Members' Theories

[Mitsana]

Deleted post because I realized this is not a thread for discussion. Sorry.

 

[OpenMind4U]

This theory is completely 'out of the box'. Just recently I shared this one with my forum's friend and now, I would like to share with all of you. But before I do, I want to make few disclaimers:
1. It's not my high priority theory! I have few of them but this is not the main one;
2. It's based on 'domestic accident' way of thinking;
3. I simply want to get 'out of the box' and explore the possibilities.

OK, here we go.

I cannot stop thinking, what if we'll look on this crime from the different perspective?

- PR is very sick woman: mentally, emotionally, physically and sexually. Not much sex-drive left after the long exhausted fight with ovarian cancer. But regardless, she still wants John's attention and compassion. But John has been changed a lot. By the nature, JR wasn't loving dedicated husband not to his first wife, not to the second. He loves woman, he's the lover-boy...who needs woman to 'feed' his ego and unsecurities. It's interesting how he replies to questions in regards to 'red district' in Amsterdam.

2 MIKE KANE: (INAUDIBLE) speculation today,
3 and people say that they've seen you in the Red
4 Light District in Amsterdam?
5 JOHN RAMSEY: I was in the Red Light
6 District once with a group of people, and perhaps
7 even with Patsy, as a tourist. If anything would
8 make you celibate, it would be going to the Red
9 Light District in Amsterdam. It's a nasty place.
10 But we were there as tourists. We were probably
11 there for 30 minutes along with all the other
12 American tourists that were there. That's the only
13 time I was in there, yeah.

Distancing again?...(I've been in Amstardam, and my husband and I went to 'red district'. 'Nasty place' which could 'make you celibate'??!!! I don't think so...it's matter of opinion of course and possibly topic for another discussion). However, since Patsy died in 2006, look how many woman he had? He can't stay alone without them. And I have no doubts that he cheated while leaving w/Patsy. Now, let's continue...

- JR was dedicated to his children (from prior and current marriage). JAR and Malinda have rooms in his house, they have place to stay, their friends have place to stay...every holidays they shared time between Mommy and Daddy...John didn't abend his children from prior marriage. He played and still plays Daddy role even today. How his children feels about Patsy? IDK, we only know what JAR said about Patsy: 'she's flashy'. Looks like his oldest son didn't like Patsy much. Which is understandable, things like this happens. And I think PR wasn't genuinly 'in to them either'. She doesn't want to go on this trip to celebrate second X-mas with them.

- When Beth died, JR was destroyed/ruined for long-long time, crying, praying, couldn't work. When JB died, he was numb. Why such a difference in behavior? What can couse such a change? IMO, guilt, anger and fear. But why?...so, now, we're ready for 'domestic accident' theory...

For long time, PR knew about JR affair. The money he spend on other woman was close to his bonus money. It's Xmas time, lovers are usually very generous at this time of year to each other. But Patsy got bike only. I think the tension between them was building for long time. He was cold and distanced toward her. Patsy was loosing everything: her health, her look, her husband...even her daughter loves Daddy more than Mommy. IMO, Patsy and John fought alot. And possibly, John said that he wants out. And I believe the fight starts downstairs, in kitchen, JB and BR were there. John was cruel, blaming her of being 'user', caring about his money only, possibly said that he loves another woman...and he went upstairs. What Patsy could do? How she can pay him back? What's the weakest John's spot? Children!

Couple things could happened next: a) JonBenet was running after daddy, screaming that she wants to stay with him if he'll leave...and Burke, being the jealous 'mommy' boy, strikes JB or b) Patsy grabbed JB and strikes her. Burke was send back to his room.

JB was never molested by adult. She and Burke has their own little 'secrets' which parents didn't know about. The 'staging' was done by both parents; Patsy made the 'staging' to 'frame' John (including RN. It was her last chance to 'pay him back', her last 'victory'). John 'overlayed' the staging, feeling guilty and scared.

Is it possible?...

 

[Cate49]

IMHO I believe whom ever killed Jon Bennett was part of Christmas open house. Person may have seen Jon Bennett or her picture. They cased the house and took her little life.if I recall fairly recently a detective discovered that although there was no snow in front of house it was behind. There were foot prints outside of basement window that were over looked in original investigation. My heart goes out to JR + BR. I believe the accusations and stress of Jon Bennett's death contributed to PR death from cancer. In reading about the case the day of discovery of Jon Bennett's body. The family moved out immediately leaving everything in that house. My hope is that mother + daughter will never be separated again in the afterlife.

 

[freshwater]

I would just like to say to the people who think that the "stress" PR felt from being suspected of murdering JBR may have somehow triggered or caused her 2006 death from cancer.............cancer like the one that PR had in the years before JBR's death frequently returns. It's called "remission" when it goes away for a period. It's not odd at all that the cancer returned and claimed her life. If anything, it's odd that it took so long to return. Almost a decade after JBR's death is when PR died from cancer. That's a long time, IMO. :twocents:

 

[ukrberserker]

Well, this case is driving me nuts. I spent 15 years in and out of college studying Criminal Justice. Every time I sit down to write out a theory, some other contradictory fact messes it up. I think JAR,BR, and JR were molesting JBR. I believe PR gave the corporal cleansings, with borderline molestation. I believe it was JR who made the garotte, as he was ex-Navy. According to coroner's report, JBR's brain was normal except for a bruise on the back, and not enough blood in the skull to cause any swelling. This to me means the choking came first, then the whack on the head after the heart stopped. After years of training, and plenty of experience working security, this is the most confusing case I have ever read. Most of the time I ignore testimony, and let the physical evidence speak for itself. This case won't work that way. There is real evidence, manufactured evidence, staging, possibility of other perps in the house. I definitely believe the Ramseys did it, but who did what, and when. PR wrote the rn, maybe with suggestions from JR. BR probably fooled around with JBR that night. Maybe after she crapped herself, and went to his bedroom. I think he took her back to her room, and smeared all the crap on everything.The choking came first, then the head blow, then the garotte, and staging. Something happened in BR's room, JBR's room, maybe the bathroom, the kitchen, possibly the train room, and definitely the wine cellar.If this is ever solved, all the possible suspects will be dead. I have a 6 year old son, maybe that is why this case bugs me so much. I still have a lot of reading to do.:banghead:

 

[sassysleuth]

Deleted my comment bc it was not a theory and I forgot this board says no discussion, theories only. Apologies.

 

[malingerer]

The ransom note is a very strange document. It is almost as if it does not belong to this crime; almost as if there is another separate but parallel crime. There is a series of events - -> the girl is in bed -> she is woken up -> someone takes her downstairs -> she is murdered. When I first read the background to the case I had no understanding whatever of how the ransom note related to the crime.

There are a number of known facts about the ransom note:-

1. it was written on paper from a pad which was in the house,
2. in addition to the ransom note, there were two 'false starts' – i.e. sheets from the same pad on which the writer had starting drafting a ransom note which he had then abandoned and started afresh,
3. the pages of the pad were numbered which enabled police to identify which pages had been taken,
4. the paper on which the note itself and the drafts were written came from the middle of the pad (or at least, were not taken from the top),
5. there were some more pages taken from the same place in the middle of the pad which the police have never found. I think the numbers are something like 3 pages used for ransom note, 2 for false starts and 3 missing – total taken 8.

Sometimes, small facts can be telling. On the sideboard opposite the desk I am writing this at, there is a stack of pads of various types of paper. When I need paper, I take a pad and I either write on it or I may take sheets off the pad and write on them separately. I have never gone to the trouble of extracting paper from the middle of a pad and I find it difficult to conceive of any reason why I would want to. The only reason I can come up with is that the person taking the paper wants to hide the fact that the sheets have been taken. That then presents another puzzle which is, what possible motivation could you have to want to disguise the source of the paper. Put youself in the position of the murderer. I either have, or am about to, commit a kidnapping. For reasons which have not yet been explained I decide to write a kidnap ransom note. I am obviously intending to leave the note behind when I go. The note will therefore be found and as I am going to leave it on the stairs, it is likely it will be the first thing which is found. It will not take too much detective work to discover that the paper has come from the pad in the house. Why on earth would I take sheets from half way down the pad or putting the same point in different words, why on earth would I want to disguise the fact that I have taken paper from that pad?

If we bear that in mind as being a puzzle, I will move on to another aspect. The ransom note is written in disguised handwriting and the belief appears to be that this was achieved by someone writing with their left hand; not an uncommon trick. As a young man I used to do exactly that on envelopes for Valentine cards! If you try writing with your left hand you will find it is a slow process and I would guess that to write three pages plus a couple of false starts would take you at least three-quarters of an hour, probably longer - probably quite a bit longer! The note is written; not scribbled. We appear to be looking at someone who is hyper-cool. He can sit down for a long period of time at the crime scene with the risk of being discovered and write three pages of slow writing without his writing showing any sign of stress. He would have to had had some sort of light on for the whole of that period in order to be able to see to write. Put yourself in his position. Every odd noise, every creak and every rustle sounds like someone is coming. You are drawing attention to yourself by having to have the light on but you are entirely calm and not in the least flustered. I just find it very difficult to believe that anyone could do that and not show some stress in their writing. That looks like another puzzle.

My first solution to that problem was the idea that the murderer had a gun so he would be indifferent to being found. If Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey find him he simply shoots them on the spot. For a few moments, putting myself in the murderer's shoes again, I felt much more content sitting there writing the ransom note knowing that I have a gun and therefore am not worried about being found. If they find me, that will be their bad luck. It was not long before I realised that the idea makes little sense. As one obvious point, if I had a gun why did I not shoot JonBenet rather than go to all the trouble of finding the bits to make a garrotte?

I have a fairly simple answer to the problem and one which I have not seen suggested elsewhere. I think whoever murdered JonBenet Ramsey was obsessed with her and had spent time finding out about her, her background, where she lived, her family etc., and possibly quite a lot of time. The intended kidnapping was planned well in advance. I think the paper used for the ransom note was taken from the pad before the day of the murder and that the ransom note was written elsewhere, presumably at the murderers home - I don't suppose he sat down and wrote it in the public library. The murderer then brought the ransom note and the false starts of the ransom note with him. If the false starts were intentional, I would say they reveal a fairly impressive intellect, to have come up with the idea unprompted. I suspect the answer is rather that he started the note several times and having done it, decided he might as well leave those at the Ramsey's as well just to add chaos to confusion. The missing sheets which the police have never found when they searched the house were probably not found because they were not there. The murderer did not take them with him when he went to the Ramseys house. He may have not needed them or he may have used them for yet another stab at the ransom note which went wrong and which he actually did scrap.

I think the reasoning behind taking paper other than off the top of the pad was done to hide the fact that paper had been taken in case whoever owned the pad remembered the number of the last page used. If paper had been taken off the top, the fact of the theft of the paper might have been noticed and that in turn might reveal that someone had been in the house who should not have been which in turn might cause the Ramseys to get the window fixed for example, or cause them to fit an alarm, either of which might in turn exclude the murderer from gaining entry subsequently.

It is difficult to say exactly when the paper might have been taken as as the list of possibilities is virtually endless. I get the impression, partly from the fact that they do not seem to have been all that concerned about a broken window which was to all intents and purposes an open door, that the family lived in a low crime area which led to security being regarded as a low priority.

1. the house was apparently on the market for sale and there had been in the few weeks before the murder an 'open day'. Not myself being in the USA I am not quite sure what this might entail but it seems to be an opportunity for people to go round the house. I have no idea whether this access to the house was supervised or whether people were left alone to look around by themselves. Either way, it would appear to be an opportunity for someone unknown to the Ramseys at least to get into the house and learn the layout and where exactly JonBenet would be sleeping. It might have presented an opportunity to extract paper for the ransom note.
2. the broken window. I can find nothing in anything I have read about the case which says either when the window in the basement was broken or who broke it. It seems to have been broken for some time prior to the murder.
3. The murderer may have had legitimate access as a contractor – electrician, plumber or whatever.

I think that is enough for a first post. I have a few more bits of theory which I will post on this thread in due course.

 

[malingerer]

In my previous posting I looked at the paper on which the ransom note was written. The evident fault with the argument is that the pen used was in the house. Indeed, former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary writing on Crime Library lists “Sharpie pens that proved to have been used in the writing of the note and practice note, placed back where they belonged in a kitchen container” in his summary of physical evidence. I do not think we have these pens where I live but the immediate question is how exactly you would 'prove' that a particular pen had been used to write a note. You might reasonably say, for example, from chemical analysis of the ink that this type of pen was used to write something. Unless there is some defect of the writing tip for example, which I have not seen mentioned anywhere, how do you tell it was a particular pen?

In my previous posting, I suggested that the murderer took the paper from the house before the day of the murder and wrote the ransom note elsewhere. If he took the paper, then the pen is no problem because he could have taken one or more of those as well. I don't think he did. He went to the trouble of taking paper from the middle of the pad, apparently to disguise the fact that the paper had been taken. That would be pointless if he were then going to take pens which might be missed. I think it is more probable that he saw the type of pen, realised either that he had some of the same at home or could easily get some from a shop and probably used his own. I would guess that the Sharpie pens were "back where they belonged in a kitchen container" because they were never taken out of it on the night of the murder and that they were not the actual pens used to write the ransom note.

There is a further aspect of the ransom note which is puzzling; it demands payment of the sum of $118,000. It is an odd sum. If you were going to demand a ransom you might choose an amount on a number of bases:-

1. a sum of money which you need for some reason, or
2. (more likely) a sum of money which you think is the maximum the target of the note will be able to put together.

Whatever the reason, you will come up with a round sum; not a figure like $118,000.

The answer which has been proposed is that the figure is (approximately) the amount of a bonus which John Ramsey was paid by his employers. In theory, the mention of the figure should be a great help to investigators because it means whoever wrote the ransom note knew the amount of the bonus and at the time, we are told, not more than half a dozen people knew how much the bonus was. The problem is that the author of the ransom note ought not to be trying to help the investigators and it is worthy of note that he has apparently done so.

One obvious direct reason for mentioning an amount might be to convey a message to Mr. Ramsey. Something along the lines of 'I deserved that bonus – not you'. The equally obvious problem is that one consequence of Mr. Ramsey making the connection and understanding the message, is that he is also going to know who the kidnapper is. This aspect was considered by the detectives working on the case but they were unable to identify any disgruntled employee who fitted the bill.

It is a truism that you cannot mention the amount of Mr. Ramsey's bonus if you don't know the amount – ergo, the murderer must be someone who knows about it. On the other hand, it makes no logical sense for someone who knows what the amount of the bonus was, to mention it, because it is such a clear and obvious pointer to the offender being one of a very small group. My belief therefore is that the note was written by someone who knew how much the bonus was but had either found out by chance or was someone who would not immediately be known to be in the limited circle of people 'in the know'. In the latter category might be people like IRS staff or staff at Mr. Ramsey's employer's accountants. In the first could be almost anyone if they happened to overhear a chance conversation but also someone like a cleaner at Mr. Ramsey's workplace who might be there alone and able to either look in files or find papers on a desk.

I entitled this section “Serendipity – the snapping up of unconsidered trifles” and I think that very adequately describes the would-be kidnappers approach. In the days, weeks or even months before the actual crime he picked up useful bits of information about the Ramseys here and there, such as, firstly, who Jonbenet was and where she lived, who her family members were, the layout of the house, he obtained the paper to write the ransom note and so on. I also think that he found out the amount of Mr. Ramseys bonus by chance and, given that he had been in the house prior to the night of the murder, I would guess it is most likely that he found something such as a payslip or correspondence in the house which mentioned the bonus.

In summary, I cannot see any reason why someone who is legitimately privy to the information about Mr. Ramseys bonus would mention it in a ransom note as it would narrow the range of suspects to just a few and that group would include him. On the other hand, putting myself in the murderer's shoes, if I know how much the bonus was because I have happened upon the information by chance, I would be keen to mention it because it would tend to throw suspicion on a group of people of whom I am not one. The conclusion therefore is that the probability is that the murderer is more likely to be someone who is not one the group who is directly aware of the amount of Mr. Ramsey's bonus.

 

[Cattyfish]

I came up with this theory recently. Before I go into it, I want to warn readers that the first reaction is likely to be it's pretty far out there and "Oh no, someone else with tinfoil in his hat." But please hear me out and try to keep an open mind.

Is it possible Patsy Ramsey could have suffered from multiple personality disorder (MPD)? MPD is extremely rare, but the majority of mental health professionals believe there are bona fide cases. I also know that in diagnosed cases, people with the disorder may have gone unrecognized as a MPD-afflicted person. Some have successfully kept their condition hidden and secret from even people close to them for years. They learn coping strategies and methods of functioning on a surface level that allow them to interact with people regularly who have no idea what's going on behind the facade of the MPD person they think they know.

If Patsy Ramsey suffered from MPD with few people close to her never suspecting, except perhaps her husband John, it seems possible she periodically lapsed into alter states representing various personality types with a wide range of emotions. One might have been a sexual molester. It's possible Mrs. Ramsey may have suffered sexual abuse herself as a child, which could be a keynote to her psyche shattering. If she was sexually abused, how unlikely is it a personality developed that acted out in her own daughter the abuse Mrs. Ramsey suffered as a child? I think it's quite possible. Another alter may have exploded into violent rages--perhaps deadly rages. The murderous personality may never have emerged prior to the night of JonBenet's murder. The violent personality is the one responsible for the severe blow to the child's head, and the methodical, ritualistic strangulation with the garrote. The sexual molester is the one who carried out that sadistic part of the crime. Still another alter could have been a young adult or teen with a flair for drama and the delusion belief she, or he, was sophisticated and worldly. The purpose of this alter is to cover up the misdeeds of the criminally oriented alter/s. I theorize the "cover up" personality emerged after the child was murdered, molested and abandoned in the basement room. This was the alter who wrote the ransom letter. I think it's likely this alter didn't know of the terrible crimes in the basement; she/he came to consciousness after leaving the basement, with an instinctive understanding something very bad had happened and that JonBenet was gone as a result and would not return. This alter devised the strategy of writing the ransom letter as a means to cover up the girl's disappearance, not realizing that, by doing so, she was actually implicating the "host" personality (the one known to the public as Patsy Ramsey). She wrote the letter, naively believing she knew how to sound like an authentic kidnapper (when the truth was, she couldn't know how far off the mark she was). After the letter was written and left on a step of the stairs from the kitchen, the author personality reverted to the recesses of Mrs. Ramsey's consciousness, probably going to sleep. When she awakened, the host personality had returned, remembering nothing of what happened while her alters were in control. She found herself awake, dressed in the clothes she had on from the party the night before. She descended the stairs and found the letter, fully convinced it written by an abductor who invaded the house during the night, taking the little beauty queen away.

I think John Ramsey knew of his wife's illness, but assisted in covering up the condition, and probably not knowing of the sexual molesting personality, or the violent, dangerous alter. Had he known, he would never have let her be alone with their children. Tragically, he believed he could keep it under control. I believe he thought the kidnapping for ransom had really occurred when he first saw the letter, and the police were called in. Had he not known, he would have covered up the crime more efficiently (destroying the absurd letter), and would never had handed the notepad from the kitchen to the police. The notepad is what revealed the letter had been written in the house, the most damning piece of evidence against the Ramseys. I think, however, as clues mounted, he realized his wife's alters were behind the crime. He shifted quickly into protection and cover-up mode, determined to keep police from fingering his wife. We think he had some idea the body would be in the basement. To break the strain and move things along quickly to hasten the departure to Michigan, he went to the basement at the first opportunity to "discover" the body, reveal it to police, then quickly call the pilot to get the plane ready immediately for an imminent take off. His whole focus then was spiriting the three of them out of Colorado's jurisdiction, post-haste. With that accomplished, his efforts shifted to protecting them from prosecution, thus hiring attorneys and "image managers". No matter what police suspicions were, or how bad/guilty they appeared to the public, he believed if he could keep law enforcement at bay, and stymy the investigation at every turn, no one could prove anything, with none of them arrested or standing trial.

I know you're probably thinking the theory sounds wild and far-fetched, but please keep in mind the Ramsey murder is unlike any murder in history, or since. Something very different and astronomically unusual occurred. I submit, no other theory presented to date is any more far-fetched than this--and in fact, it's the ONLY theory of all the sundry proposed that fits with every single aspect and known fact of this crime. If you hold it up against everything known about JonBenet's horrific murder, all the details are explained logically.

 

[ninaskids]

I don't think that it is anything like mpd. and it is not the most complex murder in history. many parents have killed their children by accident and tried to cover it up. Some go so far as to bury the child far far away and think no one will ever know. Or drop them in the water, I am just saying, in the course of modern police work, say 75 years at least, the most odd things have happened.

Occams Razor applies here. When all theories are equal, the simplest answer is the best or the one to pursue. many many investigators, and friends, the DA, the grand jury all investigated and came up empty.

That is because only a few people were willing to pursue the simplest theory, which by the way has been mentioned on this website and others many times. Yes, there was a reason that JB was in the doctor's office many times. Supposedly yeast infec or bladder infec. That is weird in a child. But this child was not potty trained and still wet the bed. that is one reason she may have had so many infec She literally did not know how to wipe herself properly.

of course some playing doctor may have gone on with Burke, but even so, the doctor visits are perplexing and kind of red herring. It sends you off in the wrong direction... So we will never know the answer about that. As for the death, patsy herself could easily have become enraged at JB for the bedwetting! yes she might have accidentally hurt JB. Of course, and then covered it up in the most blundering way possible.

If you feel like I do, Burke himself hit JB, and she fell unconscious, the same cover up would have occurred by PR. you see, covering for a child is easy, but covering up for yourself is harder. patsy looks so devastated at the funeral as does JR. But Burke is positively gleeful. huh? he is either not quite normal or he just doesn't care!

Altho Patsy could have done it accidentally in middle of night, I am convinced Burke did it. The kids were up playing when supposed to be in bed, he hit her, because she did something ---any little thing, and he cold cocked her with the flashlight...or a golf club. he had done that before when she was 4!

she screamed and patsy, who might have still been up packing, found them and sent Burke to bed while she tried to manage it. Or burke may have even awakened Patsy to tell her what happened! He obviously is smart enough to go to college...so he is not an idiot. he knew something was terribly wrong, but a child can rationalize.

They kept him away from cops for a reason, he either knew he did it, or he knew Patsy covered for him.

YOu see, someone in the home accidentally hitting jB is the simplest theory. Anything else like MPD or an intruder was thrown out the window pretty soon.

The DA chose not to prosecute because it came out in the grand jury that burke did it. this was behind closed doors. Burke being only 10, would never come to trial, so why ruin his life by revealing it? Everyone had to be reviled for this, but as you can see, no one has ever been arrested. this doesn't mean weird things weren't happening in the house or to JB, but it means neither parent killed her for some nefarious motive.

the second DA also declined to prosecute or even investigate. That is unheard of unless, the Ramsey's attorneys let her in on the horrible secret. you think it can't happen this way? yes it can. the cops may not have been aware, but we know one detective resigned in disgust because he was sure PR did it. He was almost right, but it was prob Burke. No one can prove this, unless Burke reveals what happened himself and he most likely is terribly confused.

 

[Cattyfish]

Yes, many parents have killed a child accidentally and tried to cover it up. But none have covered it up the way this murder played out. Covering up the accidental death of a child looks like this: the parent/s ditch the body somewhere, maybe stage a sexual assault, maybe not. They don't hide the body in the house, devise an elaborate system of knots for a garrote, strangling the child with it, manually abuse the child sexually AND wrote a long ransom note to make it look like a kidnap-for-ransom scheme. So yes, it IS a one-if-a-kind murder. Occam's Razor doesn't work in this equation because it's anything but a simple crime or a "typical" cover-up of a child's resulting from overly harsh physical discipline.

Yes, I know about the history of UTIs and bed-wetting, etc., and I agree this isn't normal or common in a child. I believe the sexual molesting alter/personality of the MPD had benn coming out and taking control periodically for a long time--probably created by PR's fractured psyche because of her own sexual molestation as a child.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

IMO, Patsy killed JonBenet deliberately. No one else was involved. There was no staging for police. Everything that was done was done by Patsy for Patsy as part of a psychotic fantasy revolving around an imagined relationship with a supernatural being, the fear of judgment by that God and the fear of death. What people mistakingly take as staging for police had symbolic meaning known only to Patsy. This includes the ransom note. There were two aspects to what was done to the body: the ligatures were suspension devices, the body was posed and viewed and then taken down, placed in the small room, wrapped and the duct tape applied to set the kidnapping scenario up in Patsy's mind. The ransom note is full of the ideas that swirled in Patsy's mind that night and plagued her for many years.

The goal was not to kill JonBenet but to make an Angel out of her.

Patsy herself said after the funeral "JonBenet is in Heaven with God awaiting her mother's arrival and it won't be long." Patsy put JonBenet in that heaven to complete the fantasy and in her mind assure her life after death.

As the dedication in DOI says:

Wherever we go ...
Whatever we do ...
[We're gonna go through it together ...]

The ligatures were not stage props they were functional, they were used to pose the body. The reason there was 17" of cord from the loop around the neck to the handle is the handle had to clear the head as it was brought up behind the head and placed into a holder or one end of the stick was placed into a hole with the other end protruding out. This raised the torso to a vertical position, either seated, kneeling or on the feet. I don't think there was a free hanging suspension. The reason there was 15" of cord between the loops on the wrists is that cord was brought up over the head and placed over whatever held the handle or over the protruding end of the stick. This raised the arms to an upright postition, the same position they were found in in rigor. The 15" of cord between the wrist loops would not have restricted movement of the arms much at all and could not have fooled investigators as being a binding. The ligatures were not constructed to decieve police. They were functional as posing devices. This is a classic posing of a body after death for reasons known only to the perpetrator. The raising of arms has well known symbolism, surrender, praise, beseeching and others. Whatever it meant to Patsy can only guessed, mine is it had something to do with Victory!

It is not a coincidence that the ligatures used as described above produce the same position the body was found in.

The bruising on the lower neck indicate an intial strangulation which lessens the probablity that the final position of the neck ligature was also for that purpose.

The "set up" as Patsy called it was the bowl with pineapple and spoon next to a glass with a tea bag found on the dining room table.
The "set up" was most likely the source of the pineapple found in JonBenet's proximal intestine at autopsy.
The "set up" was most likely put together BEFORE JonBenet was killed.
The "set up" also included milk or cream in the bowl of pineapple, which is something most people do not know.
The "set up" has several items that match a scene in The Prime Of Miss Jean Brodie by Muriel Spark:

"Sandy Stranger had a feeling at the time that they were supposed to be the happiest days of her life, and on her tenth birthday she said so to her best friend Jenny Gray who had been asked to TEA at Sandy's house. The speciality of the feast was PINEAPPLE CUBES WITH CREAM, and the speciality of the day was that they were left to themselves. To Sandy the unfamiliar PINEAPPLE had the authentic taste and appearance of happiness and she focussed her small eyes closely on the pale gold cubes before she scooped them up in her SPOON, and she ... Both girls saved the CREAM to the last, then ate it in SPOONFULS."

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9490&page=2

18 LOU SMIT: That's why I wanted to show you
19 the picture. I just didn't know what you had heard
20 of this thing. I'm going to show you what's called
21 a picture of 414.
22 This is a photograph that's taken of the dining
23 room table. And it shows various things on the
24 dining room table.

2 JOHN RAMSEY: Um hmm.
3 LOU SMIT: What else do you see on there?
4 JOHN RAMSEY: I see a glass with what looks
5 like (INAUDIBLE). Tissues on the glass.
7 LOU SMIT: Do you have any idea how that got
8 on that table?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: It might have been (INAUDIBLE)
10 that's a big bowl.
11 LOU SMIT: I'm going to straighten out the
12 picture so we'll want a close up of everything.
13 This is a photograph of 417. what does that
14 represent there?
15 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it's a large spoon, not
16 a teaspoon. It looks like Patsy's good silver. I
17 guess that could be pineapple, I can't tell. But
18 it could be. Some people (INAUDIBLE) pineapple to
19 make it old and there's this teabag in an empty
20 glass. I can't tell, but it looks like there is
21 some milk or something.
22 LOU SMIT: Who do you know would eat
23 pineapple like that? Do you have any idea?



If John and Patsy, not being criminals themselves, used crime books and movies to stage and blame a crime on an intruder after accidentally injuring JonBenet to the point of death, then what was the "set up" doing put togerther BEFORE JonBenet died?

The answer is there was no accident, there was no staging for police and the literature tied to the case is an indication of the state of mind of the sole perpetrator; Patsy.

 

[Chewy]

By Chewy: "Reading through these comments I'm just stunned at the depravity I have seen stated. My god what is wrong with people who think that to cover up an accident a parent would sexually assault their dead child and garrote their neck?"

Chewy, what about the mother Julie Scheneker who just shot her two children because they were 'mouthy'? Shot her daughter in the face after shooting her son while he saw her raise the gun to him. Premeditated murder with notes before and after, including the comment that she would have to 'delay her massacre' on her own children due to the 5-day waiting period to get the gun.... what kind of depravity is that?

What about the couple who kept the girl locked in the bathroom for 6 years - the lady's own granddaughter....with a litter box and a towel on the floor, barricaded in there so she could not come out most of the time? What kind of depravity is that?

What about Andrea Yates who murdered her children one by one and laid them on the beds afterward? Susan Smith? Possibly Casey Anthony?

What about the case of 4-yr old. Emma Thompson, mother let her boyfriend get away with raping, brutalizing, giving an STD, and finally murdering her little girl.

Just because you cannot conceive of the depravity that a parent or grandparent, or someone in charge of caring for a child could possibly cause, does not mean that it did not happen. It happens every day, all the time.

Of course it does, I'm not stupid. It's just that in these cases there were OTHER ISSUES that came out in the investigation that revealed a pattern. Hindsight and all that. Things that seemed weird and then when the tragedy happens people realized they missed clues.

Mental illness, patterns of drug abuse or alcohol abuse, admissions from other siblings, things noticed by teachers or friends.

I'm not saying that they couldn't have killed or sexually abused JonBenet, I'm saying that the level of depravity that was done in this case is such a leap that it's sick to see so many people just acting like it makes "sense." It only makes sense in hindsight, not in the moment.

The real problem with the Jonbenet cases is that the police did not properly contain the crime scene when they arrived. I don't think I've ever heard of police being set up for hours at a crime scene and the parent being asked to search the house and the parent being the one to find the body and essentially do the job the police were supposed to do.

When this happened the police officer at the scene started backpedaling like mad and suggested that the "evil Ramseys'" had pulled a fast one and duped the cops. That's what started off the suspicion and all the corruption in the first place.

If the father and mother had been in the other room and the cops had found the body, then it still would have focused on the parents. All crimes relating to children are investigated that way.

But there would not have been this weird suggestion that the Ramsey's had fooled the cops and had done much more than they really had.

In addition there has been this nasty witchy attitude that I have seen from far too many mothers who are jealous of mothers who are proud of their attractive little girls. The pagent mom spin on this was out of control.

Even though I personally don't agree with pagents for little girls, I'm not frothing at the mouth with rage towards Patsy accusing her of basically being a person involved in child sex rings.

I've also investigated enough crimes against children to see that it is not entirely unlikely that a pedophile, close to the family with a hatred of the family came in and did this to JB to punish the Ramseys.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Of course it does, I'm not stupid. It's just that in these cases there were OTHER ISSUES that came out in the investigation that revealed a pattern. Hindsight and all that. Things that seemed weird and then when the tragedy happens people realized they missed clues.



Mental illness, patterns of drug abuse or alcohol abuse, admissions from other siblings, things noticed by teachers or friends.



I'm not saying that they couldn't have killed or sexually abused JonBenet, I'm saying that the level of depravity that was done in this case is such a leap that it's sick to see so many people just acting like it makes "sense." It only makes sense in hindsight, not in the moment.



The real problem with the Jonbenet cases is that the police did not properly contain the crime scene when they arrived. I don't think I've ever heard of police being set up for hours at a crime scene and the parent being asked to search the house and the parent being the one to find the body and essentially do the job the police were supposed to do.



When this happened the police officer at the scene started backpedaling like mad and suggested that the "evil Ramseys'" had pulled a fast one and duped the cops. That's what started off the suspicion and all the corruption in the first place.



If the father and mother had been in the other room and the cops had found the body, then it still would have focused on the parents. All crimes relating to children are investigated that way.



But there would not have been this weird suggestion that the Ramsey's had fooled the cops and had done much more than they really had.



In addition there has been this nasty witchy attitude that I have seen from far too many mothers who are jealous of mothers who are proud of their attractive little girls. The pagent mom spin on this was out of control.



Even though I personally don't agree with pagents for little girls, I'm not frothing at the mouth with rage towards Patsy accusing her of basically being a person involved in child sex rings.



I've also investigated enough crimes against children to see that it is not entirely unlikely that a pedophile, close to the family with a hatred of the family came in and did this to JB to punish the Ramseys.

A pedophile close to the family that actually hated the family and assaulted & murdered their child, in their house, to punish them?

Perhaps you've followed/ investigated different case than I have, in all my years, I've never heard of that.

Zarah Baker is the closest on my radar with the fire and note to cast suspicion away from the killer.

Speaking of the depravity of this crime. You don't find it incongruent that after all that brutality someone went to the dryer and retrieved her favorite blanket to cover her with? After wiping down & redressing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

This is a thread for members to post their theory or theories. It's not a discussion thread.

All discussion posts should be purged from this thread, IMO.

 

[Chewy]

Very Simple, Christmas open house, red flag number one, that means many people had access to the house at a party in a way that normal home invasions don't have. A crazy person could have easily slipped away from the party and hid in the basement. Then after the family leaves the house, they have the opportunity to wander around the house reading JB's mail and looking through his desk etc. He could have left access open to come back in again or just waited in the house the whole time hiding.

Not only this but there was a party for Patsy's 40th Birthday on November 11, a Church Christmas party at the Ramsey house on December 13th and then the final Christmas party on December 23.

Anyone attending those parties should have been investigated thoroughly.

Christmas time is rife for burglaries. Christmas time is also a time where there is a spike in suicides and other crimes related to depression or resentment in not having your "own perfect family."

You've never heard of a home invasion where the criminal mutilated the children? I guess you've never heard of the Petit family then. Or any number of other home invasions where children were attacked and killed. It happens much more frequently than parents staging crime scenes with fake ransom notes.

My take on the ransom note is the guy is wandering around and figures he's going to make a vicious joke on John. He's going to make sure John tries to pay the ransom, which is why he chose an amount he knew John would definitely have access to. John's going to get the money and wait around and ha ha ha....the baby is dead in the basement the whole time. Pulling puppet strings to watch him struggle in vain. The one thing everyone agrees with on the ransom note is that it wasn't real.

To me the note reads like someone who hates John Ramsey and has knowledge of the bonus he just got. This isn't a random home invasion. It's someone who knows him well who is jealous of him and hates him. This is why the note says these things:

Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only
32. fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't
33. underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours.
34. It is up to you now John!

And it's interesting because a "foreign faction" would not qualify the "good southern common sense" as something worth noticing, an American would. And "fat cat" is definitely an American term.

 

[Chewy]

All discussion posts should be purged from this thread, IMO.

woops I just realized. Please feel free to move my comment and reply to the appropriate forum. Also please let me know where that would be.

 

[Cattyfish]

That's right Chewy. The level of depravity IS too big a leap from what is known by the public (even those close to the parents) about John or Patsy Ramsey. That's the exact reason I can't accept that it was done intentionally or as a cover-up for an accident or discipline that went over the top. As I outlined in my OP, this is NOT how an accidental death of a child is carried out. And neither is how a sexual molestation murder or a kidnap-for-ransom crime is carried out. No killer or molester would leave that grisly, gruesome murder scene in the basement AND leave a ransom note for a ransom note he/she knew would never be collected. The author of the letter had to have realized the house would be searched and as soon as the body was discovered, there goes the ransom scheme.

This is why I say the various actions in the crime had to be carried out by different personalities, each with a different motive. I don't believe there were three or more criminals involved. One person with altering personalities is the only explanation that makes any sense. The author of the letter is someone lacking in much logic, like a very young person. Someone existing a fantasy world, believing he/she was worldly enough to know how a rough and tough "bad guy" kidnapper would sound. Self-deluding. This is not the same personality who beat the child's head in, or molested the child/corpse in the basement. In fact, I believe those criminals were different personalities too. I believe the sexual molester was an alter who had been around a few years...at least. It was the alter who had molested JBR episodically prior to the murder.

What you said about mental illness...MPD is such a disorder. Although rare, it's one that has been known to be kept and unidentified for a long time. I think both PR and JR were very successful in keeping PR's disorder hidden and secret, even to those who believed they were "close friends" of the couple.

 

[Theonly1]

Long post coming. This is my opinion only. Let's start from the beginning. Part 1:

The story begins when they came home late that night. The Ramseys told inconsistent statements about whether JBR fell asleep in the car and had to be carried to her room, or whether she was ambulatory (per BR) and walked herself to her bedroom under her own steam. The parents also told inconsistent statements about her bedtime routine for that night - who tucked her in, what she was wearing, etc. PERHAPS the reason for the wildly inconsistent statements (which to ME would be BURNED INTO MY BRAIN ABOUT THE LAST TIME I SAW MY CHILD ALIVE) regarding when the parents last saw their alive is because the statements are untrue. This is my opinion.

The coroner's report detailed that JBR had something that resembled pineapple residue in her stomach. He described how it looked. And lo and behold once it was tested it matched down to the rind the pineapple left in the bowl in the Ramsey kitchen. BOTH PARENTS denied she ate pineapple that evening and it was NOT served at the White's party. According to the Ramsey's the White's party was the location at which JBR allegedly last consumed food -- cracked crab.

When the parents first made their statements they were UNAWARE of the discovered pineapple in the upper digestive tract of her system. The bowl in the kitchen wherein the matching pineapple was found had the prints of BOTH PR and BR on it. The pineapple was consumed approximately 2 to 4 hours before her death. Most people lean on 2 hours.

One wonders WHY the Ramseys were so INSISTENT that JBR consumed no pineapple and was put to bed immediately upon coming home. Eating pineapple is kinda no big deal, right?

A reason becomes clear when the totality of the evidence we know (which we do NOT know all) is revealed. IF JBR anrd the family were UP and AROUND that evening then the intruder theory they espouse becomes less and less probable. Remember, the family had a very early flight planned for that next morning. However, in depositions, JR has admitted that their son, BR, did NOT go to bed straight-away but was playing with his Christmas presents. I think I recall that JR also at one point admitted to playing with BR. Where did they play? In the train room?

It is apparent from the residue in her stomach that JBR did not immediately go to sleep upon returning to the house, or if she did, she quickly awoke to eat the pineapple, I posit, most likely in the kitchen as one would do. Coincidentally, this is where the large flashlight was found. Oddly, this flashlight and its batteries were completely wiped of prints. I read it as "wiped of prints" not "did not have prints."

PR has admitted at one point (and then not another so I am confused) that she stayed up in order to ready the family for their early morning flight to Charlevoix. In fact, the next morning the police found PR in the SAME CLOTHES as she wore the previous evening. Perhaps PR did not get any sleep.

JR claims to have gone to bed, taken a sleep aid, and read a book. Looks to me like Patsy had a lot of chores to accomplish. Other than readying for the plane trip, she was also getting things together for a second trip - a cruise. I propose to the reader that of all of the Ramseys (other than poor JBR), Patsy was under the most STRESS. She was just turning 40, had to ready for two trips in a few hours, she had survived cancer and it was probably always looming over her shoulder, and she was dealing with JBR and the soiling issues. Believe what you want about whether the soiling bothered the parents. I think it would. I think it did.

Next is Part 2...

 

[Theonly1]

Part 2 - Difficulties with JBR (just kid stuff or was it more sinister)

On the 23rd, a 911 call was placed from the Ramsey home. No explanation was given for it. Allegedly, the police were sent away, correct? JonBenet at some point was found crying on the staircase and when asked what was wrong replied, "I don't feel pretty." What made a 6 year old cry about not feeling pretty?

On the 25th, Christmas morning. I have read conflicting statements. It was Christmas. The last one with your baby girl. Would you not definitively recall what happened an have those precious moments burned into your brain? Allegedly, JonBenet did NOT LIKE the MyTwinn doll her mother gave her. Or maybe she just did not make over it enough. She did get a new bike, which she obviously liked enough to ride around. But did we not read that she spent time up in bed on Christmas day? What was going on with JBR?

Well, we heard she rode her bike. We know they went to the White's Christmas party. Before the party, Patsy ADMITTED that she had an idea for her and JBR to dress alike (shades of Joan Crawford here, imo) and that JBR was just not having it. Patsy wanted to wear black slacks and a red sweater but JBR wanted to wear a new shirt she had gotten for Christmas. Makes sense to me - wanting to wear something new and not wanting to look like Momma. Well, JBR fought PR on it. Did PR get ticked off? Allegedly JBR won and wore black jeans, a white shirt, and a black vest to the Whites party.

Was JBR being bratty by not liking her Doppelganger doll and then being truculent over her outfit?

The Dirty Truth

The dirty truth is that JBR, as cute as she was, went around unkempt sometimes. There are enough interviews that if you choose to believe them then you could come to that conclusion. Yep, kids are kids, even beauty queens. Many times JBR was unbathed and went around with "dirty fingernails." Well, except on pageant days where they would give her a good "pageant scrub."

Worst of all, or saddest of all, and perhaps the most telling, is the fact that a once potty-trained JBR had begun to soil herself during the daytime in addition to night-time bedwetting.

Soiling herself consisted of not only urination, but also defecating in her underwear. In the daytime. At age 6. And judging by every soiled undie in her drawer not an "accident". This is indicative, to me, of a possible emotional problem going on with JBR. She went from being potty-trained to soiling herself. Again, according to police, not one pair of unstained underwear were in the drawer. Not one. The only unsoiled by fecal matter pair of underwear was the ones in which she was found. The size 12 Bloomies.

According to statements, at some point PR just decided to stop putting JBR in pull-ups on the theory that JBR wearing them could not feel when she was wet. So JBR sat in her urine, one would presume. This may have led to her vaginitis, which was repeatedly treated by her pediatrian, Dr. Boef. ALLEGEDLY, Dr. Boef stated that he would burn all his records for JBR and BR before turning them over. Really? Is this true? What was there to hide is common kiddie doctor visits?

Allegedly, PR also admitted to a friend (if you want to believe it) that she DOUCHED JBR after JBR soiled herself. There are reports of a person (a housekeeper?) hearing JBR and PR in the bathroom with JBR screaming and having a fit. Was douching JBR a common occurrence that possibly caused her pain?

On to Part 3.