Page 2 of 29 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 338
  1. #13
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    oh for god's sake. All the evidence against the Ramseys and we're quibbling over where a note was started on a pad of paper? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  2. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel XVI
    [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.
    What I see is a lot of speculation inclusive of speculation about
    speculation. What I don’t see is the issue. It was either an
    intruder or the Ramseys. Even Looney Louie comprehends this much.
    My question is are you simply saying you feel there was an
    intruder, or do you think there is evidence of an intruder. If
    the latter, would you please list the alleged evidence and answer
    some questions about it?

  3. #15

    Default

    THe Ramseys weren't searched or interrogated that morning, IIRC they were told to leave and they went to a neighbor's house. They easily could have left the house with the missing pages, or any other evidence they had on them.

  4. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel XVI
    To all:

    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.
    umm... ok then, how would a pageant parent know about the $118,000 bonus?

    This just seems to be spinning out in random directions.

    The most logical, simple and rational explanation tends to be the right one, so what seems more likely? That the Rams did this and covered it up, or that an outsider somehow broke in undetected and lounged about for hours going through this complicated staging of the body and writing this ransom note that purposely draws attention to an outsider while stopping to snack on some pineapple, all without making a sound or leaving a mark? Ah, yes, and the perp also took the time to open a brand new pack of bloomies and dress the girl in these gigantic panties... its all too much, its too absurd.
    Occam's Razor... "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."

  5. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Daniel:
    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.
    Very easily, Daniel. I often leave a pad on my kitchen table, to note down things I need at the supermarket. as I'm going through my day, if I am in the kitchen, I could receive phone calls, and with a list of items already on the top sheet, I often open the pad in the middle and start taking notes, or if I want to remember something else, I will also break the pad open anywhere it opens. This way, I am not disturbing the top sheet with my list on it. This, I do a lot, so Patsy Ramsey may well have done exactly what I did, maybe wanting to see if this was a better statement than she had written on the top sheet, and then she made sure she tore it out. Simple! Plus wouldn't you be a bit harrassed if it was you in Patsy Ramsey's situation? I think so! Staging can't be 100% perfect, I'm thinking!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  6. #18
    BobC is offline Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript and Book Reviewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,435

    Default

    I think we should look at every single person other than the two people who were present in the home--you know, the two who never have been cleared. Good call!

  7. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,107

    Default

    oh for god's sake. All the evidence against the Ramseys and we're quibbling over where a note was started on a pad of paper? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
    BobC, you get to the point. Every time.

    How's life, by the way?

  8. #20

    Default

    Dear Easy:

    "What I see is a lot of speculation inclusive of speculation about
    speculation. What I don’t see is the issue. It was either an
    intruder or the Ramseys. Even Looney Louie comprehends this much.
    My question is are you simply saying you feel there was an
    intruder, or do you think there is evidence of an intruder. If
    the latter, would you please list the alleged evidence and answer
    some questions about it?"

    --If it wasn't any of the Ramseys, then ipso facto it was an intruder. Who's arguing otherwise? The Ramseys would not implicate themselves with the $118,000 figure, the extrapolated speculation fits right in.

    It amazes me how some here can try to contend my argument is "absurd." I recall reading here about two years ago and someone actually contended that Burke Ramsey had written the ransom note! A nine-year-old kid? He was a prodigy?

    Although I gave a few suggestions as possibilties, I don't know the exact source of the personal greivence of the perp towards the family. That is not going off on a tangent.

  9. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    378

    Default

    In my post #12, I said: 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.

    To continue the thought, here's an excerpt from Schiller's Perfect Murder, Perfect Town: pb p.578

    "That same week, Lou Smit received a letter from John Ramsey, who gave the investigator his list of suspects in his daughter's murder: Jeff Merrick, Mick Glynn, and Jim Marino - all of whom had once worked for him - and Bill McReynolds, who had been Santa at their Christmas party."

    In the fake ransom note, the Ramseys used the approximate amount of John's bonus to try to point the finger AWAY from themselves and toward other people, people who knew about the bonus. In case these "suspects" didn't pan out, John also named Bill "Santa" McReynolds.

  10. #22

    Default

    Dear Bob C:

    With your apparent interest in and attention to detail, I can only pray you're not a parachute rigger--or in law enforcement.

    I take it you're not a Columbo fan.

    The $118,000 figure is no "little detail," and neither are its attendant points regarding the paper, pen and where it had been written in actuality.

    John Ramsey was intelligent enough to build a prosperous life for his family and himself. If he had complicit with his late wife in a cover-up for whomever, one would certainly think he would have reviewed the note after his wife had written it, or maybe even dictated it to her.

  11. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vic
    BobC, you get to the point. Every time.

    How's life, by the way?
    Ditto that; Im with Bob and Vic
    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

  12. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Eastern North Carolina
    Posts
    2,322

    Default

    Tril - 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.

    Very interesting... one of my biggest problems with a Ramsey writing the "ransom note" has always been the naming of the $118,000. First, why would a Ramsey point the finger at him/herself by naming a figure that only they and a few co-workers would know? And second, neither Patsy or John is stupid enough to believe a kidnapper would only ask for $118,000. However, if he/she was trying to point a finger at a co-worker, that makes a little more sense.

    BTW, while I don't for a minute believe a "stranger" killed JBR, I don't reject out-of-hand the possibility it was not John or Patsy. I just haven't heard a theory yet that makes me say, "yeah, that makes sense."



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
  •