What is the general consensus?

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by gemini666, Apr 20, 2005.

  1. gemini666

    gemini666 New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hello everyone.
    I have been interested in this case for years, and have read a few of the books, but a while ago.
    I'm a mere novice compared to you lot, though!
    I just wondered what the overriding opinion is?
    I always thought it could be Burke, but that Patsy wrote the note.
    I see on here that Burke may have had a friend over to stay, didn't know about that.
    Also, was there any DNA found on the vaginal swabs? Or was the 'sexual assault' done post mortem, just to make it appear that she had been molested by an intruder?

    I'd love to hear you thoughts, sorry if you've heard it all before.....
     
  2. Loading...


  3. narlacat

    narlacat Former Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Gemini
    That a Ramsey isnt involved in this case,is just ridiculous. Their lies and their behaviour prove that to me.
    IMO Burke did it and the parents covered up for him. The parents covered for someone and it doesnt make sense that they would cover for an intruder.
    Im just not sure if Burke did it by accident by himself or if Doug Stine was there,one thing led to another and they both accidently killed JB .
    Doug being there would explain the Stines strange behaviour. I ve only just realized that the Stines werent there the morning of the 26th. I had just assumed they were ,i wasnt paying enough attention.....if they were such good friends why werent they called that morning like everyone else?
    They were good enough friends to follow the Ramsey's to Atlanta. Who moves interstate just because their friends do?
    And why was Susan Stine sending phony emails about the place....
    Ive got alot of questions where the Stines are concerned.

    Im not real good on the scientific stuff,but ill try and answer your questions and then if im wrong lol,someone will come and correct me or elaborate on what i say.
    There was only one teesny weensy bit of DNA and it was in her underwear .It didnt match any of the Ramseys. Also there was DNA under one of her fingernails which didnt match a Ramsey also.
    I think the evidence is that the sexual assault happened whilst she was alive. Im confused as to whether they found 'prior sexual abuse'. I think the experts disagree on that.
     
  4. gemini666

    gemini666 New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for taking the time to reply!
     
  5. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

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

    narlacat,

    I agree with most of which you posted. However, there were two spots of JonBenet's blood in her panties, and from them some male DNA was found mixed in with her blood. The source of the male DNA in the panties is unknown. There was also foreign DNA found under JonBenet's fingernails (not just one fingernail).

    There was definitely prior sexual abuse. A panel of six experts, after studying the autopsy report and the microscopic slides taken during the autopsy, unanimously agreed there had been prior abuse to JonBenet.
     
  6. K777angel

    K777angel New Member

    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My number one theory is that Burke was involved in his sister's injuries and death (accidental death) and his parents - particularly his mother - helped stage and cover up the crime.

    My secondary theories involve John and/or Patsy.
    I still find it odd that to this day the Ramseys have sued the media for libel several times on behalf of Patsy and Burke - but NEVER on behalf of John.
    WHY?????
     
  7. dingo

    dingo Former Member

    Messages:
    13,720
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi everyone,im new at posting but i have been following this forum for a while.I am a believer in the RDI theory basically because of the lies told by them also by patsys lack of knowledge of what really happened that day,shes very vague about everything .If my daughter was murdered especially on christmas day ,im certain i would remember every detail.Patsy cant seem to recall things a mother should know such as , did jonbenet bathe that day,what did she have for lunch,what did she have for dinner at the whites .The little things mums are supposed to know.i find it strange that JBR had nothing in her stomach christmas night when most children [ that i know] would be snacking all day on the christmas goodies.Just seems strange to me..Im thinking something happened earlier in the day to put her off her appetite.A good mother would make sure her child had something to eat,and a hungry child doesnt usually go into a coma like sleep on the car ride home.No wonder she was looking for the pineapple when she got home Im sorry if im covering old ground on my first post ,really enjoy reading all your theorys and ideas and im still learning
     
  8. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

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

    Hi Angel,

    Due mainly to the lies and coverup being perpetrated by the Ramseys to protect Burke, and the pineapple evidence, my primary theory is along the lines of yours, BDI, with the exception that there was likely a fifth person in the house that night and that accomplice could have been the actual killer. There's too many crime scene items missing from the house, and a fifth person in the house removing the items is the most logical explanation for it.

    My secondary theory would involve JAR. IMO either JAR or NI was the builder of the erotic asphyxiation device found wrapped around JonBenet's neck, and one of them was also likely the kid's mentor on how to use it. The Dr. Seuss book, the fibers from JonBenet, the blanket from his bed with his semen on it, all found in JAR's blue suitcase in the basement, is extremely suspicious. IMO the EA device was also kept in the blue suitcase, but was removed by the children and used to sexually experiment with it on the night of the killing. The result was the accidental asphyxiation of JonBenet.

    BlueCrab
     
  9. cappuccina

    cappuccina Former Member

    Messages:
    1,186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occam's Razor Approach...(the simplest and most logical explanation has the greatest chance of being closest ti the truth)...

    Mama R was strressed out from the holidays, plus she had to pack for the next morning's plane trip...JBR probably woke up after they brought her in sleeping, and wouldn't go to sleep, and/or was having toileting issues...Mama R flew into a rage, atarted screaming at daughter, grabbed her and dragged her in a blind fury and then bashed daughter's head in with flashlight (not premeditated, but certainly in character for this very "seething", controlling mom...)...Mama panics, and stages cover-up (remember, she is the drama queen, and she had most of the night to do it....) Hubby either stays gorked out on melatonin (which he testified he took that night), and doesn't wake up 'til morning, or wakes up at some point and helps out. I think poor Burke woke up a couple of times at least and wondered what the hell was going on....Either way, Papa R knew what happened by the time the police arrived...

    End of story....no intruder....

    Just my l'il ol' humble opinion of course...
     
  10. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

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


    Welcome dingo,

    You brought up some good points about Patsy's behaviors. Patsy is either lying or has alzheimer's about 40 years before her time. It's an interesting point you bring up about no food in JonBenet's stomach or small intestine (except for the recently eaten pineapple). She ate the cracked crab meal around 6 or 7 PM, and it was in the large intestine when she died. There was nothing even snacked on after eating dinner -- a period of about 6 or 7 hours (assuming she died around 1 AM).

    Incidentally, with a hat like "dingo", you gotta be an Aussie -- correct?

    BlueCrab
     
  11. wenchie

    wenchie Former Member

    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm sort-off new here, too (although I've lurked a lot).


    I think that some of the biggest clues in this are in Patsy's interviews. Her "side" likes to show bits & pieces of her last police interview, and I think that's a big mistake. She's as fake as Scott Peterson - only more flamboyant (and therefore more telling).

    "We all need to work on this together". Really, Patsy? That's why you wouldn't speak to the police for over two years? Just HOW are you going to work together with the police? Do you have some more information that you never bothered to mention before? You've already slandered and thrown accusations on most of your friends and acquaintances. What else do you have up your sleeve? How about just pulling it out instead of sitting there talking about "working together".


    "To solve this thing". Not......"to find my daughter's murderer"......to SOLVE this THING. Sounds like she means RESOLVE - in her favor. No anger at the murderer. No frustration that he/she's walking the streets. Just more movie-script lines. And, if John and Patsy have already told everything they know - what could they do now to help "solve this thing". She offers nothing.....


    "I don't give a flying flip what you have - go back to the damned drawing board". Sounds like more typical Peterson-style arrogance. No questions? No....."What?!? what do you think you have? That's impossible! Let me see it!". Just her giving the detectives orders on how to run their investigation.


    But the most telling of all (next to the ransom note, which IMO is a full written confession) was on their first press concert: Patsy saying "at least TWO people know about this"....while John looks down (and looks worried).

    Why TWO people, Patsy? Do child predators usually tell someone what they've done? Do they tell just "someone"? Why not THREE people....or FOUR? I thought it was "a small foreign faction"? Didn't the ransom note say "we". Now it's....."the person who did this and someone they might have told".

    Because.......TWO people did know about it. I think it was also a message to John: "See? I didn't do this. People who do something like this always tell someone, and I haven't told you anything." But.....of course he knows....
     
  12. TLynn

    TLynn New Member

    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have to believe the pineapple evidence as it's really the only hard evidence in the case - and it's the victim speaking to you. To deny the pineapple is to deny what JonBenet is telling you.

    I don't believe JonBenet even went to bed that night - my deduction is from the crime scene photos of JonBenet's bed.

    It's been so long, but it may even be fact that Burke said he saw JonBenet walk up the stairs (not being carried asleep) with Patsy behind her.

    I don't know who killed her; however, I do believe it was within the house. Not an intruder - mainly from the above points.

    I tend to believe JAR was involved - if only his alibi was hammered...but negotiations with the Ramseys for an interview "cleared" JAR without a full investigation. There's a ton of circumstantial evidence that points to JAR - including (what Blue Crab mentions) - his semen found at the crime scene.
     
  13. K777angel

    K777angel New Member

    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi BlueCrab,

    You know I have a transcript (somewhere) of an interview Geraldo Rivera did with Alex Hunter I believe shortly before Hunter retired.
    Geraldo asks him if there is "evidence of an intruder" and it's curious how Hunter responds.
    He says, 'There IS some evidence of intruder BUT - we are NOT looking only in the house... the case is much more complicated than that.'
    Or words to that effect. I can find the transcript if someone wants exact quote.
    Anyway, I think that is something that cannot be ignored. For years we've heard those involved in the investigation from Hunter to Dr. Henry Lee to Mike Kane on say that this case is very "complicated."
    Now, a simple domestic familial homicide would not be characterized as "complicated." Nor would you need to state that the evidence they have is not only IN the home - but elsewhere as well.
    The question is: WHERE?

    I remember years ago there was a persistent rumor (by a poster named Lake I believe) that this crime was committed by JUVENILLES. Plural. And covered up.
    Another rumor I recall, and goes along with the juvenille theory is that there were several kids outside playing during Christmas day at the White's and somehow JonBenet got shocked on an electric fence. Anyone else remember this?
    Who knows what that was all about.

    As for the JAR theory - I don't buy that one at all. His alibi was secure and he was cleared. States away at the time of the crime.
    And he was old enough to be prosecuted in Colorado.
    His semen present on a blanket in the house where he had a bedroom and lived sometimes is no suprise given his age. There is no evidence whatsoever that that suitcase or contents (in a totally different room from where JonBenet was found and the crime was done and/or staged) had anything to do with the crime. The blanket and book could have been put in there at some other time by the kids when they were playing.
    I am confident that JAR was thoroughly investigated by the police and nothing was found to incriminate him.

    Patsy was knee-deep in staging and covering up the crime and I do not believe she would have gone to those lengths for John Andrew.
    Burke? Yes.
    Herself? Yes.
    John? Perhaps - but most likely not.

    Something motivated the Ramseys to cover-up the crime and stage the crime scene. It is simply a given that they did this much at least.
    So the question must be asked - WHO would they go to such lengths for?
    Not only with the risk involved - but the incredible sum of money they've spent to keep it up.
    Who?
    For me, all indications suggest either Burke or Patsy.
    ~Angel~
     
  14. Thorkim

    Thorkim Member

    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I agree with you Bluecrab, 100%.
     
  15. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

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

    Angel,

    Yes, Lake was a poster on Websleuths who had repeatedly argued that Burke killed JonBenet, and there was a young friend of Burke's also involved. I am convinced (but please remember, it's only my opinion) that Lake was Mark Olshaker, John Douglas' co-author on most of the books that John Douglas wrote. Douglas was hired by John Ramsey, of course, but it's interesting in his analyses of the killer Douglas said, "The killer is probably a young male."

    BlueCrab
     
  16. narlacat

    narlacat Former Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Dingo
    Im an aussie too...
    I agree with you about Patsy...wheres her head at?? Like you dont remember if your child had a bath before they went out to a christmas party, what they had for lunch that day....simple stuff.
    Patsy was very clever not to be pinned down on....anything.....she neatly avoids such questions with 'I dont remember'.
    Patsy cant remember if JonBenet had a bath that day, but she does remember the outfit she wore and the disagreement they had over what she was going to wear.
     
  17. concernedperson

    concernedperson Former Member

    Messages:
    14,796
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That should tell you everything you need to know about Patsy. Can you tell I am not a fan?
     
  18. dingo

    dingo Former Member

    Messages:
    13,720
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    hi bluecrab,correct i am an aussie
     
  19. wenchie

    wenchie Former Member

    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why would the police or the DA protect juveniles? It looks like some people are implying that if a juvenile commits a murder, they cannot be charged.

    There may be particular laws concerning when a juvenile can be charged with First Degree murder, but nothing that I know of that would give a juvenile protection from being "called" on it, or that would leave them free to do it again.
     
  20. Voice of Reason

    Voice of Reason New Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, wenchie, there is a law in Colorado which protects children under 10 from prosecution. If Burke comes out and says, "I killed JonBenet in cold-blood and I did it on purpose," he cannot be prosecuted. When you're under 10, the state of Colorado does not feel that you are mentally capable of committing a crime, and therefore, you cannot be charged with one.
     
  21. wenchie

    wenchie Former Member

    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But they wouldn't just let it slide....cover it up.

    They would have to do SOMETHING about it. They can't just let a known murderer walk the streets and maybe do it again.

    I realize that there are closed hearings and closed records in some states when something like this occurs, but they'd never just ignore it or help to cover it up.

    Never.....

    If the juvenile couldn't be charged with "murder", they would be charged with something else under the juvenile statutes.
     

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