This is what I believed happened

Do you agree with this theory?

  • yes

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • no

    Votes: 20 95.2%

  • Total voters
    21

Daniel1075

New Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
1
Reaction score
5
Article in the New York papers today. A mom pimped her 5 year old out to someone who raped and murdered her child. This is what I believe happened to Jon Benet Ramsey. Think about how the pieces fit. They perp spent time in the home because someone gave him access to their child, in the home. Thats why the parents weren't cooperative, and the mom wrote the fake ransom note, because they had to cover for themselves. I thought about this years ago, when there was another case here in NY where pedophile A pimped his daughter out to pedophile B, but in this case the child's mother found out and they arrested the 2 criminals.
You know that if one person is doing something, there's a 1000 doing it, and probably a website to facilitate. What are any thoughts?
 

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
11,024
Reaction score
3,621
Article in the New York papers today. A mom pimped her 5 year old out to someone who raped and murdered her child. This is what I believe happened to Jon Benet Ramsey. Think about how the pieces fit. They perp spent time in the home because someone gave him access to their child, in the home. Thats why the parents weren't cooperative, and the mom wrote the fake ransom note, because they had to cover for themselves. I thought about this years ago, when there was another case here in NY where pedophile A pimped his daughter out to pedophile B, but in this case the child's mother found out and they arrested the 2 criminals.
You know that if one person is doing something, there's a 1000 doing it, and probably a website to facilitate. What are any thoughts?

Daniel1075,
JonBenet's parents were multi-millionaires, they had no need to pimp out their daughter.

There is no forensic evidence left at the crime-scene that links to anyone outside the Ramsey house.

It all links back to the Ramsey's, all three of them, they all participated in the postmortem staging of JonBenet.

The forensic evidence supports this latter claim, as the parents revised their version of events to state that Burke Ramsey was wide-awake during the 911-call, not sound asleep as claimed previously.

So one thing you are right about is that the case is RDI!

.
 

InstantProof

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
355
Reaction score
68
Oh it's getting late, time to leave the Christmas party, drop off some Christmas gifts at the neighbors, let all the perverts with nothing to do on Christmas day and cash in their pocket into our home, and pack for our early flight in the morning!

But seriously I can only see anything along these lines if Patsy did it naively, like let a photographer alone with JB or something, but then again you have to consider is this really transpiring on Christmas night when they are already so busy. And with no evidence.
 
Last edited:

Magnified

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2022
Messages
28
Reaction score
56
Article in the New York papers today. A mom pimped her 5 year old out to someone who raped and murdered her child. This is what I believe happened to Jon Benet Ramsey. Think about how the pieces fit. They perp spent time in the home because someone gave him access to their child, in the home. Thats why the parents weren't cooperative, and the mom wrote the fake ransom note, because they had to cover for themselves. I thought about this years ago, when there was another case here in NY where pedophile A pimped his daughter out to pedophile B, but in this case the child's mother found out and they arrested the 2 criminals.
You know that if one person is doing something, there's a 1000 doing it, and probably a website to facilitate. What are any thoughts?
I really would forget all you think you know bout this case until you read Paula Woodward’s book.

she also address the apartment odd amount asked for by the killer/kidnapper.

There was a man who was fired from access graphics shortly before the murder, and in court the judge ordered him to pay them $118.000

if this was a sadistic killer they get pleasure from harming somebody rather than the sexual act in its self, and that could explain why she was found in the way that she was, but not really sexually assaulted. Theransom letter as everybody has been calling it, may just be part of that sadistic game he was playing to put the parents through more pain.
 

Magnified

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2022
Messages
28
Reaction score
56
I really would forget all you think you know bout this case until you read Paula Woodward’s book.She also address the apparent odd amount asked for by the killer/kidnapper.

There was a man who was fired from access graphics shortly before the murder for fraud, and it went to court. The judge at the hearing ordered him to pay them $118.000. Something we never heard about when the police were cleverly leaking information.

if this was a sadistic killer they get pleasure from inflicting wicked violence on their victims,rather than the sexual act in its self, and that could explain why she was found in the way that she was, but not really sexually assaulted. The ransom letter as everybody has been calling it, may just be part of that sadistic game he was playing to put the parents through more pain.Enjoying telling them what they will do to her ( had done to her) and watching from nearby as the police turned up knowing they would be waiting for a call.

The way he tells John it’s up to him is as though he has something over him if he talks about who this might be. It’s up to you know John! He hates John!

No way I buy the police saying the cord was wrapped loosely. It was the cause of death for goodness sake. And John had tried to untie it. Why would they set a crime scene up, then remove the tape from her mouth before it was seen?

They police were wholly unequipped to deal with this case let alone investigate it. They picked their target early on and stuck with it despite it making no sense she would kill her daughter on Christmas night. The media printed constant lies fed to them by police, ie no footprints in the snow, when you can see clearly there was no snow. The Ramseys wouldn’t allow Burke to be interviewed, when again we see he was interviewed twice, and they allowed him to be questioned by the grand jury.

They even tried to discredit An experienced homicide detective with a 10O% record ( Lou Smit) r.i.p, when they didn’t like him providing evidence against their theory. A man they brought in because of his ability to solve unsolvable crimes.

The CNN documentary cleverly manipulated its viewers by telling us what Burke had apparently said when his mother failed to put the phone down, but if you notice they also flashed the words on the screen. We all know from the many internet heads F…s that you hear, what you see. ( Yanny vs Laurel)

That phone call had been previously listened to by experts, and nothing was found to be in the background. They were simply repeating what they had been told someone thought is said before it was analysed, and claiming they had heard itnthemsekves. They didn’t inform the viewer they had been given a script of what it was originally believed to of said. Burke has been bashe’d to death the poor kid, when he was never a suspect.

The pineapple in the house was also twisted as the autopsy report found grapes, cherries and pineapple in her small intestine. The ingredients of a fruit cocktail!

I could go on but I am not convinced in any theory to say what i think. But I do have a main suspect.
 

BoldBear

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
652
Reaction score
166
I really would forget all you think you know bout this case until you read Paula Woodward’s book.She also address the apparent odd amount asked for by the killer/kidnapper.

There was a man who was fired from access graphics shortly before the murder for fraud, and it went to court. The judge at the hearing ordered him to pay them $118.000. Something we never heard about when the police were cleverly leaking information.

if this was a sadistic killer they get pleasure from inflicting wicked violence on their victims,rather than the sexual act in its self, and that could explain why she was found in the way that she was, but not really sexually assaulted. The ransom letter as everybody has been calling it, may just be part of that sadistic game he was playing to put the parents through more pain.Enjoying telling them what they will do to her ( had done to her) and watching from nearby as the police turned up knowing they would be waiting for a call.

The way he tells John it’s up to him is as though he has something over him if he talks about who this might be. It’s up to you know John! He hates John!

No way I buy the police saying the cord was wrapped loosely. It was the cause of death for goodness sake. And John had tried to untie it. Why would they set a crime scene up, then remove the tape from her mouth before it was seen?

They police were wholly unequipped to deal with this case let alone investigate it. They picked their target early on and stuck with it despite it making no sense she would kill her daughter on Christmas night. The media printed constant lies fed to them by police, ie no footprints in the snow, when you can see clearly there was no snow. The Ramseys wouldn’t allow Burke to be interviewed, when again we see he was interviewed twice, and they allowed him to be questioned by the grand jury.

They even tried to discredit An experienced homicide detective with a 10O% record ( Lou Smit) r.i.p, when they didn’t like him providing evidence against their theory. A man they brought in because of his ability to solve unsolvable crimes.

The CNN documentary cleverly manipulated its viewers by telling us what Burke had apparently said when his mother failed to put the phone down, but if you notice they also flashed the words on the screen. We all know from the many internet heads F…s that you hear, what you see. ( Yanny vs Laurel)

That phone call had been previously listened to by experts, and nothing was found to be in the background. They were simply repeating what they had been told someone thought is said before it was analysed, and claiming they had heard itnthemsekves. They didn’t inform the viewer they had been given a script of what it was originally believed to of said. Burke has been bashe’d to death the poor kid, when he was never a suspect.

The pineapple in the house was also twisted as the autopsy report found grapes, cherries and pineapple in her small intestine. The ingredients of a fruit cocktail!

I could go on but I am not convinced in any theory to say what i think. But I do have a main suspect.
Paula Woodward is biased on the Ramsey's side. I suggest you read more books than just hers. Stop making the assumption that the police were biased against the Ramses. They wanted to find the murderer--this destroyed their careers and the personal lives because of all the overtime they were putting in. They chased leads everywhere.
Lou Smit decided on day 3 of HIS investigation (after he was brought in) that the Ramseys were innocent and declared it. (Do you know the real reason why he was brought into the investigation? I doubt it.) There was no way that Lou could have understood the investigation in three days because there were thousands of pages that he didn't review. (I personally believe that Lou had the case figured out at this point, but wasn't willing to hurt a fine christian family because of his own beliefs.)
I haven't found a reliable source that supports Paul's claim for the fruit cocktail. It was described as fresh pineapple which is very different from what you get from a cocktail. The corner discovered it and I trust the corners' findings. Yes, the contents were sent to a lab, but Paula is so pro Ramsey, I doubt her objectivity.
The experts who initially described the audio tape did find something on it. They reported it that way. Worst of all,a copy of that tape has been released to the public so I take you're experts and raise them with public scrutiny. And besides, experts said it was there before the tape was ever released. That's a truth that can't be simply dismissed.
Without understanding the politics behind the investigation, you can't really understand the investigation. If you can get a grip on that and understand why Lou was really brought in, then you'll be able to get a better understanding of what was going on.
After that, study what was happening in the Ramsey's up to and directly after the murder. Break down every minute based on the Ramsey's depositions of what happened that morning. Note how their stories changed over time. Burke was asleep the whole time. He went to bed--no, John guided him up to his bedroom using the flashlight (John never put the flashlight in his own hands in any of his deposition, but Burke did 20 years later.) Is Burke a credible witness? No. He slept through the whole thing. Then they said his mother woke him. Then they a police officer entered his room but he pretended to be asleep Then they said they said it to protect him. It's clear that Burke was ordered to stay in his room and he needed to pretend to be asleep.
I'm honestly not BDI. I think they wanted to keep him far away from the horrors that took place. The fact is that they didn't think he would be in danger up in his room or at the Whites. What does that say do you?
Two people involved with the investigation at different times wrote about it. They told about their side of the story. Read what they had to say and determine if they're credible or not.
Then when you're at it, ask yourself why Ann Lacy withheld one of the most important parts of the DNA reports.
There's an incredible amount of this investigation that Paula Woodward doesn't address. Instead, she included really crazy theories like there were homeless people living in the Ramsey's basement crawl space. White walls and dirty crawl spaces a few feet off the floor don't logically align. Add to that the unpredictability of children in the house and their friends coming over. There was an alarm system. Anyone close to the Ramseys may have know the alarm wasn't used, but a stranger? Then throw in the closeness of the neighbors. Both neighbors gave reports of seeing and not seeing the Ramsey's home on Christmas night. (The neighbors were close enough to observe the house.) The neighbor in the back alley had dogs that would bark every time someone walked down the alley and yet they didn't notice the dogs barking at all on Christmas night.
I honestly wish this monster was a stranger or someone with a grudge. The truth is the police immediately investigated anyone who would have had a grudge with the Ramseys. Those people were questioned over and over again. Some of them were given lie detector tests and volunteered to take the test. None of them were reported as being deceptive. If you're going to tell me that lie detector tests aren't valid, then you must understand the lengths the Ramsey's went to pass their lie detector tests. You must know the history of their tests before telling me anything about any of this stuff.
Do I know who did it? Whoever did it was a magician who was profoundly skilled at leaving no real evidence behind. (The foodmark on the wall under the broken window was easily attributed to John Ramsey because he said he entered the house that way.) There were no other scuff marks or signs of a stranger entering the house. There was the bootprint in the white mold in the windowless room. And yet, this footprint could have come from a pair of boots from Burk, one of the police officers or someone who removed Christmas decorations. (From Lou's theory, there couldn't have been any possibility of an intruder entering the house from the first floor even though there were 6 points of entry on the 1st floor...all the doors were locked because John said he checked them..then again was he sure? But Lou dismissed that because it was a basement only entry and only a basement entry.)
Okay, this was a TDNA case...don't bother knowing that unless you know what TDNA is, how it's spread and how you don't even need to be in the room in order to put your TDNA on clothing. I've already said that Lacy misused the TDNA reports...and what she did with it...she apologized to the Ramseys even when the scientific world will disagree with her findings.
I'd be thrilled to pin this case on some outside monster. It'd be great if it was some international sex ring or some monsterous pedofile. I'd love to find one clue like Lou found in one of his previous cases absolving everyone in the family. I want that more than anything else. But this is too much of Lou wanted his past glory days when his team found that one fingerprint (that someone on his investigation team found [and that clue that Lou took full credit for]). It's a man who didn't read through thousands of pages of investigation. It's a man who prayed with the suspects in his van and declared them to be innocent because they were good christians. This is a man who swore that he would never allow the Ramseys to be indicted. This is a man who pushed his way into a grand jury investigation with evidence he stole from the investigation...this wasn't a man looking for the truth. It was a man who wanted to declare the Ramseys innocent for his own reasons no matter what.
I wish more than anything else he could have found that monster. Personally, when I finally reached my conclusion, I forever lost my faith in humanity. It's far worse than I could have ever imagined and i wish I would have never gone there.
 

Magnified

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2022
Messages
28
Reaction score
56
Paula Woodward is biased on the Ramsey's side. I suggest you read more books than just hers. Stop making the assumption that the police were biased against the Ramses. They wanted to find the murderer--this destroyed their careers and the personal lives because of all the overtime they were putting in. They chased leads everywhere.
Lou Smit decided on day 3 of HIS investigation (after he was brought in) that the Ramseys were innocent and declared it. (Do you know the real reason why he was brought into the investigation? I doubt it.) There was no way that Lou could have understood the investigation in three days because there were thousands of pages that he didn't review. (I personally believe that Lou had the case figured out at this point, but wasn't willing to hurt a fine christian family because of his own beliefs.)
I haven't found a reliable source that supports Paul's claim for the fruit cocktail. It was described as fresh pineapple which is very different from what you get from a cocktail. The corner discovered it and I trust the corners' findings. Yes, the contents were sent to a lab, but Paula is so pro Ramsey, I doubt her objectivity.
The experts who initially described the audio tape did find something on it. They reported it that way. Worst of all,a copy of that tape has been released to the public so I take you're experts and raise them with public scrutiny. And besides, experts said it was there before the tape was ever released. That's a truth that can't be simply dismissed.
Without understanding the politics behind the investigation, you can't really understand the investigation. If you can get a grip on that and understand why Lou was really brought in, then you'll be able to get a better understanding of what was going on.
After that, study what was happening in the Ramsey's up to and directly after the murder. Break down every minute based on the Ramsey's depositions of what happened that morning. Note how their stories changed over time. Burke was asleep the whole time. He went to bed--no, John guided him up to his bedroom using the flashlight (John never put the flashlight in his own hands in any of his deposition, but Burke did 20 years later.) Is Burke a credible witness? No. He slept through the whole thing. Then they said his mother woke him. Then they a police officer entered his room but he pretended to be asleep Then they said they said it to protect him. It's clear that Burke was ordered to stay in his room and he needed to pretend to be asleep.
I'm honestly not BDI. I think they wanted to keep him far away from the horrors that took place. The fact is that they didn't think he would be in danger up in his room or at the Whites. What does that say do you?
Two people involved with the investigation at different times wrote about it. They told about their side of the story. Read what they had to say and determine if they're credible or not.
Then when you're at it, ask yourself why Ann Lacy withheld one of the most important parts of the DNA reports.
There's an incredible amount of this investigation that Paula Woodward doesn't address. Instead, she included really crazy theories like there were homeless people living in the Ramsey's basement crawl space. White walls and dirty crawl spaces a few feet off the floor don't logically align. Add to that the unpredictability of children in the house and their friends coming over. There was an alarm system. Anyone close to the Ramseys may have know the alarm wasn't used, but a stranger? Then throw in the closeness of the neighbors. Both neighbors gave reports of seeing and not seeing the Ramsey's home on Christmas night. (The neighbors were close enough to observe the house.) The neighbor in the back alley had dogs that would bark every time someone walked down the alley and yet they didn't notice the dogs barking at all on Christmas night.
I honestly wish this monster was a stranger or someone with a grudge. The truth is the police immediately investigated anyone who would have had a grudge with the Ramseys. Those people were questioned over and over again. Some of them were given lie detector tests and volunteered to take the test. None of them were reported as being deceptive. If you're going to tell me that lie detector tests aren't valid, then you must understand the lengths the Ramsey's went to pass their lie detector tests. You must know the history of their tests before telling me anything about any of this stuff.
Do I know who did it? Whoever did it was a magician who was profoundly skilled at leaving no real evidence behind. (The foodmark on the wall under the broken window was easily attributed to John Ramsey because he said he entered the house that way.) There were no other scuff marks or signs of a stranger entering the house. There was the bootprint in the white mold in the windowless room. And yet, this footprint could have come from a pair of boots from Burk, one of the police officers or someone who removed Christmas decorations. (From Lou's theory, there couldn't have been any possibility of an intruder entering the house from the first floor even though there were 6 points of entry on the 1st floor...all the doors were locked because John said he checked them..then again was he sure? But Lou dismissed that because it was a basement only entry and only a basement entry.)
Okay, this was a TDNA case...don't bother knowing that unless you know what TDNA is, how it's spread and how you don't even need to be in the room in order to put your TDNA on clothing. I've already said that Lacy misused the TDNA reports...and what she did with it...she apologized to the Ramseys even when the scientific world will disagree with her findings.
I'd be thrilled to pin this case on some outside monster. It'd be great if it was some international sex ring or some monsterous pedofile. I'd love to find one clue like Lou found in one of his previous cases absolving everyone in the family. I want that more than anything else. But this is too much of Lou wanted his past glory days when his team found that one fingerprint (that someone on his investigation team found [and that clue that Lou took full credit for]). It's a man who didn't read through thousands of pages of investigation. It's a man who prayed with the suspects in his van and declared them to be innocent because they were good christians. This is a man who swore that he would never allow the Ramseys to be indicted. This is a man who pushed his way into a grand jury investigation with evidence he stole from the investigation...this wasn't a man looking for the truth. It was a man who wanted to declare the Ramseys innocent for his own reasons no matter what.
I wish more than anything else he could have found that monster. Personally, when I finally reached my conclusion, I forever lost my faith in humanity. It's far worse than I could have ever imagined and i wish I would have never gone there.

I’m going to respond to this by asking questions and pointing out certain things. I shall title each.

You have made the decision I have only read her book, I certainly didn’t tell you that’s all I had read. Below is a list of what I have read & seen in this case. You have decided Paula is biased but not from what I see she’s isn’t. Can you provide evidence she is bias?


Paulas book.
Perfect town perfect murder.
All documentaries
CNN docu-series
Autopsy report
leaked information
Interview statements
Grand Jury indictment
Dr Phill interview
Lou Smit Documentary
Crime Scene images
Crime scene video
John-mark Karr Interview

Question
Why did the DA choose not to convict if they had the evidence From the grand a jury indictment ?

Question
Why did they bring in Lou Smit? (He didn’t barge his way in either. They tried to stop him testifying). Why? If nothing he said mattered what were they stopping him ?

Comment
His testimony didn’t make any difference as they heard weeks of testimony from many others.

Observation
This was a sadistic crime, no mother would torture their child in this way. Even an evil mother wouldn’t do it this way. Name one who has. I saw the ransom note as more of a continuation of that sadists game to keep enjoying that crime. ( similar to BTK)

Question
Why is it that everybody who says, TRDI or BDI don’t like anything that doesn’t agree with what they think, and it’s biased, but everything that does back their theory up is not biased?

Comment
That PD had no experience to deal with that crime and their lies were exposed even if you don’t like that. They admitted they messed it up. See here.


Comment
Never in my 52 years has a mother ever garrotted their child to death! Never! And what was the motive For such a brutal killing?

Question
Why is there no mention of the $118.000 by the police regarding the fraud at Access Graphics-and the court ordering the fraudster to pay AG that amount? Instead of telling us it’s Johns bonus amount?

Comment
Burke did not own a pair of hi-tec boots. Show me the evidence he did please. And the evidence of the size matching that at the crime scene.( I’m more inclined to believe the police left that print).

Comment
Burkes memory from childhood now can’t be relied on as we remember things very differently years late. False memory syndrome being one thing we all have. On top of that it was traumatic for him.

Question
Why would they cover up an accident by garrotting their child instead of calling for an ambulance if Burke had done this? You have to be willing to say he did it all, if you go down that line. Burke was not at the age of criminal responsibility so why would they take this option?

Comment
While I don’t agree with the entry point that Lou raises, that doesn’t mean that I don’t think there wasn’t an intruder, as you say there were 6 other entry points and people had keys. It doesn’t have to be an intruder the Ramseys don’t know. And with being a Christian family there is no way Patsy would’ve gone to her grave without admitting what she had done and putting herself right before God. No way at all. I grew up in a Christian household and I can assure you you wouldn’t want to go to your meet your maker without confessing as that’s the basic belief’s of Christianity.

Question
This truth that you say that you’ve uncovered of what really happened, would you like to share that?

Thoughts
I am still open and haven’t made a full decision but I am leaning towards a paedophile ring from within the pageant circle.

Comment
John Mark Karr didn’t confess to her murder when he contacted Michael Tracey and only ever said he was there when she died. He wasn’t doing it for intentional attention either, because he contacted him anonymously from across the other side of the world! How did he know about other Paedophile’s within the pageant? ( Randy Simmons) before he was arrested and exposed for child *advertiser censored* ? (all of which he divulged in his tv interview Years earlier).

Even Detective Steve Ainsworth who once said it was the family now says different.He has also said he realised their investigation was floored and wants to reinterview Randy and thinks he may of been responsible. See here.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sted-kiddie-*advertiser censored*-killer.html

Randy was left alone with Jonbenet when her mother went to get pizza, if she was sexually assaulted why are people not look at him as the suspect now we know who he is? instead of accusing her father? He had access to the family home.

Comment
The vitriol & hate I have seen in this case towards her family and Burke has been the worst I have seen and that happened because of the lies being leaked to the media. ( no footprints in the snow) There was no snow!

Comment
Unless you’ve been in a situation so horrific as this you’ve no idea how you would act, and there is no prescribed way of how to grieve. Nor would you know how traumatic amnesia may affect you after, altering memory.( Changing what you say in these circumstances, doesn’t mean you LIED).

Question with Comments.
Why did detectives not look more closely at Linda Hoffman-Pugh? She had no alibi, needed money, they found a piece of rope tied round a stick in their garage similar to the garrotte. The rope fibres found on the knife (only she, Burke and his mother knew where it was). She had the same note pads and pens she stole from theIf house. Leaving a note on the step she knew Patsy would see, as that’s where she left notes for her.

The circumstantial evidences for her to of arranged this crime is for more then the Ramsey’s circumstantial evidence. Was she jealous of them and wanted to make it look like it was Patsy?

Comment
If I was forced to make a decision right now I would say it was a couple of paedophiles who worked within the pageant world that did this. They had links to JonBenet regularly & her home, passed her photographs round the Paedophile scene, and had sexually abused her prior. But there is not enough evidence to accuse anyone!
 

proust20

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
415
Reaction score
684
In assessing this case, one must not omit the autopsy findings that JonBenet had undergone chronic SA. When she was killed, she was already a crime victim. The Rs denied these findings. Patsy said that she didn't remember why she called Dr. Beuf numerous times on one day.

The pineapple rind found in the remains matched what was in the fridge. Also, the autopsy showed that the fruit was consumed around midnight. This is the best marker for the timeline of the crime. The family did not understand its relevance until after the autopsy. They have never been able to rectify this flaw in their narrative. So they muddy the water with various versions.

Any theory concerning the motivation must comport with the evidence: TOD, pineapple, RN, 911 call, size 12s, torn packages, paintbrush, et al.

On CNN, Patsy claimed that there were two people out there who knew what had happened.
 

caradana

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
547
Reaction score
5,564
No. Exceptional book recently out called Sandy Hook, about the pursuit of truth. Please read this book.
 

mom2chloe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
17,193
Apologies but does anyone know if Burke was a Cub Scout? I’m thinking the knots. Thanks in advance!
 

BoldBear

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
652
Reaction score
166
I’m going to respond to this by asking questions and pointing out certain things. I shall title each.

You have made the decision I have only read her book, I certainly didn’t tell you that’s all I had read. Below is a list of what I have read & seen in this case. You have decided Paula is biased but not from what I see she’s isn’t. Can you provide evidence she is bias?


Paulas book.
Perfect town perfect murder.
All documentaries
CNN docu-series
Autopsy report
leaked information
Interview statements
Grand Jury indictment
Dr Phill interview
Lou Smit Documentary
Crime Scene images
Crime scene video
John-mark Karr Interview

Question
Why did the DA choose not to convict if they had the evidence From the grand a jury indictment ?
Apparently, you don't know the background of the case. Alex Hunter was Monty Hall. Alex was excluded from the investigation after too much information was being leaked to the press. That's when Lou Smit came in.
Question
Why did they bring in Lou Smit? (He didn’t barge his way in either. They tried to stop him testifying). Why? If nothing he said mattered what were they stopping him ?
Why didn't they bring in any other investigators for the grand jury? Lou Smit insisted and he used evidence he selectively stole from the case.
Comment
His testimony didn’t make any difference as they heard weeks of testimony from many others.
And yet, he pushed himself into a grand jury investigation when he wasn't asked to testify. He had already said that he would never allow the Ramseys to be indicted.
Observation
This was a sadistic crime, no mother would torture their child in this way. Even an evil mother wouldn’t do it this way. Name one who has. I saw the ransom note as more of a continuation of that sadists game to keep enjoying that crime. ( similar to BTK)
Are you sure you have no evidence that a mother could be sadistic? There are plenty of examples of this happening in the past. This could have been a psychotic break. I also wasn't saying PDI even though I've read several scenarios of how that's possible.
Question
Why is it that everybody who says, TRDI or BDI don’t like anything that doesn’t agree with what they think, and it’s biased, but everything that does back their theory up is not biased?
You're supporting IDI and you dismiss every possible RDI. You support your own bias.
Comment
That PD had no experience to deal with that crime and their lies were exposed even if you don’t like that. They admitted they messed it up. See here.
I know exactly how LE screwed up the investigation. The problem with that is that most websleuths write-off the observations of experienced LE. Not everything they did was completely wrong or a complete flub (to put it gently.) The reports of the Ramseys are consistent from one LE officer to the next. Yes, I can list off the top of my head the mistakes they made, but that should never dismiss everything that was reported unless your intent is to completely assassinate the characters of LE (which so many people wish to do.)

Comment
Never in my 52 years has a mother ever garrotted their child to death! Never! And what was the motive For such a brutal killing?
Yes, I can also identify good people from bad people by standing on a street corner. How many parents have strangled their children to death? How many parents have downed their children? How many parents have killed their children by intentionally beating them to death. Yes, it's extremely rare, but it does happen. (I wish I could live in your world.)
Question
Why is there no mention of the $118.000 by the police regarding the fraud at Access Graphics-and the court ordering the fraudster to pay AG that amount? Instead of telling us it’s Johns bonus amount?
John's friend who embezzled the money from Access Graphics was immediately identified by the Ramseys when this was only a kidnapping case. 'The police knew his name. (What? You thought this was a secret only for the Websleuting community?) And the $118k wasn't the exact amount of the check. But I've got news for you. A 118,000 dollar bonus is a very easy argument between a married couple who are arguing about spending. Remember what Nedra said about JonBenet's tastes when JB selected a chair. Patsy relished having expensive tastes. If John was trying to control her spending, a $118,000 bonus would have been an easy arguing point for Patsy. John, Patsy or anyone around them could have heard it. Another alternative argument is that the $118k was a bragging point. "Oh, John got a $118 thousand dollar bonus this year. Isn't that great." THIS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE SECRET YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT OUT TO BE.
Comment
Burke did not own a pair of hi-tec boots. Show me the evidence he did please. And the evidence of the size matching that at the crime scene.( I’m more inclined to believe the police left that print).
The evidence for this is hearsay. His friends said that they saw him wearing boots with a compass on them.
The boot print could have come from the investigators or someone who was down there getting the Christmas trees. Please identify yourself as an expert on white mold and what leaves such an impression on it. After that, please identify yourself as an expert on what can be caught on the bottom of a shoe that will stop white mold from growing back. You have to put that boot print in the room during the murder.
Comment
Burkes memory from childhood now can’t be relied on as we remember things very differently years late. False memory syndrome being one thing we all have. On top of that it was traumatic for him.
So Burke put the flashlight in John's hands years later. He had no recollection of that when it happened.
There are interviews with Burke not to long after this happened. It's not like he gave a deposition, but he was interviewed. He was asked how his sister was murdered and "surprise" he said that someone either hit her over the head or stabbed her over the head with a knife. A lot of Websleuths believe this is a gotcha moment, but they ignore the comment about downward stabbing (motion) with a knife. None of this convinces me that Burke was there. If he would have ended with "she was struck over the head," then I'd agree. But he may have overheard the stuff about the head wound.
Question
Why would they cover up an accident by garrotting their child instead of calling for an ambulance if Burke had done this? You have to be willing to say he did it all, if you go down that line. Burke was not at the age of criminal responsibility so why would they take this option?
If you've followed this case you've already seen many questions about why John and Patsy would cover this up. Somehow the answers others have reached satisfied them, but it never satisfied me. I don't think any parents so close to emergency responders would do such a thing. I also don't believe the Ramseys were aware of the law, but I still think they would have sought help.
The problem I have with the idea that no one sought help is that "there are other ways of seeking help." What if someone you trust told you...
Comment
While I don’t agree with the entry point that Lou raises, that doesn’t mean that I don’t think there wasn’t an intruder, as you say there were 6 other entry points and people had keys. It doesn’t have to be an intruder the Ramseys don’t know. And with being a Christian family there is no way Patsy would’ve gone to her grave without admitting what she had done and putting herself right before God. No way at all. I grew up in a Christian household and I can assure you you wouldn’t want to go to your meet your maker without confessing as that’s the basic belief’s of Christianity.
Patsy never needed to confess to anything to the police, the press or the public. In Christianity a confession is private between and your priest. You somehow think Patsy needed to confess to the public? (This comment makes me believe that you're not sincere in these comments/questions.)
Question
This truth that you say that you’ve uncovered of what really happened, would you like to share that?
Linda Arndt said she wouldn't every say it. I thought it was because she was afraid of being sued or afraid of her reputation being hurt. It's painful to think about. I understand that now.
Thoughts
I am still open and haven’t made a full decision but I am leaning towards a paedophile ring from within the pageant circle.
Please stick with that theory.
Comment
John Mark Karr didn’t confess to her murder when he contacted Michael Tracey and only ever said he was there when she died. He wasn’t doing it for intentional attention either, because he contacted him anonymously from across the other side of the world! How did he know about other Paedophile’s within the pageant? ( Randy Simmons) before he was arrested and exposed for child *advertiser censored* ? (all of which he divulged in his tv interview Years earlier).
The details he gave about the murder were wrong. He wasn't there. When he was extradited back to the states, he went to prison even without a JB conviction. The original investigators also placed him out of state of Colorado when the murder occured. Mary Lacy didn't do her homework before they brought him back to the US.
Even Detective Steve Ainsworth who once said it was the family now says different.He has also said he realised their investigation was floored and wants to reinterview Randy and thinks he may of been responsible. See here.
Steve Ainsworth. Why don't you ask him what he knows? If he has information then why doesn't he bring it forward? Come on, we're all waiting for an answer. Present your evidence.

Randy was left alone with Jonbenet when her mother went to get pizza, if she was sexually assaulted why are people not look at him as the suspect now we know who he is? instead of accusing her father? He had access to the family home.
This is where dumb meets dumber.
1) I don't know that she was sexually assaulted before her murder. There are many reasons for her autopsy results. The problem is that signs of sexual abuse need much more investigation. That investigation was severely stunted due to the murder investigation and the opposition to the murder investigation. (Randy was a suspect just as every other family member was. He was investigated.)
2) If she was sexually abused before her murder, was that sexual abuse actually connected to the murder?
3) She was abused during her murder due to the evidence of blood and a piece of wood found. (Why are you implying that Randy had anything to do with this. Do you have evidence?)
Comment
The vitriol & hate I have seen in this case towards her family and Burke has been the worst I have seen and that happened because of the lies being leaked to the media. ( no footprints in the snow) There was no snow!
There was snow on the ground (it didn't snow that night). The front and the back footpaths were cleared, but there was some frost.
Comment
Unless you’ve been in a situation so horrific as this you’ve no idea how you would act, and there is no prescribed way of how to grieve. Nor would you know how traumatic amnesia may affect you after, altering memory.( Changing what you say in these circumstances, doesn’t mean you LIED).
There are too many cases where this claim caused investigators to overlook obvious signs (with 20/20 hindsight). Unusual behaviors must be investigated and must not be written off with such a simple dismissal.
It doesn't mean you LIED--it doesn't mean you shouldn't quickly dismiss these details either.
Question with Comments.
Why did detectives not look more closely at Linda Hoffman-Pugh? She had no alibi, needed money, they found a piece of rope tied round a stick in their garage similar to the garrotte. The rope fibres found on the knife (only she, Burke and his mother knew where it was). She had the same note pads and pens she stole from theIf house. Leaving a note on the step she knew Patsy would see, as that’s where she left notes for her.
Hmmm. A woman with children of her own and you're questioning what she was doing on Christmas night. If she had done something she would have been labeled as one of the stupidest criminals. So you're saying that she put her kids to bed, drove to the Ramsey's home and murdered a little girl and somehow managed to get back home. What? The criminal mastermind Lou Smit couldn't figure this out? According to Lou Smit's theory, she arrived at the Ramsey's house early, broke the window and waited around until the family arrived to kill JonBenet. She then survived all the interviews and faked her remorse. That's okay for a theory, but she also managed to survive all the police questioning. And she was such a mastermind to fake her shock when she was told JB was killed. Okay, but I think you need to dig deeper on this theory.
The circumstantial evidences for her to of arranged this crime is for more then the Ramsey’s circumstantial evidence. Was she jealous of them and wanted to make it look like it was Patsy?
Smile. Make it look like it was Patsy. Yes, the RN was written in letters that Patsy would use. Every single one of the handwriting experts the Ramsey's hired were exactly that: hired by the Ramseys. They were under contract--release those contracts so the public can understand what the handwriting experts agreed to. The handwriting experts who say it was Patsy's handwriting are excluding one very important part. The Ransom note was written on sharpie. That means that 1/2 of their analysis is not available. They can't evaluate the same pressure points created by pencils or pens. They're going on the shape and (more importantly) the distinctive quirks of Patsy's handwriting.
Comment
If I was forced to make a decision right now I would say it was a couple of paedophiles who worked within the pageant world that did this. They had links to JonBenet regularly & her home, passed her photographs round the Paedophile scene, and had sexually abused her prior. But there is not enough evidence to accuse anyone!
For me this is more a question of deception. Who applied deception? Exactly what was happening before and directly after the murder of this child? I'd still love to blame this on some monster. Once I put the pieces together, this thing makes me feel sicker inside than I ever thought I could feel.

If it was a couple of paedophiles, then John and Patsy would have been united in going after this person. Do you really think a business man who's admitted to compromising himself for his business would have stopped at nothing to find the murder of his daughter? If John was worried about the safety of his family, he would have flown then out of town, put them in a secure place and then gone right back to Boulder to help.

And don't say we don't know John and Patsy's thoughts. We do. They put it in their own words in their book.
 

permento

New Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2022
Messages
13
Reaction score
4
I really would forget all you think you know bout this case until you read Paula Woodward’s book.

she also address the apartment odd amount asked for by the killer/kidnapper.

There was a man who was fired from access graphics shortly before the murder, and in court the judge ordered him to pay them $118.000

if this was a sadistic killer they get pleasure from harming somebody rather than the sexual act in its self, and that could explain why she was found in the way that she was, but not really sexually assaulted. Theransom letter as everybody has been calling it, may just be part of that sadistic game he was playing to put the parents through more pain.
hm no lol
 
Top