Was This Ever Asked?

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by capps, Jun 7, 2005.

  1. capps

    capps New Member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not long ago I was going through some of the many interviews by the Ramsey's. In one,the interviewr was questioning Patsy about why the alarm system wasn't on;and Patsy replied: "Because we felt safe." I thought that was an incredibly sad statement,and I didn't think much further about it.

    But,for some reason,I thought about that statement again ... and wondered ... Patsy thought it was safe there;the party at Fleet White's house was just down the block,did they lock the doors before going to the Fleet party?

    Were the Ramsey's ever asked that question? I don't remember reading it.

    John was carrying JonBenet into the house ... did he have to fumble with keys to get it open? Did Patsy unlock the door?

    Any one have any details on this?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

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


    The Ramseys used the garage door opener to enter the house. The door from inside the garage to the kitchen area was kept unlocked.
     
  4. capps

    capps New Member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ahh yes ... of course. Thank you BlueCrab,I forgot they came through the garage.
     
  5. Kaly

    Kaly Inactive

    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think that when people stop using their security system, it can be from laziness - not because they actually stop and think, "Oh I feel safe."
     
  6. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How important was it that they closed the garage door before leaving if they felt so safe? The intruder theory does not have to include the basement window , many had keys, Fleet, the Barnhills, the Pughs, among others.
    Capps, I meant to comment on something you posted the other day, it made such good sense, I believe , it may take some of that "good" sense to sort this out. You suggested the ransom note was to leave a message, a message that this wasn't just a random crime, it was more personal that that.
    I'd love for you to share your thoughts on the kind of person who would have such a personal grudge against John that he would kill his child. Or did he choose the child then make it personal to shift the blame to John, in some way leaving him without guilt? Was his message "you made this happen, it's all your fault", something along the line of the typical sociopathic way of never accepting blame?
     
  7. Kaly

    Kaly Inactive

    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really good post! I can't wait to hear Capp's speculations on this! I have always thought the basement window to be too difficult to navigate anyway.
     
  8. capps

    capps New Member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sissi, I appreciate you asking.

    I have posted my (still working on ) theory several times,and no one as much as questioned or discussed it. So, I figured,I was the "low man on the totem pole of theory lists" for this group to even consider it.

    I'll make it some what short and sweet ... I believe the killing was a "Pay Back Time" or We Told You Not To Mess With Us" type of killing. Could it be an important,powerful business associate or friend? Who hired a low life drug addict from the seedy part of Colorado to do the dirty deed?Some drug addicts will do any thing to keep their flow of drugs coming.Maybe this low life was told not to hurt JB,just kidnap her,and things got carried away,and the kidanpping turned into a sexual killing? Maybe,maybe not.

    I've explained what I thought of the ransom note,if you'd like,you can read it in the "Criminal Past" thread.

    From the very start,as soon as JR found JB,he said this was an "inside job",and on that same day,people heard him groan "Why?". He never asked WHO,because he had a pretty good idea of who it was.Not a specific person,but I believe he had it narrowed down.

    This also makes me think that,that is why,when the shock,and horror,and hurt was still fresh ... that they went on CNN.

    They wanted to "talk" to these people in a covert way,to their "face",and ask them "WHY" and "We will find you." (a covert way of saying:and we will get you?)

    After eight years JR may now know the "whys" and "whos". I don't know.

    There are still glitches I am working on ... but there you have it in a nutshell ... do what you want with it.

    Again ... thanks Sissi and Kalypso for askng.
     
  9. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I live in Baltimore, we are (last time I looked) the third most violent city in the U.S.. I live IN the city, many think our streets are little more than a gunsmoke rerun, with gunman offing each other over territory and leadership. While this may often be the case, there is a scarier crime, one that is committed every day, aimed at the families of people who either owe money or are snitches. A few years ago a woman who was trying desperately to rid her block of drugs, was murdered in her home along with all five of her children. Why this made the news, I have no idea, it happens with regularity, perhaps not five children , more often, two or three, but yes it happens so often we don't blink. The rules change as does the "punishment", last year a child was taken by a drug dealer over a bad debt, and just this week two teens are on trial for breaking into a local house, killing three children, almost decapitating the one. Rumor has it, it's a newer hispanic gang operating that kills children for the "sins" of their parents. What these "sins" are should be coming out in the hearings over the next few days. Some are suggesting it isn't drug related, it has something to do with payment for helping a relative cross the border. I do not know how anyone could harm a child over the failings of the adults, but ya have to admit it is likely the most hurtful revenge.

    Don't we feel safe? Most of us thank our god that we are not involved with this dangerous underworld, however there are corporate stories that aren't often shared, that have parallels. I remember a woman in the northwest , who in her fight against a major chemical company, Dow, I believe ,lost her life in the exact same fashion as the "drug snitch" in the city, all five of her children perished in a suspicious fire. We all know the fear that the "whistleblowers" live with, we know of others in protective living situations, and CEO's all over the world KNOW their children are targets of prospective kidnappers.

    We don't know John's sin. If you are right Capps, there has to be someone he hurt badly enough to cause such revenge. It could have been a simple slight, forgetting to pay a crew worker his wages before Christmas, wages owed for work completed on the house. It could have been something far larger, working for a company that sent arms to fight battles in some far off land in an unpopular war. There could have been infringements on others , anywhere between these two. He should know, he should explain any and all possibilities , he needs to give the authorities enough information to send them off on the right track. You may be right, he KNOWS his "SIN".
     
  10. tipper

    tipper Former Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How closely was the painter who caused all the flooding and damage right before the house tour looked at? I would expect he lost his job over that.
     
  11. capps

    capps New Member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But remember ... according to my theory these people are important and powerful,enough so to keep the Ramsey's evasive in their answers to get to the whole truth.

    At one point John said in so many words: "For the rest of my life,my mission will be to find JonBenet's killers."

    This is just my stab in the dark ... but maybe in a very slow,and methodical way ... he is. He tried (and lost) to run for political office. Maybe John's way of thinking is ... let ME get more important and powerful then the people who planned JB's kidnapping/death,then there will be no more holding back.

    It's a thought ....
     
  12. Eagle1

    Eagle1 Former Member

    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe it was a way of saying "I need help," and a way of testing ability to get it, testing their standing.
     
  13. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting! I seem to remember something similar, not the one that caused the flooding but another who didn't complete work. Christmas is a bad time to feel cheated. I often feel LHP&family felt she was cheated , believing John received 118K could have made her feel deserving of a bonus , leaving no need for a loan.
     
  14. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    IMO it's futile to look for an intruder when we KNOW a Ramsey had to be involved in this crime. The Ramseys wouldn't be lying, refusing to cooperate with the investigation, obfuscating simple questions, and covering up, all to protect the identity of an intruder they don't even know. That doesn't make any sense. The Ramseys are covering up because a Ramsey family member is directly involved in the death of JonBenet.

    And there may have been a fifth person in the house that night, but he wasn't an intruder. He was a guest and a Ramsey accomplice -- and perhaps the real killer.

    Interviewing the family of a victim during the first few hours of an investigation is crucial in solving any crime, but the Ramseys, hiding behind a cadre of lawyers, stalled for FOUR MONTHS before allowing the first interview. The Ramseys obviously weren't interested in finding out who killed JonBenet. IMO they knew who killed her from day one. The Ramseys were interested only in saving their own asses, not in obtaining justice for JonBenet, or they would have cooperated fully with the cops.

    Refusing to cooperate by not allowing any interviews for four months proves Ramsey guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. It's futile to look for an imaginary intruder.

    BlueCrab
     
  15. Seeker

    Seeker Former Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I remember one of the Ramsey's stating that they didn't use the alarm because it was so loud and the sound was jarring.
     
  16. capps

    capps New Member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BlueCrab,

    Just as my theory of a powerful important business associate/friend revenging John Ramsey by hiring a low life (intruder) to kidnap (but ends up sexually molesting and killing) JonBenet,makes no sense to you.

    Your theory of a nine year old brother,along with another person, old enough to convict (Jar,NI),molesting and killing their sister/friend,and the parents get involved with a whole over the time cover up ... without the parents ever getting help for BR or trying to convict the older person. Doesn't make sense to me.

    I guess we will have to agree to disagree ... for now.
     
  17. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

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

    Okay capps,

    I agree none of us have all the answers. However, I'm trying to follow Occam's Razor principles and select the simplest and most obvious scenarios based on the credible evidence of which we are aware. For instance, here's three givens:

    1. We know the Ramseys are covering up something. Wouldn't they do this ONLY if a Ramsey family member was involved in the killing?

    2. We know the CBI handwriting experts said John didn't write the ransom note and it was unlikely Patsy wrote it, but they couldn't eliminate BR as the writer. Wouldn't this strongly suggest BR was the writer, but who apparently had help with the wording from an older person ?

    3. We know the DNA eliminates JR, PR, and perhaps BR (the authorities are allowed to legally lie to protect the identity of a juvenile), so that leaves the DNA of an unidentified fifth person in the house that night. Wouldn't the fifth person in the house that night likely be the older person who helped BR with the wording?

    The only way to reconcile these three givens is to accept the theory that BR and an unidentified older person were likely involved in the writing of the ransom note and in the murder of JonBenet.

    BlueCrab
     
  18. lawman

    lawman New Member

    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the dna evidence is dubious i believe.

    i believe it`s possible the dna came from under her fingernails.this could have come from anywhere within the past few days at least.
     
  19. duffy

    duffy New Member

    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This theory seems like such a stretch for me. However, in reading the interview of Lou Smitt and jr, jr is what seems to me evasive when ask about who he thought could have done such a thing. So I give you that in your theory.

    But.......this sort of horrific crime is usually committed because of drugs. Now if jr was somehow involved with drugs and is trying to cover his butt because of that I could feel much better about it. It wouldn't surprise me for jr to be involved in drugs. I have friends who's brother and father were pilots for columbian drug lords and he has told me stories of how easily someone gets killed in a drug deal for the seeming slightest thing. Normal, regular people with lots of money and the front of an import/export business.

    I am really tired right now and took meds to sleep so I am going to have to look at this tomorrow.

    I'll get back to you. I really don't want to be so stubborn as to not be able to re-think my belief that pr did it.



    link for jr interview with Lou Smitt
    http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm
     
  20. Kaly

    Kaly Inactive

    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Blue Crabb, you keep saying that part of the proof that the Ramseys were covering for someone is because they hid behind their attorneys for so long. Again, I strongly disagree with this reasoning. I don't think it proves anything. There may be other events that show they were covering up, but I still say that they hired attorneys right away because they were educated and weathy and smart.

    Again, if someone had died in my home and I were rich, I would immediately hire attorneys to advice me. The problem of overzealous cops and overzealous prosecutors is very, very real. And with the way that the Boulder cops honed in on the Ramseys so intensely, if they hadn't hid behind their lawyers, they could have been arrested and possibly even convicted on flimsy evidence because of media and public pressure.

    Don't get me wrong; I don't know and can't decide either way on their guilt or innocence, but this one point I feel very sure about.

    Kaly
     
  21. narlacat

    narlacat Former Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But remember ... according to my theory these people are important and powerful,enough so to keep the Ramsey's evasive in their answers to get to the whole truth.

    At one point John said in so many words: "For the rest of my life,my mission will be to find JonBenet's killers."

    This is just my stab in the dark ... but maybe in a very slow,and methodical way ... he is. He tried (and lost) to run for political office. Maybe John's way of thinking is ... let ME get more important and powerful then the people who planned JB's kidnapping/death,then there will be no more holding back.

    Capps
    I think your theory is more than feasible. I dont have a theory as such and can go along with alot of the ones getting around on this forum, but yours really makes sense to me.
    Ive always wondered what possible reason JR could have to run for office...I didnt believe what he said his platform was.....and how he hoped to right what happened to JB with winning office and I couldnt imagine why he would want to attract any more attention his way.
    To me, it could look like someone took JR's most precious possession and to me, its easy to see why someone would want to. You dont get to be a self made multi millionare by being a 'nice' person. You get to the top by screwing people usually.
     

Share This Page

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