Evil people - and things that don't fit

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Jayelles, Jun 18, 2004.

  1. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is going to be long (sorry). I feel a ramble coming on.

    Having watched Tracey's documentary a couple of times now and slept in it a few times and mulled it over......

    The idea of a bad man killing JonBenet has always been the easiest to understand. She was a treasured child - I honestly believe that she was the most precious thing in Patsy's life. I can't conceive of a motive for John killing her. I don't believe that her father sexually abused her because she seemed to adore him, missed him when he was away. I understand that victims of sexual abuse aren't always obviously scared of their abusers, but would they actually "miss" them when they are away?

    One thing that didn't fit for me was the notion that a lone stranger-perp would do a deed like this on Christmas Night when kids were excited and wakeful and people were MORE likely to be at home and receiving visitors. Too risky.

    I have never been able to visualise a scenario where either or both Ramseys decided to kill their precious youngest child - apart from anything, they had a busy schedule for the next week or so - if they were going to do that, surely they would have chosen a time when they had a more convenient "window" (I'm being facetious BTW).

    An accident followed by a cover-up has some merit, I agree. The Ramseys had a lot to lose and, as we have seen, image is vitally important to them. I think they would cover up anything which might look bad for them (and I believe they HAVE lied over some things in the timeline of events). Still, I do believe the headblow probably came last and so that means the strangulation came first - what kind of "accident" involves strangulation - except rage. If either Patsy or John Ramsey had raged at JonBenet, wouldn't the other have interceded? It doesn't make sense.

    The only scenario that really has merit for the Ramseys doing a massive cover-up is one where Burke was involved. This is the only scenario where I can see both Ramseys being involved in a cover-up together - but even it has flaws. I don't think they would have allowed him to leave their sight and I think Burke was almost certainly transfixed by his Nintendo that Christmas and likely to be oblivious to his little sister. I know my son was. I emphasise that I don't believe Burke was involved in his sister's death.

    So my best theory to date has been that the killer was someone who knew the family and who had an obsession for Patsy. It still seemed far-fetched, but stranger things have happened. I considered the killer to be intelligent and to have hated JonBenet - been jealous of JonBenet because of the obsession with Patsy

    It was frustrating to read of the ramseys stubborn refusal to help the police in the early days of the investigation. I think it demonised them in public opinion. AT first I sympathised with them for the treatment they received at the hands of the media, but I now see that they brought much of this upon themselves by putting themselves before doing everything humanly possible to bring their daughter's killer to justice. I think they should be ashamed of themselves for that. I firmly believe that had they immediately sat down with police and told them everything they knew, that police would have moved on and that perhaps the killer would have been caught.

    So now we have Tracey's theory. Not just one bad man, but two. Doing it for kicks and $$$s. Working in a pair makes more sense than the lone intruder-perp. They would egg each other on. Mr X is the scary one, the control freak and Helgoth tagging on for the thrill and hoping for $$$s. Yes, I can buy this theory even although it is disturbing to imagine JonBenet's terrifying end at the hand of two men in black, her parents close by and not responding.

    So what is wrong with it? Some pieces still don't gel. For one, Helgoth and Mr X supposedly waited in the Ramsey house for them to return. I think they took a chance there. The Ramseys might have gone to stay with friends or family - as many people do at Christmas. How did they know the Ramseys were going to return?

    Were they watching the Ramsey home - of so, from where?

    Then there is the matter of the ransom note. If Kenady is to be believed, Helgoth and Mr X PLANNED a kidnapping. A ransom note is a key part of a kidnapping. Surely they would have brought one with them? One which was typed or made from newspaper clippings? A short and to the point ransom note? RST say they wouldn't like to risk being caught with a ransom note on their person - that doesn't fit with them liking to take risks inside people's homes and then of course they run a huge risk of being caught with the kidnappee.

    Where did they plan to keep Jonbenet? Kidnappers usually have this carefully planned. If not, these guys must really have been the Bungle Brothers.

    Where did they park for several hours whilst waiting? If they waited for hours inside the ramsey home, surely they would have needed to pee or poo? Even at the low end of the waiting scale, they would have to have stayed still, silent and not had to relieve themselves for at least 2 hours (an hour after the ramseys arrived home and an hour before to case the house and write the ransom note).

    Finally (for now), there is still the matter of the pineapple. Tracey has never addressed this and as Lou SMit says - it is the big bugaboo. Experts say 2-5 hours for digestion. If she ate it before going to the Whites, that means she died soon after returning home. If she ate it AFTER returning from the WHites, that means the ramseys lied about her being asleep.

    Of course, there is always the possibility that Helgoth and Mr X only intended the Ramsey home to be another midnight burglary and that JonBenet disturbed them in their deeds as she crept upstairs after sneaking a piece of pineapple....
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Arielle

    Arielle New Member

    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Very well thought out post Jayelles. I agree with you on most of your ideas regarding the Ramseys and their innocence. I too never bought the idea of one covering for another unless it was Burke. I just don't see how it could happen. But, I also have trouble with the though of 2 intruders. Most people have enough trouble with the concept of one intruder managing to get in and out without leaving any forensic evidence behind. Two seems even more far fetched to me. That is one of the reasons I have always thought JAR was a good bet. Even if he left forensic evidence behind, his fingerprints, fibers, hairs, etc should be there.

    Oh well, maybe someday we will know the truth. But I suspect we will not.
     
  4. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Jayelles,

    THE COVERUP: There were no intruders except those possibly invited into the house by a Ramsey. Otherwise, the Ramseys wouldn't be lying their heads off in the elaborate coverup. And, as you correctly surmise, the parents would engage in a coverup only if Burke was somehow involved. One parent wouldn't even cover up for the other parent. So, if an intruder was in the house that night, he was there at the invitation of Burke.

    THE POO POO: There were two unflushed toilets in the house that night -- the one in JonBenet's bathroom, and the one in the little bathroom in the basement. Why were they unflushed? Was it because the noise that flushed toilets make would have woken the parents? I think so.

    JMO
     
  5. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The unflushed toilets would apply to intruders too (i.e. not wishing to draw attention to themselves). Kids are extremely guilty of not flushing and we know that Burke played in the basement in the train room. Could have been him and his pals from some time previously. Remember that Linda Hoffman Pugh couldn't make it on the 24th to help clear up after the party on 23rd. The kids could simply have been playing down there, paid a visit and not flushed. Playing with the trains in the basement might be especially likely during the period immediately prior to Xmas when Santa hadn't delivered the Nintendo - yet.
     
  6. Cherokee

    Cherokee Member

    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Yes, but if it WAS a rage incident, you're assuming the other parent was both awake, and present, at the point of rage.

    It is conceivable John was in bed while Patsy was up late packing ... and the rage incident took place BEFORE he could intercede. If John was asleep, or even just lying in bed, it is possible he wouldn't have had time to intervene in a rage incident by Patsy against JonBenet.

    First, he had to hear the altercation, and secondly, he had to get from the third story of the house down to wherever the altercation took place.

    Even if John heard yelling, he may not have responded immediately since he could not know physical injury might result. The damage was already done.

    It is unfortunate that it has not been conclusively established whether the head blow or strangulation took place first. Perhaps, they were simultaneous ... with JonBenet's shirt collar serving as the initial strangulation tool. The ligature applied later to her neck served to mask any possible strangulation marks from the struggle, and was an effort to point away from the family to an outside intruder.


    IMO
     
  7. TLynn

    TLynn New Member

    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course, there is always the possibility that Helgoth and Mr X only intended the Ramsey home to be another midnight burglary and that JonBenet disturbed them in their deeds as she crept upstairs after sneaking a piece of pineapple....

    But they would've had to bring the pineapple to the house as Patsy knows nothing about it.

    In a way, the unflushed may be linked to JonBenet's midnight bathroom trips. It's been stated that Patsy would wake her up and take her to the bathroom. They (John nor Patsy) put JonBenet on the toilet before putting her into bed - and she was a chronic bedwetter.
     
  8. Nehemiah

    Nehemiah Active Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Thanks, Jayelles, for your post. You always seem to have an open mind and are able to look at all sides of the equation. (how Jameson posts that you are BORG, I'll never understand) I don't really have any counterpoints to your thoughts, as I have a lot of the same questions myself.

    I saw a defense attorney being interviewed last week on one of the morning shows in regards to the Peterson case. He was talking about how defense attys always attack the police and say that the police 1. bungled the investigation; and 2. make their minds up early on that someone is involved (such as parents or spouses, etc) and refuse to look at other evidence. The guy admitted on national TV that that is the route the defense will always take. I was sitting there thinking that is exactly what happened in the Ramsey case and here is this man admitting that this is a ploy. One thing that I thought about in this is how the RST jumped on these two points, early on, and have used this as a basis for many of their arguments, when in fact, it was not even the truth~~just a common defense tactic.

    IMO
     
  9. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Patsy didn't do it. There's no incriminating evidence against her and she has exculpatory evidence in her favor. Patsy's involvement is strictly in the coverup. Here's why:

    o John would not have covered for Patsy if she had killed JonBenet.

    o The government's six handwriting experts all say Patsy didn't likely write the ransom note.

    o Gelb's lie-detector exams conclude Patsy didn't kill JonBenet, nor did she author the ransom note.

    o The foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear is from a male.

    o The grand jury, with almost limitless powers to investigate, after 13 months of investigating was unable to come up with any evidence to indict Patsy.

    John has similar exculpatory evidence in his favor. Yet ONE of the three Ramseys in the house that night had to be involved directly in the murder. That leaves Burke.

    JMO
     
  10. Nedthan Johns

    Nedthan Johns New Member

    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    o The government's six handwriting experts all say Patsy didn't likely write the ransom note.

    o Gelb's lie-detector exams conclude Patsy didn't kill JonBenet, nor did she author the ransom note.

    o The foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear is from a male.

    o The grand jury, with almost limitless powers to investigate, after 13 months of investigating was unable to come up with any evidence to indict Patsy.

    John has similar exculpatory evidence in his favor. Yet ONE of the three Ramseys in the house that night had to be involved directly in the murder. That leaves Burke.

    Ned: BC, I respectfully DISAGREE. ALL the evidence in this case ONLY points to Patsy.

    1.) John WOULD have covered for Patsy. He now has lost 2 children, and one wife if you count the dissolution of his first marriage; he is not about to lose Patsy. He after all is a man of IMAGE. His wife has been through Cancer for God’s sake. I absolutely CAN see him covering for her, now after observing their behavior for all these years.
    2.) There WAS evidence of physical prior sexual abuse. IMO that leaves it open to the POSSIBILTY that JR was molesting JonBenet, another reason to COVER for Patsy
    3.) There was are still are MANY handwriting experts that say Patsy DID write the note, and even the Ramsey’s own expert could NOT rule her out. Anyone with eyes can see that note was written by Patsy. It’s all there, letter similarity, word usage, right down to acronyms. That ransom note SHOUTS Patsy. It’s the single MOST important clue in this case.
    4.) The DEGRADED DNA, although male, very likely could have been there from the factory where the panties were manufactures. Even DNA experts contend this, and Dr. Lee stated this was NOT a DNA case.
    5.) The Grand Jury was subjected to a non-proven theory, posed by Lou Smit, and after all we are talking about BOULDER here.
    6.) Fibers, pineapple, hair ties, blanket, pj’s, pen, note pad, handwriting, paintbrush, all SCREAM Patsy.
    There is not ONE piece of solid evidence that points to Burke Ramsey.
     
  11. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To jameson, you are either a fully paid up member of the RST or a BORG. I have been subjected to countless snide remarks over the years about getting splinters in my backside from the fence etc. She calls me a BORG out of spite because I can and do question the intruder evidence and because I don't accept her party line. The "BORG" insult is used regularly to intimidate people on yonder forum. Remember when the 911 tape was released, jameson said that it was a BORG test - if you could hear anything at the end of the tape, then you were a BORG. Unsurprisingly, none of her members could hear a thing!

    You watch the attacks on the common-sensical poster Hudson who doesn't think the Ramseys were involved, but who doesn't blindly accept the RST spin either. Look for the snide little insults here and there and BORG remarks.

    I couldn't care less if jameson calls me a BORG or anything else for that matter. It's always rather pathetic when she needs to resort to personal attacks and name-calling.

    I have no axe to grind in this sad case. I can view the evidence objectively and neither through Ramsey-tinted spectacles or BORG-spectacles. I don't hate the Ramseys, nor am I "jealous of their wealth". I'd like to see the perp pay - whomever he or she is.
     
  12. Kim Ii

    Kim Ii New Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jayelles,

    I've not posted on this forum for quite a long time. But having just read your post, I'd like to say that yours is the most objective and thought out post I've read in a long time. I posted awhile back that, after so many years thinking the Ramseys were involved in the murder/coverup, I had come to the conclusion that an intruder committed the murder. After more thought and reading...I'm now sitting on the fence, yet once again. Truly, if one looks at the ransom note, it's almost impossible to not see Patsy's shadow all over it. I have honestly tried to look at this case from all angles, and as you, do not totally buy into the intruder theory, nor the so-called BORG theories. I also have no axe to grind with the Ramseys. I'd just like to see whoever did this...pay. Sadly, I see this case going absolutely nowhere and the killer will never be known.
     
  13. TLynn

    TLynn New Member

    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nevermind - Nedthan said it for me. He's :cool:
     
  14. BrotherMoon

    BrotherMoon Former Member

    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have no idea how accurate this statement is unless you have studied Jungian/Depth psychology and the concept of "shadow".

    People are fond of conspiracy theories because they don't understand human behavior or they don't want to accept their own "shadows" and project it outward onto imaginary shadowy figures (usually men) that move stealthily behind the scenes often with near supernatural abilities.

    All you have to do is listen to Coast to Coast to understand people's willingness to believe the most outrageous events are truly happening "out there" somewhere.

    It is easier to suspect an outer conspiracy than look for the inner truth.
     
  15. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Ned,

    MOST of the evidence points to Burke Ramsey being directly involved somehow in the murder of JonBenet. I'll list a few of the reasons for you:

    1. Burke, by the process of elimination, is the only Ramsey in the house who could have committed the crime. One of the three Ramseys left alive had to have been involved and John and Patsy have exculpatory evidence in their favor. Burke does not.

    2. Burke conspiratorily lied (with his parents) to the police to try to distance himself from the crime when he said he was asleep in bed when the 911 call was placed by Patsy at 5:52 A.M. The enhanced 911 tape proved he was up at that time and had been engaged in conversation with his parents. This important lie impeaches everything else the Ramseys claim took place that morning.

    3. Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple from which JonBenet had snacked from about two hours before she died. This puts Burke secretly downstairs with JonBenet after the parents had gone to bed.

    4. A glass with a used tea bag in it was found next to the bowl of pineapple on the breakfast room table. Burke was the resident tea drinker. JonBenet didn't like tea. The bowl of pineapple and the glass of tea were at JonBenet's and Burke's respective and usual seats at the table.

    5. The Ramseys originally denied any of them owned Hi-Tec footwear, but the police finally determined it was Burke's Hi-Tec bootprint that was found in the mold on the floor next to JonBenet's body.

    6. Burke is the only likely person who could have inflicted the acute and the chronic "digital-size" injuries at the same 7 o'clock position in JonBenet's vagina on different days of the week. Only a family member could have likely had access to JonBenet on a day-to-day basis.

    7. Burke's handwriting analysis could not exclude him as the possible writer of the ransom note.

    8. Burke was never excluded as the contributor of the foreign male DNA in JonBenet's underwear.

    9. No one of authority, including Chief Beckner and D.A. Keenan, will declare that Burke Ramsey has been cleared in the death of JonBenet.

    JMO
     
  16. Nedthan Johns

    Nedthan Johns New Member

    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I need clairifying I never heard this...

    Burke's handwriting analysis could not exclude him as the possible writer of the ransom note.

    Ned: Where did you hear that?

    8. Burke was never excluded as the contributor of the foreign male DNA in JonBenet's underwear.

    Ned: Not what i heard, and this was posted awhile back that the male DNA found matched NONE of the Ramsey's period.That would include Burke
     
  17. Nehemiah

    Nehemiah Active Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I could have posted that myself. My sentiments, exactly.
     
  18. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Ned,

    HANDWRITING: Like everything else about Burke, the results of Burke's handwriting examination were never officially released. The closest I know of anything credible came early in the investigation and was reported by the Daily Camera on 1/22/97. It wrote, "Handwriting analyses conducted prior to the March search (of the Charlevoix house) revealed John Ramsey did not write the ransom note, that it was "probable" Burke did not write the note, and possible that Patsy wrote it, according to documents released Friday." The documents were the search warrants issued by the court to make the search. IOW, it appears the CBI excluded John as being the writer, but couldn't exclude Burke and Patsy.

    DNA: The results of Burke's DNA analysis were never released. Therefore, few people know for sure if the foreign DNA in JonBenet's underwear was Burke's or not. However, John's DNA analysis was released, so we know the DNA was not from him. The DNA was from a male, so that excludes Patsy, and most of us are convinced there was no intruder. So, unless there was a fifth person who had been invited into the house that night, by deductive reasoning we know the DNA was likely from Burke. Therefore, Burke cannot be excluded as the possible contributor of the DNA in JonBenet's underwear.

    JMO
     
  19. K777angel

    K777angel New Member

    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Considering all of the facts, evidence and circumstances in this case, I believe the most likely scenario is that Burke Ramsey was indeed the perp in JonBenet's death - by accident. And that his parents - particularly Patsy - staged the crime scene and covered it up to protect him (and them).

    From the United States District Court regarding the NY Post civil case.
    This is from Boulder DA's Office (Alex Hunter) and the motion to quash subpoenas:

    "Defendant claims the evidence sought in the subpoena is crucial to its defense to the defamation claim. It states the documents sought are directly related to key issues in that action, including Burke's possible involvement in the murder and/or his parents' possible involvement in a cover-up, reported plea bargain negotiations with Burke's representatives, and even whether someone in the District Attorney's office provided the information about Burke to Star magazine ."

    "Defendant also asserts that information sought is relevant in light of the prior drafts of the affadavit provided by respondent. A comparison of the affidavit and draft (Exhibits B and D to response) reflects that Hunter decided to delete certain statements, including a statement that investigators were satisfied that Burke was not a suspect and that Burke was never viewed as a suspect ."

    It also states this:

    "The original request (by the Post) sought disclosure of:

    1) Documents relating to the death of JonBenet Ramsey
    2) Documents concerning interviews or conversations between
    investigators or psychologists discussing the death of JonBenet;
    3) Documents in which Burke Ramsey is implicated (or identified as
    potentially implicated or involved) in the death of JonBenet.
    4) Documents concerning interviews or converstations between
    investigators or psychologists and John and/or Patsy Ramsey mentioning
    or discussing the death of JonBenet
    5) Public statements made by respondent (DA's Office) or it's agents
    relating to the death of JonBenet;
    6) Documents concerning public statements made by John, Patsy, or
    Burke Ramsey discussing the death of JonBenet;
    7) (copies of) notes believed to be written by the killer/kidnapper
    8) Documents relating to steps taken by or communications made by
    anyone to identify the killer;
    9) Communications relating to the death of JonBenet between respondent
    and any other person (including Jeff Shapiro of the Globe)
    10) Documents or communications obtained by the Boulder Police Dept.,
    the FBI, the CBI or other law enforcement agency or government
    entity regarding the death of JonBenet;
    11) Documents provided to the Ramseys;
    12) Documents provided by respondent to the Ramseys;
    13) Handwriting or other samples obtained from the Ramseys;
    14) Documents concerning the psychological condition of Burke from the
    time of his birth to the present

    15) Documents concerning handwriting; fingerprint, blood and hair samples,
    or DNA tests performed on or given by the Ramseys;
    16) Documents prepared by handwriting, fingerprint, DNA, forensic, linguistic,
    or other experts hired by anyone to investigate or give an opinion on the
    death of JonBenet;
    17) Documents concerning any appearance by Burke before a grand jury;
    18) Documents concerning the relationship between JonBenet and Burke;
    19) Documents concerning the whereabouts of Burke on December 25 and 26, 1996;
    20) Documents concerning physical and sexual abuse or injury to JonBenet;
    21) Documents concerning JonBenet's medical history;
    22) Documents concerning polygraph tests or results or negotiations for the
    tests for the Ramseys in connection with the death of JonBenet;
    23) Documents concerning examination of JonBenet's body, including the
    autopsy reports; and
    24) Documents concerning the statements reflected in Hunter's October
    12, 2000 affadavit

    The court then ordered:

    "The motion to quash, filed March 29, 2001, is denied as to documents covered by the subpoena (a) which were in existence during the time period extending from the beginning JonBenet murder investigation through the date of the Hunter affadavit (b) which are subject to the control of the respondent; and (c) which contain information regarding (1) the investigation of Burke Ramsey as a possible perpatrator of, accessory to, or conspirator regarding the murder, (ii) potential charges against Burke, and/or
    (iii) any plea negotiations concerning any such charges against Burke.
    The balance of the motion is granted.

    2. The following constitute the proposed proceedings for disclosing
    documents covered by this order:

    a. Disclosure of documents shall be subject to the terms and conditions
    of the protective order issued in this case on August 6, 2001.

    WHAT was the "protective order" issued in this case in August 2001?

    And what did the judge mean by documents "which are subject to the control of of respondent (DA's office)? Could it be that Burke, being under 10 years old at the time of the murder - was protected from disclosure of his involvement in the crime and therefore Hunter and the DA's office could not
    "control" those documents that indicated that?

    I find this whole NY Post case, the timing of it, the Post's steadfast standing by their story and sources, and the veracity with which the Ramseys pounced on the story - to be very, very interesting in this case.
    I think there is much more to it and alot went on behind the scenes we will never know about.

    After Hunter left office he told Geraldo Rivera, "You would be VERY surprised at who the target of the investigation is...." or turned out to be.
    No one would be "surprised" if it were John or Patsy because THEY are the ones that have been under the umbrella of suspicion all along.
    But many would be VERY surprised to learn that it is indeed their son Burke who evolved as the focus and target.
    Just not much they can do about it.......

    Thoughts?
     
  20. Show Me

    Show Me New Member

    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Very interesting post K777angel....does make you wonder. Although I lean to Patsy caught John molesting JBR and hit her instead of him....I wouldn't be shocked if you are right.
     
  21. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I find it interesting that they are willing to sue on Burke's behalf knowing that if not settled, these documents can be ordered into testimony, but want them sealed otherwise. For money, they are even willing to throw their own son into the circus.

    I am one of the posters who seriously consider the BDI theory so I would not be surprised if he was the focus

    AND certainly, no surprise for Bluecrab :)
     

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