Page 1 of 29 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 338
  1. #1

    Default Why Ramseys *and* Karr must be innocent

    [What follows is an edited version of a note I posted on another forum with little JB interest. I believe that the piece of evidence that at first glance seems most damning against the Ramseys is to the contrary what exonerates them--and Karr and anyone else without a personal connection to the family and a familiarity with their house, habits and schedule that fateful night.]

    One of the Ramseys' most passionate accusers is former Boulder detective Steve Thomas, who resigned in reported disgust that Alex Hunter, then Boulder DA, refused the indict Mrs. Ramsey (and possibly her husband). He has written a best-selling account of the case.

    What is interesting to me is that in his scenario--Mrs. Ramsey, on the third floor of the house, bashed her daughter's head against what was probably a porcelain surface, such as a bathtub or toilet, in a fit of unpremeditated rage over JonBenet having wet her bed, coupled with stress from the holidays; and then, thinking the child was already dead, simply panicked and staged the cover-up, carrying the child to the basement, strangling her as crime scene staging and embellishment, and writing the ransom note--I find at least two curious elements that seem exculpatory to me instead.

    "Thomas theorized that Patsy then went upstairs to the kitchen to write the ransom note, using one of her own writing tablets and a felt-tipped pen that she kept there on a counter. She "flipped to the middle of the tablet, and started a ransom note, drafting one that ended on page 25. For some reason she discarded that one and ripped pages 17-25 from the tablet. Police never found those pages. On page 26, she began the 'Mr. & Mrs. I,' then also abandoned that false start. At some point she drafted the long ransom note. By doing so, she created the government's best piece of evidence." [Emphasis mine. Source referenced below.]

    I stressed the sentences noting that there were several missing pages from the writing tablet in the Ramseys' kitchen from which the ransom note was written. Apparently, the pages in the tablet were numbered. In relating how Det. Thomas believes that Mrs. Ramsey flipped the tablet towards the middle of it, then presumably started a first draft of the note on page 17; then
    presumably decided to try again, tearing out pages 17-25 before beginning again on page 26, Det. Thomas simply falls back on: "For some reason." But what reason?

    Why would Mrs. Ramsey or an intruder writing the note then and there have started in the middle of the tablet? Why (and how) would she had somehow destroyed the initial false start but not the second one which was left at the scene? It doesn't sound likely at all. More likely is what I speculated before.

    A family acquaintance had lifted the paper and pen previously, and took a section from the middle of the tablet; a sufficient section for practice runs--perhaps practice runs at both writing a note that would seemingly implicate the Ramseys with its contents, and by trying to make it look like Mrs. Ramsey writing the note, while trying to disguise her handwriting in the process, as well.

    Pages missing from the middle of the tablet--especially if taken a short time before the planned time of the crime--would not likely be noticed by Mrs. Ramsey, nor a cheap pen being missing. Leaving the "false start" pages was deliberately calculated to further the impression that the note had been written then and there, thus further implicating the Ramseys.

    The Ramsey family had had a party on the night of December 23rd which numerous friends and acquaintances had attended. This case has nothing to do with pedophilia. The motive is clearly some personal grievance, either social or business related. It has every hallmark of a spite killing; a killing directed towards one or both of the Ramseys; tragically an innocent child was made to bear the all terrible price of this demented mind. A perceived social snub would seem likely in this context. A disgruntled former employee or associate of Mr. Ramsey is another candidate.

    The second aspect of Detective Thomas's theory that seems unlikely is that he maintains that the child skull was bashed upstairs, and not in the basement. But then what about the scream of a child a neighbor reported having heard during the night? Could the neighbor had heard the scream on the third floor of a house in winter with the windows closed and the heat on? Where was the blood trail from Mrs. Ramsey subsequently carrying the child
    downstairs?

    For that matter, Det. Thomas makes much of the fact that Mrs. Ramsey had on the same dress, when friends and then the police arrived, she had had on the night before when the family was at the house of close friends for Christmas, by way of incriminating her. (The implication seems to be that she had never gone to bed that night.) Where were the blood stains on her dress?

    On the other hand, if the child's skull was fractured in the basement, then, as Lou Smit proved, because a heating exhaust tube led outside, it acted similar to a megaphone, thus accounting for why the neighbor had heard the scream. Detective Thomas maintains--and this seems conclusive--that although still alive after the head wound, the child never regained consciousness. Thus, the scream must have come at the time of the head wound.

    Here is the reference for the remarks attributed to Detective Thomas:

    http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

    I believe that Detective Thomas failed, in forming his theory of the crime, to grasp the implications of his own points. To wit: Why would either one of the Ramseys or an intruder start to write the note in the middle of the stationary pad? Why the missing pages while the "false start" pages were left?

    If one of the Ramseys had ripped out the missing pages for whatever reasons, and somehow disposed of them (tearing and flushing? burning and flushing?), then why leave the "false start" pages other than to deliberately suggest that the note was written then and there which could only implicate themselves?! Why would the killer use the seemingly bizarre $118,000 figure if not to deliberately implicate the Ramseys? Why would the Ramseys implicate themselves?

    The killer took pages from the middle of the tablet for the obvious reason that they would not likely be noticed as missing if taken a short time before the intended crime. The December 23rd party seems an obvious time. We are talking about a very clever and very vicious person.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    Who do you think killed JB, Daniel? Obviously someone at the party on the 23rd, and obviously an acquaintance of the family. So, why don't you tell us who your suspect is.
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,632

    Default

    I won't speak to the Thomas theory of your post, but I couldn't help but be struck immediately when you ask why anyone would tear pages out of the middle of a pad.

    I can only tell you my personal writing habits. I do a lot of writing on my job and if I have to use a NEW pad, for me it is a little too high and being comfortable when I write is very important, as I am very penmanship conscious. I will, when using a new pad, flip to the middlish part of the pad, flipping the first part over and using that until the pad is comfortable enough to use from the top down. If you were to see my desk, you would find several pads with the front part of them flipped over.

    It is important, at least for me, to be very comfortable when I am writing, with just the right height and cushion under my pen.

    Having said that, while I don't know this to be a fact, I can only assume that I am not terribly unique and that there certainly might be that same type of writing comfort need for many, Patsy being only one of them (sorry, couldn't resist)

    That's just my take on that part of the inquiry
    PATSY RAMSEY WROTE THE RANSOM NOTE
    SHE WOULDN'T DO THAT FOR AN INTRUDER.
    PLEASE READ CHEROKEE'S ANALYSIS

    http://66.98.176.96/~tricia/forums/s...ead.php?t=6404

  4. #4

    Default

    Daniel writes: "Where was the blood trail from Mrs. Ramsey subsequently carrying the child downstairs?

    Jonbenet's head injury was a closed wound. There was no external bleeding.

    As to choosing the middle of the pad, I do this frequently if I am writing a letter. Silly, but I think the pages in the middle of the pad appear cleaner and have less wrinkles or curled edges. Also when my children were small, they often scribbled or colored on the few first pages.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    827

    Default how about

    Maybe the person who wrote the note knew they would be tearing the pages out and hoped if they were torn out of the middle of the pad it wouldn't be noticed that it was torn from that particular pad -if torn from the front of the pad the tears would be discovered easily and compared.

    While sitting here typing this it seems silly to me that someone would be naive enough to think every scrap of paper in the house wouldn't be scrutinized but maybe they thought the focus would be waiting for a ransom call or maybe they didn't have much choice in what paper to use. I think there must have been quite a bit of panic going on that night.

  6. #6

    Default

    I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but there are a few problems with your theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel XVI
    Why would Mrs. Ramsey or an intruder writing the note then and there have started in the middle of the tablet? Why (and how) would she had somehow destroyed the initial false start but not the second one which was left at the scene? It doesn't sound likely at all. More likely is what I speculated before.
    Not necessarily. Many people remove pages from the middle of pads to make grocery lists or to write down addresses or phone numbers. Its not uncommon.

    A family acquaintance had lifted the paper and pen previously, and took a section from the middle of the tablet; a sufficient section for practice runs--perhaps practice runs at both writing a note that would seemingly implicate the Ramseys with its contents, and by trying to make it look like Mrs. Ramsey writing the note, while trying to disguise her handwriting in the process, as well.
    Here's the thing: If the writer of the note were trying to implicate Patsy, why write a note claiming to be an outsider? Doesn't make sense.
    As for disguising the handwriting, don't you think that an aquaintance or friend trying to implicate Patsy would want to imitate her OWN handwriting? If it was premeditated (as you seem to be implying), wouldn't the perp have had plenty of time to practice imitating Patsy or John's own handwriting?

    The second aspect of Detective Thomas's theory that seems unlikely is that he maintains that the child skull was bashed upstairs, and not in the basement. But then what about the scream of a child a neighbor reported having heard during the night? Could the neighbor had heard the scream on the third floor of a house in winter with the windows closed and the heat on? Where was the blood trail from Mrs. Ramsey subsequently carrying the child
    downstairs?
    As far as I know, there's no absolute evidence that the blow to the skull occured in the bedroom, or even the basement for that matter. The kitchen seems much more likely since the flashlight was there along with the pad and pen.

    For that matter, Det. Thomas makes much of the fact that Mrs. Ramsey had on the same dress, when friends and then the police arrived, she had had on the night before when the family was at the house of close friends for Christmas, by way of incriminating her. (The implication seems to be that she had never gone to bed that night.) Where were the blood stains on her dress?
    I find it odd that any woman remotely concerned with her appearence should wear the same clothes to travel that she wore the night before to a party.

    On the other hand, if the child's skull was fractured in the basement, then, as Lou Smit proved, because a heating exhaust tube led outside, it acted similar to a megaphone, thus accounting for why the neighbor had heard the scream. Detective Thomas maintains--and this seems conclusive--that although still alive after the head wound, the child never regained consciousness. Thus, the scream must have come at the time of the head wound.
    There is no reason to assume there even was a scream... she didn't even see it coming, probably didn't realize what was happening IMHO.
    Occam's Razor... "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    I AWAYS open a writing pad to the middle for the same reason 5JOE5 does - I want clean, pristine pages, which the first few pages of a writing tablet that has been used seldom are.
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Southern Silicon Valley !!
    Posts
    2,285

    Exclamation Hi Daniel,

    and welcome to the forum. Have you been following this case for any length of time either here or on some other web site?

    The reason I ask is that I find a few tiny flaws in your theory. If I may here are some of them...a family acquaintance took the middle of the writing tablet? Which one and why would they do that? What gave you that clue?

    A trail of blood....Oh dear that is a tough one but there wasn't any blood anywhere except for very tiny droplets in JonBenet's underpants. Her head blow was closed so no blood was leaking or splattered. In fact when the coroner did her autopsy I believe he was stunned to see the head wound as it didn't show on the outside.

    And you state that the killing was a personal grievence. Where do you find that motive...in the ransom note? Couldn't it have been a ruse to throw off the investigators? Well those are the first things that stand out to me right off the bat. I do hope you have been reading here or on the great web site A Candy Rose where she has files on everything there that pertains to this case. If you haven't been there I hope you do go over and discover what a treasure chest it is. You might want to rethink your assessment of this case.

    Oh and if all of what you mention goes to the Ramseys then where is your defense of John Karr? Everything you mention is Ramsey stuff.
    "When are we going to get our heads out of the sand and understand that sometimes really nice people who look good on the outside are dastardly on the inside." Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor, MA

  9. #9

    Default

    To all:

    You have all focused on just taking the pages from the middle of the pad, but not also the missing pages. Still less, the bizarre $118,000 figure, a clear attempt to implicate the Ramseys. The RDI adherents seem to be content with attributing a curious mixture of cleverness and stupidity to one or both the Ramseys. All of these factors taken in aggregate paint a rather clear picture.

    I have no specific suspect. It would be reckless to accuse anyone without proof. I only suggest the DA's office and police look at presumed friends, business associates and employees and acquaintances who had been to the Ramsey home and were familiar with it and the family. I would suggest looking closer rather than farther.

    Also, another possibility might be another parent of a child on the "beauty contest" circuit. Remember the Texas cheerleader mother case?

    The perp could be a man or woman. Neither would surprise me.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    Are you so sure that every person at that party on the 23rd wasn't investigated properly? If so, why do you think that they weren't investigated inside and out? Why do you think that investigators failed to check out all acquaintances and friends of the Ramseys? That doesn't even make sense.

    You're right - it would be very reckless to accuse acquaintances at that party without proof.
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  11. #11

    Default

    Dear Zoomama:

    Thank you for your welcome. It is appreciated.

    "A trail of blood....Oh dear that is a tough one but there wasn't any blood anywhere except for very tiny droplets in JonBenet's underpants. Her head blow was closed so no blood was leaking or splattered. In fact when the coroner did her autopsy I believe he was stunned to see the head wound as it didn't show on the outside."

    --All right. I'd rather focus on the main thrust of my argument, the note.

    "And you state that the killing was a personal grievence. Where do you find that motive...in the ransom note?"

    --The motive is the ransom note. It was intended to implicate the Ramseys.

    "Couldn't it have been a ruse to throw off the investigators? Well those are the first things that stand out to me right off the bat. I do hope you have been reading here or on the great web site A Candy Rose where she has files on everything there that pertains to this case. If you haven't been there I hope you do go over and discover what a treasure chest it is. You might want to rethink your assessment of this case."

    --I shall and perhaps, but I doubt it. Leaving the "false start" pages but not the missing pages seems conclusive to me. The killer had to make it seem that the note had been written then and there, which, of course, seems absurd if the killer had been an intruder. That was the whole point.

    "Oh and if all of what you mention goes to the Ramseys then where is your defense of John Karr? Everything you mention is Ramsey stuff."

    --I'll answer your question with another one. Do you think Karr had any personal connection to the Ramseys at all, aside from his possible delusions? That is why I say he too must be innocent in the argument I present here.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    378

    Default

    After Det. Linda Arndt confirmed that JonBenet was dead, John Ramsey was reported to have groaned and said "It must have been an inside job." Seems an odd thing to have popped out of his mouth at that time.

    I think an "inside job" was what the Ramseys were going for by using the approximate amount of John's bonus in the fake ransom note. They were trying to point the finger at someone at Access Graphics who might have known the amount.



Similar Threads

  1. Karr--what to say? Karr's Lawyers: Porn Case Can't Go on - No Evidence
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: October 7, 2006, 5:26 pm, Sat Oct 7 17:26:18 UTC 2006
  2. 'Scott Peterson Is Innocent'
    By "J_R" in forum Laci Denise Rocha Peterson
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 1, 2004, 2:54 pm, Mon Nov 1 14:54:42 UTC 2004
  3. 'Scott Peterson Is Innocent'
    By Moab in forum Laci Denise Rocha Peterson
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 26, 2003, 2:59 pm, Sat Apr 26 14:59:42 UTC 2003

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •