Here's what I think

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by calus_3, Apr 20, 2005.

  1. calus_3

    calus_3 Former Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We know that JonBenet was sexually assaulted and by all indications from the warring law enforcement factions, it wasn't family DNA. Nor was the DNA under her fingernails.

    However, the outrageously odd behavior and other factors (ransom note on a legal pad from the home for an already dead girl) leads me to believe that the family was covering up for someone. Since we know that someone else sexually assaulted JonBenet and the parents had some vested interest in covering up who and why, here is what I think.

    I believe that John or Patsy were farming JonBenet out to a friend(s) for sex. Before jumping on me, it is becoming epidemic with mothers or fathers on the internet getting busted for offering children up for sex. Patsy had some fascination with making JonBenet some before her time beauty queen so perhaps in Patsy's twisted ways, letting this happen to JonBenet would make her more worldly. Or perhaps John was some twisted freak.

    We may never know but I don't buy the random intruder and the ransom note. Had there been no ransom note from a family pad, I might think some intruder dropped in and raped her, killed her, and left. That ransom note points to a cover up somehow involving the family. Unless you are complicit in some fashion why cover up for such a horrible thing?

    Cal
     
  2. Loading...


  3. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0


    calus_3,

    Your hypothesis is not my number one theory, but it does fit the evidence. For instance, from PMPT pb, pg 53, friend Pam Griffin was discussing Patsy Ramsey's behaviors shortly following the murder:

    o "You know, they've killed my baby'. Pam noticed that Patsy used the word THEY."

    o "Patsy said something like 'We didn't mean for this to happen.' Pam would say later."

    o "Later, Pam couldn't say solely, but she remembered feeling as if Patsy knew who killed JonBenet but was afraid to say."
     
  4. Voice of Reason

    Voice of Reason New Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originality: A+
    Plausibility: B-

    i think it is a bit far-fetched, but it is nice to have a fresh perspective. if you look at all the "likely" theories out there, those haven't gotten us anywhere in 8+years, so who knows...
     
  5. Toltec

    Toltec New Member

    Messages:
    1,644
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I do not believe for one second that John and Patsy would "farm" out JonBenet for sex. No way, no how!

    The Ramseys loved their little girl...she was very precious to them.

    JonBenet died in a heat of passion and the family is covering it up. My belief is that Patsy hit JonBenet over the head with John's flashlight and then set to stage a fake kidnapping/sexual assault.

    This is my theory and opinion.
     
  6. Hoosier Mama?

    Hoosier Mama? New Member

    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm mainly a lurker here in this forum, as there is so much to learn and I've only started assimulating all the available information and didn't feel I had much to offer. But I have to say that this theory, or something close to it, has been at the back of my mind for awhile.

    I'm not sure if I think that the Ramsey's actively 'farmed' out their daughter for sex, but I've considered that one or both of the Ramsey's may have been involved with some circles who subscribe to the 'sexual enlightenment of children', and perhaps this association leaked into their own lives in unintended ways.

    I mainly post on the Jessica Lunsford forum, and what I'm learning through my own personal research regarding the pervasiveness at every level of the sexual exploitation of children has been a rude awakening to me. I would not be surprised one bit to discover that an apparently 'normal', upwardly mobile parent(s) might have these interests and associations. The 'elite' groups who participate in these practices are only set apart from the rest in that they have the added resources to organize and protect their dirty secrets.

    This is a frightening theory to consider, but one that isn't completely unreasonable, imo.
     
  7. londonPI

    londonPI New Member

    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i've always believed JBR was being sexually abused, however, i just don't think it was the father or mother - mother's don't usually do that as a rule. if her father was abusing her, i believe they would have found child porn somewhere in the home or on his computer - they didn't. i believe burke was playing doctor with his sister for some time and he is the one having sex with her. were his friends also? that i don't know either, but its plausible. i truly believe the ramsey's loved their daughter and did not farm her out for sex - just think something or someone would have come forward about that by now. therefore, i am left with her brother and possibly his friends.
     
  8. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Hoosier Mama,

    I agree these things happen; just research kiddie porn on the internet and it's unbelievable what's happening out there. Also, research erotic asphyxiation, because that was no garrote wrapped around JonBenet's neck. I'm convinced it was a device used in breath control while being masturbated. The dangerous sex-play device was too structurally complicated to be a mere garrote.

    Most people are too squeemish to even consider these kinds of scenarios, even though the evidence is staring them squarely in the face.

    For instance, the pineapple and glass of tea evidence proves Burke Ramsey was likely with JonBenet approximately one hour before she died. But the missing crime scene evidence suggests there was also a fifth person in the house that night, and that fifth person may be the killer.

    The obvious lies and coverup being perpetrated by the Ramseys suggests they are covering up something extremely embarrassing, or criminal, that involves one or more family members -- even though the actual killer may not be a Ramsey. Furthermore, based on published accounts, there also appears to be some conspiratorial City of Boulder, law enforcement, court, and media support of the coverup -- making it an interesting mixture. This suggests the involvement of children, because only if children were involved could such a high-powered conspiratorial coverup be successfully carried out with everyone cooperating. They wouldn't do it for an adult.

    BlueCrab
     
  9. lawman

    lawman New Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    apparently one of the nieghbors noticed an outside light was off on xmas night, that was normally always on.

    was just wanting to know if people have any info on this.
    just regarding the EA angle, the medico`s determined the skull, brain injury was inflicted first almost certainly ruling this scenario impossible.imo


    lawman
     
  10. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    lawman,

    Correct, the security light on the southeastern corner of the sun room was turned off that night. The neighbor said it was the first time in years she saw the light not turned on at night. This suggests someone inside the house turned it off to help someone on the outside to enter and leave the house without being noticed.

    You're not quite correct about the head injury. Because of the petechial hemorrhages on the neck and eyelids, and the scarcity of blood on the brain, most of the medical evidence suggests the strangulation was first. Petechial hemorrhages can form only when the heart is pumping blood. However, the issue is still being debated on what came first -- the strangulation or the head blow.
     
  11. lawman

    lawman New Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thanks bluecrab

    the light outside ? the sun room being switched off on this particular night indicates a number of scenarios.
    while it certainly supports your theory of someone else arriving at the home after the family returns from the white`s, also it supports the theory that the ramsey`s switched this off while they staged the crime scene.

    with regard to the head injury, i believe that the F.B.I think this occured some 10 mins to 45 mins before death.that is the medicos had deternined the injury was "well developed".
    myself i can`t believe someone would be conscious with that injury, ruling out the E.A scenario.

    lawman
     
  12. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    lawman,

    Your information appears to be in error. From the autopsy report:

    "Skull and Brain: Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area. This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7 x 4 inches. This grossly appears to be fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization."

    IOW, there was no evidence of "organization" (the beginning of healing) of the fresh hemorrhage area. Therefore, the injury was not "well developed". It wasn't developed at all.
     
  13. lawman

    lawman New Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thanks bluecrab

    which injury occured first will be debated forever i believe.
    the theory i posted previously was DR lee`s and the F.B.I`s as far as i know.
    this is one of the major problems with this case, there are so many conflicting expert opinions.
    the part of the autopsy report that you posted, only refers to the "scalp" not the "skull and brain" i believe.

    lawman
     
  14. Camper

    Camper New Member

    Messages:
    9,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    ---------------->>>So from reading your post BC, my mind is telling me that JonBenet was in fact either dead, comatose/near death, or in convulsions ?, when the blow was struck.

    IF she were having convulsions, would this preempt and stop blood flow?
    IF she were comatose ?, same question?

    BUT, IF IF she were in fact dead when the blow was struck, WHY strike the blow? Why would a blow such as this forceful one even be needed, WHY wouldn't just being dead not be enough for the perpetrator?

    Keep in mind the burglar alarm was not set either, as IF IF someone were expected 'later'.



    .
     
  15. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Camper,

    IMO JonBenet was dead when the blow on the head was struck. Otherwise, there would have been an enormous amount of internal bleeding in the skull. A hit on the head, as horrific as it was (caving in the entire right side of the skull), would nevertheless not have immediately stopped the heart from pumping blood. Therefore, since there was only about 2 teaspoons of blood on the brain (which would merely be residual blood), then the heart had to have stopped pumping prior to the head bash.

    IMO the hit on the head, probably by a baseball bat because of the amount of damage, was part of the staging designed to match the ruthless foreign terrorist scenario outlined in the fake ransom note. JonBenet was already dead from asphyxiation, but to the killer the EA device tightened around JonBenet's neck did not look evil enough. So he attempted to make it a scarey and bloody scene, but failed because the smash on the head didn't tear open the scalp. And since she was already dead no blood could pump out of the mouth and nose.

    The fake ransom note and the brutal staging, naively trying to make it look like the work of a foreign terrorist intruder, points an incriminating finger toward a Ramsey family member. An intruder wouldn't have done all of that staging to point the crime to HIMSELF.

    BlueCrab
     
  16. lawman

    lawman New Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thanks bluecrab
    i`ll have to research further regarding the sequence of events of this crime.
    i may have misread some details, i`ll believe your scenario at this stage.

    lawman
     
  17. Toltec

    Toltec New Member

    Messages:
    1,644
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again, I must correct you about the lights.

    The neighbor was referring to the lamp INSIDE the sunroom. That light stays on at night along with the light post outside. The light post was also off that night.

    The other lights left on during the night are the lamp in the den, the sconces on the spiral staircase, and a sconce on the second floor landing (near JB's room).

    This information is interesting...Patsy says that she normally leaves the sconce on the landing on and JB's door slightly ajar for JB's benefit. Patsy claims that the only time she closes JB's door is when she is working around the landing area.

    Well Patsy was working in that specific area Christmas night...she was in and out of JAR's room because she went back in to finish packing 3 large suitcases that night...

    What to make of this? Who knows?
     
  18. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess we all have to "brush up" at times on this case. The security light, I thought was described by Shapiro as being "a lightbulb unscrewed",giving more credence to the intruder scenario. Would a family have to "unscrew" a lightbulb for privacy?
     
  19. lawman

    lawman New Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    well done sissi, do you have where shapiro wrote that ?
    that makes 3 possible scenario`s for the light being off.

    lawman
     
  20. Camper

    Camper New Member

    Messages:
    9,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I concur about the blood less skull damage, BlueCrab.

    I quote from your post "JonBenet was already dead from asphyxiation, but to the killer the EA device tightened around JonBenet's neck did not look evil
    enough.


    The supposition about it not looking evil enough, I find to be out of the mentality of a 10 year old, thus, the note writer is my suspect for possibly thinking that. Consider this IF IF a terrorist/perp who hated the family would hardly fuss around with a rope and a broken paint brush, in my honored opinion. A 'perp' would settle for just killing the little girl with the blow!! We have overkill here.

    This specialty perp did not bring ransom note paper with him, nor pencil with which to write most likely, nor a prepared garotte. But he surely took the ball bat with him, since I don't remember LE listing a ball bat on the evidence list, correct me if I err on that.

    I had a great post this morning and spent a lot of time on it, and WS and its logging ceremony sent it to the outer atmosphere somewhere never to be found.

    The fact that the burglar alarm was not set, as if expecting a later arrival, brings me back to my violin :boohoo: playing about JonBenet telling her little friend that she was to have a secret visit from Santa Claus AFTER Christmas. Did LE check the unscrewed lightbulb outdoors for finger prints, we donut know that.


    .
     
  21. Voice of Reason

    Voice of Reason New Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't forget one other reason for "overkill"...make sure JBR is dead. This type of behavior often indicates someone the victim knew. Perhaps, she was strangled, and the perp was unsure if she was dead or just unconscious. He/she knew that if she was alive, she would be able to identify the perp, so he/she hit her over the dead as a precautionary measure.

    I believe the burglar alarm hadn't been set in months. It would accidentally go off, and the kids would play with it, so the Ramseys stopped using it well before the night of the murder. As for the unscrewed lightbulb, I hadn't heard that before, but I don't think that at this point in time, a "smoking gun" is going to solve this case. If the story of the lightbulb is true, I would imagine (hope?) the BPD would have already investigated that lead.
     

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