1,644
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I couldn't have said it better Cherokee.

    I keep coming back to the pineapple and John's explanation. He said that JonBenet would have screamed bloody murder if a stranger or anyone else for that matter had attempted to feed her pineapple.

    And it is a fact that JonBenet did not like anyone to wake her. She would scream bloody murder!
     
  10. AmAGypsy

    AmAGypsy New Member

    Messages:
    847
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hummm....even better information and I will go read that recommended site. Get back to ya guys. Thanks again. You know I have my own opinion but I want it to be based on accurate information.
     
  11. AmAGypsy

    AmAGypsy New Member

    Messages:
    847
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whoops....didn't mean you are not accurate...hee hee...you are the experts. I just meant I am once again interested in this case after a long absence. Thanks to all of you for bringing me up to speed. WS is the best.
     
  12. VespaElf

    VespaElf Little Miss Showcase(runner-up)

    Messages:
    2,380
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As Ive said before theres only two things Im sure of when it comes to this case...........The Ramsey's know what happened and they are involved in a cover up.What facts we know for sure support at least this and imo anyone who cant see that much needs their head examined!!!!!!

    As to what happened and why theyre covering up?I dont know and since there are numerous plausible scenarios I cant say my defenitive theory but I will say OBVIOUSLY they wouldnt do all the lying and staging for an INTRUDER so one must infer its a family member or someone of equal importance to them.
     
  13. tezi

    tezi Member of Websleuths since 2000.

    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I feel that Patsy killed JB accidently. Then, she panicked and covered it up and made it look like a sexual homicide (sp). I feel that John didn't want to lose Patsy, so he helped with the cover-up, the cover-up that continues to this day.

    Another good source of info is Steve Thomas's book. I also feel that reading the interviews that were sold by Susan Bennett to the National Enquirer and published in a book are also a good source. But, ACR's site is the absolute best!
     
  14. kimba

    kimba Inactive

    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First off, the police couldn't even find anyone to say that they even saw either of the Ramsey's so much as slap Jonbenet's hand if she misbehaved. The idea that Patsy accidently threw her off a second story landing and then garroted her and found some foreign DNA to put in her pants is absolutely rediculous.

    Second, to ever suggest that the National Enquirer is ever a good source of any kind on information is laughable.

    Thirdly,I will defute anything Steve Thomas said in his book, that you are relying on for conclusions.

    I apoligize for the insulting tone. I very much welcome and open thoughts and questions.
     
  15. BrotherMoon

    BrotherMoon Former Member

    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Defute is not a word.
     
  16. Nehemiah

    Nehemiah Active Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Kimba, what is your theory?
     
  17. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  18. kimba

    kimba Inactive

    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Refute.
     
  19. kimba

    kimba Inactive

    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Barbara
    Quick answers.
    Given the lack of physical evidence, there just wasn't anything in these peoples past to suggest they were even capable of commiting such a hidous act.

    I believe it was Steve Thomas that suggested that Patsy accidentially bashed her daughters head in, with a severe force, like being accidentially thrown down a flight of stairs head first. And then covered it up.

    Yes, the National Enquirer is more often right then wrong, about the obvious. But I demand more than a 51% percentile source for anything. Anyone who's ever been to a 7-11 would have recognized that Brittany Spears was drinking an Echinacea/Ginsing vial. Totally irresponsible. Movie stars don't sue them for the fun it or for the money.

    Everyone has a theory, and all are entitled to have one. It's just that, a detective shouldn't be making a theory based on, nothing that I could see to be based on evidence, facts, and in some places in that book defied the logic of the previous page.

    I really came to this site to get updated about Peterson and Hacking, and I mostly just read. But, I butted in on this site on a bad day. Horrible first immpression.
     
  20. Nehemiah

    Nehemiah Active Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Again, what is your theory?
     
  21. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    .

    Like I said in my previous post, it really means nothing. The prisons are full of people who had never shown signs previously of violence. Mark Hacking, Scott Peterson and so many others also never showed signs suggesting they were capable of violence. Now I know that neither of the two men I mention have been convicted of anything, but used them only as examples. First time offenders do many things even their closest friends and family are shocked to know. The past doesn't always determine the future.

    That is a very popular theory, but again I must stress "theory". It may not be my particular theory, but he is entitled to his opinion. He may be right or he may be wrong. We'll never know at the rate the investigation is going.

    So when do we determine when they are right or when they are wrong? Do we know that the NE interviews with the Ramseys are accurate? I don't know. I DO know that they were edited to omit much of the interviews regarding Burke, so we don't know if what we read in that book is accurate or not. I have no idea whatsoever about Brittany Spears or what she drinks, etc., so I can't comment, but to be honest, I don't really care what Brittany drinks or does. The tabloids, like everything else, has to be considered based on our own intellect and ways of thinking. The Enquirer has reported that the Ramseys have killed their child, that an intruder killed JonBenet, and many in between. It's up to us, the reader to decide what we feel is credible or not.

    So you must also believe that it was irresponsible of Lou Smit to make a theory based on absolutely NOTHING that has been proven, made a documentary for Court TV and made several presentations on news channels also based, on evidence that has not been proven to be fact. Actually LE also felt and stated so on National TV that it was irresponsible of Mr. Smit. Do you agree?

    Sorry about your first impression, but it was you actually, who began the experience with your (and I quote you) "nasty tone". I still don't understand why you were nasty in the first place. While there are some hotheads, etc. on this and every forum, chances are good that when one comes to the forums (whether a new or old poster) with a nastiness, they will receive responses in kind.

    BTW, you didn't "butt in", you came to post and your opinions are welcome, so long as you know that on every forum, there will be those who are nice, nasty, and downright foolish. That is forum life. If you have been posting about Peterson and Hacking, I'm sure you already know this :)
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice