Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112
Results 133 to 144 of 144
  1. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    Maybe Patsy threw the book into the suitcase with the blanket. Nobody here knows when or under what conditions that occurred.

    You know, when I found out that someone on topix repeatedly called fr brown a pedophile (on the hilarious basis that I was a priest), my first thought was that if my real name had been used, I would be suing for defamation.

    John Andrew isn't a public figure. He hasn't tried to implicate the maid or family friends. The evidence against him as either a pedophile or a murderer is virtually non-existent. Shouldn't we be a little careful with his reputation?
    Well, fr brown, guess you can figure I've heard that argument before. And I couldn't disagree more.

    First, the college friends of JAR's were named in the article, which appeared in the Daily Camera. They never said JAR was obsessed or creepy or questioned him in any way; they just spoke of their concern that he was "missing" and how much he loved her, etc. So no malicious gossip from an anonymous source there.

    JAR's arrest record for underage drinking was a matter of record. Everything else I sourced or stated as gossip and gave a counter-argument for, as well.

    But for anyone looking at the evidence in this unsolved case, with the Ramseys lawyering up and obstructing the investigation at every turn, it's hard to imagine that JAR would not raise a brow. Did I mention for about the 100th time that the research, documented and available to all, is that older brothers are the highest percentage of molesters of siblings? I didn't make that up, and it would be foolish of LE to ignore those facts in such a case during their investigation. They did investigate JAR, after all, for the murder. Whom they investigated for the prior molestation, we've never heard a peep, for obvious reasons.

    But we're not stupid. The Ramseys sure didn't mind discussing many "suspects" who never even met the Ramseys before and didn't know they existed until the murder. Their minions put some of those people on TV and made them LOOK guilty.

    So sorry, no tears for JAR's trials and tribulations at the hands of whoever molested JonBenet and whoever murdered her. I've never said I know JAR committed any crime against JonBenet. I just looked at the evidence and, like I have with dozens of other alleged suspects, tried to work a theory out from the evidence.

    The autopsy facts in evidence are that JonBenet was molested before that night. Sure, anyone, including John, JAR, Burke, White, other friends and family, and even Patsy could have done that. So until someone confesses or witnesses to the truth, all we can do is speculate. The Ramseys and their spinners sure as hell have.

    As for me, there is no way IN HELL I am ever going to believe Patsy didn't know about it. And there is also no way in HELL I'm going to believe that Patsy Ramsey wrote a ransom note to cover up for Fleet White or anyone else outside her immediate family.

    So I've got as much right as the Ramseys to speculate on who committed these crimes and this murder. As long as I'm not making up evidence to maliciously incriminate someone to ruin his/her reputation when I know he/she is innocent, then I'm within my constitutional boundaries. I base all discussion and theories on the evidence as I understand it, and since I can't say who did what, I've never claimed anyone absolutely did this or that, other than Patsy wrote the note, which I believe with every scintilla of intelligence and reason I possess.

    So unless freedom of speech has changed since I last looked, I have that right. The Ramseys won a law suit over this very right, if you remember, when they named names of several people as suspects, on TV and in their book.

    And since I believe and will until I die that at least one of them knew exactly who molested and murdered JB, then publicly implicating people who at least one of them KNEW to be innocent is the very definition of malicious libel and slander.
    Last edited by koldkase; September 7, 2010, 12:55 am at Tue Sep 7 0:55:43 UTC 2010.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  2. #134

    Default

    Okey dokey, then. Patsy's dead and can't sue, so....let's just let her take all the credit. Because in addition to having molested and murdered her child singlehandedly, she also has managed to end free speech in America. Oh, she was brilliantly evil, I'll give her that with no reservations. If there's a Devil, she's his concubine now, no doubt.

    So no need to bother with any of this anymore.

    And by all means, never say another Ramsey name. They can't be mentioned; even though they F*CKed all the poor, dead, and vulnerable RST "intruder, ninja, suicide, male stripper, maid, gardener, craftsmen, working class, impoverished, or full-on-freak-show suspects" named, investigated by the RST fame-wh0re PIs, and then paraded by the Ramseys, Smit, and Tracey in a book and on TV for all time as all but certain to be child molesters and/or killers. No worries about their lives, families, or reputations. How are they going to sue, poor suckers?!

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  3. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Well, fr brown, guess you can figure I've heard that argument before. And I couldn't disagree more.

    First, the college friends of JAR's were named in the article, which appeared in the Daily Camera. They never said JAR was obsessed or creepy or questioned him in any way; they just spoke of their concern that he was "missing" and how much he loved her, etc. So no malicious gossip from an anonymous source there.

    JAR's arrest record for underage drinking was a matter of record. Everything else I sourced or stated as gossip and gave a counter-argument for, as well.

    But for anyone looking at the evidence in this unsolved case, with the Ramseys lawyering up and obstructing the investigation at every turn, it's hard to imagine that JAR would not raise a brow. Did I mention for about the 100th time that the research, documented and available to all, is that older brothers are the highest percentage of molesters of siblings? I didn't make that up, and it would be foolish of LE to ignore those facts in such a case during their investigation. They did investigate JAR, after all, for the murder. Whom they investigated for the prior molestation, we've never heard a peep, for obvious reasons.

    But we're not stupid. The Ramseys sure didn't mind discussing many "suspects" who never even met the Ramseys before and didn't know they existed until the murder. Their minions put some of those people on TV and made them LOOK guilty.

    So sorry, no tears for JAR's trials and tribulations at the hands of whoever molested JonBenet and whoever murdered her. I've never said I know JAR committed any crime against JonBenet. I just looked at the evidence and, like I have with dozens of other alleged suspects, tried to work a theory out from the evidence.

    The autopsy facts in evidence are that JonBenet was molested before that night. Sure, anyone, including John, JAR, Burke, White, other friends and family, and even Patsy could have done that. So until someone confesses or witnesses to the truth, all we can do is speculate. The Ramseys and their spinners sure as hell have.

    As for me, there is no way IN HELL I am ever going to believe Patsy didn't know about it. And there is also no way in HELL I'm going to believe that Patsy Ramsey wrote a ransom note to cover up for Fleet White or anyone else outside her immediate family.

    So I've got as much right as the Ramseys to speculate on who committed these crimes and this murder. As long as I'm not making up evidence to maliciously incriminate someone to ruin his/her reputation when I know he/she is innocent, then I'm within my constitutional boundaries. I base all discussion and theories on the evidence as I understand it, and since I can't say who did what, I've never claimed anyone absolutely did this or that, other than Patsy wrote the note, which I believe with every scintilla of intelligence and reason I possess.

    So unless freedom of speech has changed since I last looked, I have that right. The Ramseys won a law suit over this very right, if you remember, when they named names of several people as suspects, on TV and in their book.

    And since I believe and will until I die that at least one of them knew exactly who molested and murdered JB, then publicly implicating people who at least one of them KNEW to be innocent is the very definition of malicious libel and slander.

    koldkase,
    I have a question for you. You believe PR definitely wrote the ransom note (I'm fairly certain). You believe it's possible that JAR could've been the one who was molesting JBR (I believe this is possible, too).
    If both are true, what's your theory on why PR would cover for JAR? Or maybe this is better. What's your theory on how the two fit into this crime?

    Thanks in advance for any thoughts you could provide.

  4. #136
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    koldkase,
    I have a question for you. You believe PR definitely wrote the ransom note (I'm fairly certain). You believe it's possible that JAR could've been the one who was molesting JBR (I believe this is possible, too).
    If both are true, what's your theory on why PR would cover for JAR? Or maybe this is better. What's your theory on how the two fit into this crime?

    Thanks in advance for any thoughts you could provide.
    As for me, my 2 cents (for what it's worth) is that the only way Patsy would cover for JAR is if her own son BR was somehow involved as well. I can't imagine JR persuading her to do it just for his son, but I suppose he could argue about how their lifestyle might be impacted by the sh*tstorm that would surround them if she refused to cover for him.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  5. #137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    koldkase,
    I have a question for you. You believe PR definitely wrote the ransom note (I'm fairly certain). You believe it's possible that JAR could've been the one who was molesting JBR (I believe this is possible, too).
    If both are true, what's your theory on why PR would cover for JAR? Or maybe this is better. What's your theory on how the two fit into this crime?

    Thanks in advance for any thoughts you could provide.
    Well, DeeDee has the idea, basically.

    But let me first say--as I always do, if not obviously enough, then in my signature at the bottom of every post--this is just one theory, one among many I have pondered through the years, and may be 100% off the target. Without further evidence, I cannot say for certain exactly who did what that night, except that I believe Patsy wrote the note.

    Briefly on the topic of Patsy's ransom note: just how much coincidence can one murder have before people see that it's not coincidence at all, but goes beyond a reasonable doubt to prove a fact of evidence? Is it truly possible that the ransom note facts are as follows, yet was written by someone other than Patsy?

    The ransom note:

    1. was written on Patsy's paper, with her pen, in handwriting which matched hers on so many elements she could not be excluded as the writer and should have been named the writer were the experts not too nervous to go up against the Ramsey big lawyer guns;

    2. took some time to compose and write, including at least two drafts while sitting in the Ramsey home without much fear of discovery or why take all that time to write a simple ransom note;

    3. included personal family references only someone in the inner circle would know;

    4. was linguistically identical to the Ramseys' language habits displayed not only in their public speaking for years, but more directly in Patsy's handwriting exemplars, one of which included the phrase "two gentlemen" when extemporaneously writing about the two agents sitting at the table with her.

    All that alone implicates Patsy Ramsey as the ransom note writer. But add in the additional pure, undisputed forensic evidence leading back to the home and family, not the least of which is the autopsy finding of prior molestation, the Ramseys' evasive behavior and obstruction of the investigation, the countless documented lies they told LE in the investigation of the murder, and no intruder found in 14 years. Come on. Who in their right mind doubts that Patsy Ramsey was in this up to her turtleneck?

    So how could she or why would she help cover up for JAR if he were the molester? Because he wasn't the killer.

    Play it out: let's say JAR was found to be...maybe in his mind, just playing around, no big deal. The injuries to her vagina were consistent with finger penetration, after all. Maybe he was able to convince himself he wasn't hurting her. Whatever; it wouldn't matter what he was thinking, but it had gone on for awhile. Then let's say Patsy figured it out, maybe found blood in her underwear, desperately called Dr. Beuf after hours on Dec. 17, three times in an hour--and JAR takes a quick flight out of town on Dec. 19 to some unknown destination, only turning back up in the timeline on Dec. 24th in Atlanta.

    Let me repeat, I'm only speculating here. JAR may be a saint for all I know.

    But it is my opinion that someone was molesting the child before the night of her death, based on the autopsy evidence which I believe is inarguable on that point.

    So to continue the theory from that forensic evidence: it is also a fact that JAR did have access to the victim at various times during the general timeline when the prior abuse, indicated by the autopsy exam and tissue samples, occurred. John Ramsey was his father and Patsy his stepmom since early childhood, and while there were reports he didn't live in the home full time, he had a bedroom called "JAR's room" only steps from JB's, he had possessions in the home, and we all know about the suitcase, duvet, and Dr. Seuss book that is evidence in this case. He certainly stayed in the home at times, even bringing friends, one who admitted he stayed in JonBenet's room, as well, according to Thomas. So that's opportunity.

    JAR also had the means, meaning he had the physical ability to carry out the molestation. Well, who didn't? She was six.

    But JAR wasn't in Boulder on Dec. 25th, unless he pulled a James Bondian escapade, and there's no evidence to back that up. So, as Thomas said, barring a Harrier jet in his mother's backyard, it's pretty conclusive that JAR wasn't the person who bludgeoned or strangled JonBenet.

    Yet if JAR had committed the crime of sexual molestation against JB, any expert in the field will tell you this act carries a huge stigma for both the perpetrator and victim. It also causes a great deal of guilt, shame, and humiliation for the family, especially the parents who blame themselves for not protecting the child. Still more perplexing, it causes a great deal of anger at both perp and victim. Often the victim is pressured by the family to keep silent or risk being exiled, separated from home, and accused of destroying the family, etc. Sometimes the victim is blamed for enticing the perp. Even innocent children are treated with jealousy and bitterness sometimes by their own devastated parent.

    These are facts, not speculation; this is why child molestation is so easy to get away with, after all. Nobody wants to hang that dirty laundry out for the public. What a nightmare: to be exposed in such a shocking scandal, involving doctors and lawyers and court hearings. Even when names aren't published, articles are, and neighbors and friends and teachers and others can put two and two together. Neither the family nor the victim imagines this is what they want to experience. The perp is quite happy not to have to go to jail and be a registered sex offender, as well.

    So imagine Patsy Ramsey contemplating having her family dragged through that. Miss West Virginia. Boulder wife of rich and successful CEO of a Lockheed Martin company. Mother of pageant queen JonBenet--victim of incest?

    But someone was molesting JonBenet, and the evidence is that Patsy was frantically trying to call the pediatrician on Dec. 17th. Blood in the panties? Inappropriate behavior? Something could have tipped Patsy off. Patsy's dear friend, Mrs. Archuleta, told a reporter only a year or so ago that Patsy complained that JonBenet "flirted" and was "too friendly." Mrs. Archuleta also told the reporter that John and Patsy argued about the pageants. Remember that Mrs. Archuleta was not disparaging the Ramseys, believes them innocent. But there it is, another huge coincidence: Patsy expressed to friends her six year old is behaving inappropriately, in a sexually provocative manner, and the child turns up molested and murdered, with evidence of long term abuse.

    Come on. How can anyone who wants this child molester and killer caught ignore this mountain of evidence that shortens the list of suspects to a very few?

    Someone was molesting the child, Patsy found out, and then within a short time, the child is found molested and murdered in the home. The cause of death was overkill. The cover up is obvious.

    So why would Patsy cover up, write a ransom note, if JAR was the one who started the family down this path to devastation?

    Because JAR didn't kill the child, so someone else in the home that night did. All Patsy would have covered up for JAR was a lesser crime, by comparison.

    Whoever was molesting JonBenet in all probability at least was indirectly responsible for the murder in that the tension was so great it caused someone to attack JonBenet in some deadly aggression that night. So Patsy was covering up for that person, or herself, primarily, for a murder. Covering up the prior molestation was just to hide what was driving the dynamic that led to the murder.

    Because to know who was molesting JonBenet before that night is to unravel the whole mystery.

    And one more thing: I don't believe that JonBenet was molested the night she was murdered except as a cover up for the previous molestation. If she had been molested that night as a sexual act, then why use the paintbrush? No need, it would have already been done. I think the paintbrush was used because the person who used it couldn't bear to do it with his/her actual hand. It wasn't sexual.

    So it's a theory. Neither better nor worse than any other I can construct, and there are several more that I can.

    Whoever started this by molesting JonBenet, someone decided to finish it that night. As hard as it is for me to imagine what that person (or persons) was using as reason, the sequence of events went like this: head blow disabled her; laid her on her back in basement next to paint tray; paintbrush shoved in; wiped off blood and redressed, replacing panties with Bloomies; rolled her onto her stomach; cord tied on neck from behind, paintbrush broken and tied onto cord; strangled; wrist cords applied, along with duct tape; laid in cellar room on blanket; door latched; ransom note written; 911 called.

    The timing of, and between, events is critical. Ramseys home around 9 pm give or take; TOD around 12 to 1 am; pineapple eaten 10 to 30 min's before death; 911 called a few minutes before 6 am.

    The hardest part for me to figure out is intent. If the head blow and strangulation came within half an hour of each other or less, how can it not have been premeditated murder? Unless both were done by a minor child, of course. Could Burke have done this? He wasn't unable, physically, but was he able mentally or intelligently to figure out how to attack his sister in such a brutal method? I can't answer that because no one else has ever said much about it, other than the tabloids long ago, and I didn't read them back then, nor do I trust them. Some people do think it was Burke, though.

    For that matter, JAR could have been the molester and Burke, angered because his big brother was taking the heat Burke may have perceived JB caused, attacked her. That's two sons to protect. Or maybe John had one of these roles. Both his and Patsy's fibers were found at the crime scene in incriminating places, according to various reports. Or maybe it was all Patsy and Brother Moon is right.

    The one person I believe is conclusively linked to the murder is Patsy--through the ransom note.

    Well, Learnin. Is that what you wanted to know? Of course, I'm probably wrong on lots of it, but with what I know, that's the best I can do. It's pretty useless speculation, really.

    Since LE doesn't seem to be able to do any better, either, it's destined for the unsolved mystery files.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  6. #138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Well, DeeDee has the idea, basically.

    But let me first say--as I always do, if not obviously enough, then in my signature at the bottom of every post--this is just one theory, one among many I have pondered through the years, and may be 100% off the target. Without further evidence, I cannot say for certain exactly who did what that night, except that I believe Patsy wrote the note.

    Briefly on the topic of Patsy's ransom note: just how much coincidence can one murder have before people see that it's not coincidence at all, but goes beyond a reasonable doubt to prove a fact of evidence? Is it truly possible that the ransom note facts are as follows, yet was written by someone other than Patsy?

    The ransom note:

    1. was written on Patsy's paper, with her pen, in handwriting which matched hers on so many elements she could not be excluded as the writer and should have been named the writer were the experts not too nervous to go up against the Ramsey big lawyer guns;

    2. took some time to compose and write, including at least two drafts while sitting in the Ramsey home without much fear of discovery or why take all that time to write a simple ransom note;

    3. included personal family references only someone in the inner circle would know;

    4. was linguistically identical to the Ramseys' language habits displayed not only in their public speaking for years, but more directly in Patsy's handwriting exemplars, one of which included the phrase "two gentlemen" when extemporaneously writing about the two agents sitting at the table with her.

    All that alone implicates Patsy Ramsey as the ransom note writer. But add in the additional pure, undisputed forensic evidence leading back to the home and family, not the least of which is the autopsy finding of prior molestation, the Ramseys' evasive behavior and obstruction of the investigation, the countless documented lies they told LE in the investigation of the murder, and no intruder found in 14 years. Come on. Who in their right mind doubts that Patsy Ramsey was in this up to her turtleneck?

    So how could she or why would she help cover up for JAR if he were the molester? Because he wasn't the killer.

    Play it out: let's say JAR was found to be...maybe in his mind, just playing around, no big deal. The injuries to her vagina were consistent with finger penetration, after all. Maybe he was able to convince himself he wasn't hurting her. Whatever; it wouldn't matter what he was thinking, but it had gone on for awhile. Then let's say Patsy figured it out, maybe found blood in her underwear, desperately called Dr. Beuf after hours on Dec. 17, three times in an hour--and JAR takes a quick flight out of town on Dec. 19 to some unknown destination, only turning back up in the timeline on Dec. 24th in Atlanta.

    Let me repeat, I'm only speculating here. JAR may be a saint for all I know.

    But it is my opinion that someone was molesting the child before the night of her death, based on the autopsy evidence which I believe is inarguable on that point.

    So to continue the theory from that forensic evidence: it is also a fact that JAR did have access to the victim at various times during the general timeline when the prior abuse, indicated by the autopsy exam and tissue samples, occurred. John Ramsey was his father and Patsy his stepmom since early childhood, and while there were reports he didn't live in the home full time, he had a bedroom called "JAR's room" only steps from JB's, he had possessions in the home, and we all know about the suitcase, duvet, and Dr. Seuss book that is evidence in this case. He certainly stayed in the home at times, even bringing friends, one who admitted he stayed in JonBenet's room, as well, according to Thomas. So that's opportunity.

    JAR also had the means, meaning he had the physical ability to carry out the molestation. Well, who didn't? She was six.

    But JAR wasn't in Boulder on Dec. 25th, unless he pulled a James Bondian escapade, and there's no evidence to back that up. So, as Thomas said, barring a Harrier jet in his mother's backyard, it's pretty conclusive that JAR wasn't the person who bludgeoned or strangled JonBenet.

    Yet if JAR had committed the crime of sexual molestation against JB, any expert in the field will tell you this act carries a huge stigma for both the perpetrator and victim. It also causes a great deal of guilt, shame, and humiliation for the family, especially the parents who blame themselves for not protecting the child. Still more perplexing, it causes a great deal of anger at both perp and victim. Often the victim is pressured by the family to keep silent or risk being exiled, separated from home, and accused of destroying the family, etc. Sometimes the victim is blamed for enticing the perp. Even innocent children are treated with jealousy and bitterness sometimes by their own devastated parent.

    These are facts, not speculation; this is why child molestation is so easy to get away with, after all. Nobody wants to hang that dirty laundry out for the public. What a nightmare: to be exposed in such a shocking scandal, involving doctors and lawyers and court hearings. Even when names aren't published, articles are, and neighbors and friends and teachers and others can put two and two together. Neither the family nor the victim imagines this is what they want to experience. The perp is quite happy not to have to go to jail and be a registered sex offender, as well.

    So imagine Patsy Ramsey contemplating having her family dragged through that. Miss West Virginia. Boulder wife of rich and successful CEO of a Lockheed Martin company. Mother of pageant queen JonBenet--victim of incest?

    But someone was molesting JonBenet, and the evidence is that Patsy was frantically trying to call the pediatrician on Dec. 17th. Blood in the panties? Inappropriate behavior? Something could have tipped Patsy off. Patsy's dear friend, Mrs. Archuleta, told a reporter only a year or so ago that Patsy complained that JonBenet "flirted" and was "too friendly." Mrs. Archuleta also told the reporter that John and Patsy argued about the pageants. Remember that Mrs. Archuleta was not disparaging the Ramseys, believes them innocent. But there it is, another huge coincidence: Patsy expressed to friends her six year old is behaving inappropriately, in a sexually provocative manner, and the child turns up molested and murdered, with evidence of long term abuse.

    Come on. How can anyone who wants this child molester and killer caught ignore this mountain of evidence that shortens the list of suspects to a very few?

    Someone was molesting the child, Patsy found out, and then within a short time, the child is found molested and murdered in the home. The cause of death was overkill. The cover up is obvious.

    So why would Patsy cover up, write a ransom note, if JAR was the one who started the family down this path to devastation?

    Because JAR didn't kill the child, so someone else in the home that night did. All Patsy would have covered up for JAR was a lesser crime, by comparison.

    Whoever was molesting JonBenet in all probability at least was indirectly responsible for the murder in that the tension was so great it caused someone to attack JonBenet in some deadly aggression that night. So Patsy was covering up for that person, or herself, primarily, for a murder. Covering up the prior molestation was just to hide what was driving the dynamic that led to the murder.

    Because to know who was molesting JonBenet before that night is to unravel the whole mystery.

    And one more thing: I don't believe that JonBenet was molested the night she was murdered except as a cover up for the previous molestation. If she had been molested that night as a sexual act, then why use the paintbrush? No need, it would have already been done. I think the paintbrush was used because the person who used it couldn't bear to do it with his/her actual hand. It wasn't sexual.

    So it's a theory. Neither better nor worse than any other I can construct, and there are several more that I can.

    Whoever started this by molesting JonBenet, someone decided to finish it that night. As hard as it is for me to imagine what that person (or persons) was using as reason, the sequence of events went like this: head blow disabled her; laid her on her back in basement next to paint tray; paintbrush shoved in; wiped off blood and redressed, replacing panties with Bloomies; rolled her onto her stomach; cord tied on neck from behind, paintbrush broken and tied onto cord; strangled; wrist cords applied, along with duct tape; laid in cellar room on blanket; door latched; ransom note written; 911 called.

    The timing of, and between, events is critical. Ramseys home around 9 pm give or take; TOD around 12 to 1 am; pineapple eaten 10 to 30 min's before death; 911 called a few minutes before 6 am.

    The hardest part for me to figure out is intent. If the head blow and strangulation came within half an hour of each other or less, how can it not have been premeditated murder? Unless both were done by a minor child, of course. Could Burke have done this? He wasn't unable, physically, but was he able mentally or intelligently to figure out how to attack his sister in such a brutal method? I can't answer that because no one else has ever said much about it, other than the tabloids long ago, and I didn't read them back then, nor do I trust them. Some people do think it was Burke, though.

    For that matter, JAR could have been the molester and Burke, angered because his big brother was taking the heat Burke may have perceived JB caused, attacked her. That's two sons to protect. Or maybe John had one of these roles. Both his and Patsy's fibers were found at the crime scene in incriminating places, according to various reports. Or maybe it was all Patsy and Brother Moon is right.

    The one person I believe is conclusively linked to the murder is Patsy--through the ransom note.

    Well, Learnin. Is that what you wanted to know? Of course, I'm probably wrong on lots of it, but with what I know, that's the best I can do. It's pretty useless speculation, really.

    Since LE doesn't seem to be able to do any better, either, it's destined for the unsolved mystery files.
    Wow! Thanks so much for taking the time to express these thoughts. You've forgotten more about this case than I'll ever learn (Learnin).

    I agree with you that PR seems to be all over this ransom note. But, one of the reasons I haven't chocked it up as 100% as of yet, is precisely because it does seem so obvious. As you pointed out, kk, it was written on her pad and with her pen. It contained knowledge about the family, etc. I've always wondered how someone could be so stupid as to stage a crime using ones own items.

    I've always held out one theory which has someone trying to implicate the Ramseys. This is down about four (in order of probability)on my list of theories but I still keep it because of what I said in the first paragraph. If this theory is correct, I believe JR knows who it was.

    On the other hand, it could simply be the work of a woman who was in panic mode and this is probably the most likely scenario. But, if this be the case, then, I have serious doubts that JR was involved in any of the staging. You have to think that JR would've said, "Hey, you can't write the blasted thing on your own paper!" In this scenario, maybe PR did recently discover JBR's abuse, which led to major anxiety attacks, and a horrible incident that night. She staged the whole thing and JR only gradually became aware of what had happened after discovering the body around 10 a.m. on his trip to the basement.

    I keep remembering, and it is very significant to me, about Shapiro's account of a telephone conversation between JR and him. Shapiro informed JR that he did not think him guilty of JBR's death. He, then, told him he thought PR was implicated. According to Shapiro, John just remained silent for a while and then they changed the subject.

    But, if this be the truth, why did JR go along with PR's crime? It must be that either he or JAR or BR were guilty of JBR's abuse. Did PR finally coax the awful truth out of JBR that night when getting her up for the bathroom? Is this what made her snap? Or did she catch BR and JBR in something?

    DID PR DO LAUNDRY IN THAT BASEMENT LAUNDRY ROOM? JBR had lint and dust on her feet. She had to sustain that head injury somewhere close to a room where there was dust and lint on the floor..most likely a tile, wood or linoleum floor. WAS THERE A BATHROOM DOWN THERE? She must've picked up some dirt or lint and was shortly struck. After the blow, it is sure she would never have been on her feet again.

  7. #139

    Default

    But, it's possible the game plan was to implicate an "insider" and JR and PR was involved in the whole coverup. In this scenario, the gameplan would have been to cast suspicion on a number of their acquaintances by writing a ransom note on paper and pad from their home, using things only someone close to the family would know, etc.

    If this be the case, then, it must mean that BR was involved in the initial assault during a sex game that JBR protested against.

    At any rate, this is another case where money can supercede justice. They had enough, I believe, to slap handcuffs on PR and would've done so on another mother who worked at Wal Mart.

  8. #140

    Default

    Some thoughts that just occurred.

    If BR was playing around with his sister that night, and if BR had some unknown DNA on his hands, couldn't that explain the unknown DNA showing up in the crotch of those underwear and the longjohns?

  9. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    Some thoughts that just occurred.

    If BR was playing around with his sister that night, and if BR had some unknown DNA on his hands, couldn't that explain the unknown DNA showing up in the crotch of those underwear and the longjohns?
    Of course it could.

    Remember Ollie Gray, the PI who used the Ramsey case to get advertising money can't buy while shilling for the Ramseys, not to mention, who was employed by the Ramseys? He also worked with Smit for some time in a PI company, when Tracey was churning out the Ramsey "intruder" infomercials. When that "touch" DNA red herring was highly publicized by "no comment" Lacy, Ollie was on a talk show, maybe Nancy Grace or some such, with a panel of about half a dozen people discussing this "new development." Out of the blue, Ollie offered that the DNA could have come from the paintbrush, which was shoved into the child and therefore could have gotten on the Bloomies, in the blood spots, on the hands of the perp who used it, and onto the longjohns.

    There are just so many ways that kind of infinitesimal matter could have been transferred to the clothing, it's absolutely asinine to throw out the rest of the evidence and say that "touch" DNA--which it took them 10 years to even find, it was so minute--proves an intruder was the killer. You have to really, really, REALLY mean never to solve the case to make such a misleading statement--which Hunter, Lacy, Smit, Tracey, and Team Ramsey have done everything in their power to make sure never, ever will happen, IMO.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  10. #142

    Default

    Yes, there was a bathroom in the basement, which LE in fact dismantled during their investigation.

    There was a laundry room in the basement, as well, and Patsy insisted to LE she laundered clothes for the family plenty.

    JonBenet could have gotten lint and dirt on her feet before or after the Whites' party. We only have Patsy's word that JonBenet didn't take a bath before she went, which means we don't really know.

    What someone once asked, and I have no answer, did JonBenet have that white mold on the bottom of her feet? Was a sample of the dirt on her feet taken for processing? I've never heard anyone speak to this question who would know, so I have no answers. But that might be important.

    I have often wondered if someone was using that blanket found in JAR's suitcase in the basement, to lay down with JonBenet, read her a book in the basement to lure her into a vulnerable situation while the others slept upstairs, or something like that. Is that why the suitcase was used under the window, in case LE found evidence on the blanket or body that matched? There was a chair right there, after all, so why wouldn't an "intruder" use that to attempt to climb out a window, instead of a suitcase which would have been unstable at best?

    Obviously I don't believe any intruder used anything in the home, but while staging the scene to look like an intruder was there, why use the suitcase instead of the obvious chair, if all you 're trying to do is stage an exit? Was it to imply that the killer tried to put JonBenet in the suitcase? Lou Smit sure fell for that. Fool.

    I saw a true crime show once where four elements of staging were listed. I think I wrote about it here. One thing that I remember: in staging the crime scene to look like an intruder is the guilty party, a trail used to exit is usually created.

    But why the suitcase and not a simple chair? It's been speculated, and it's a theory, that different elments leading to different members of the family were used to confuse things.

    About Patsy's note pad and pen: what else did she have? Whose pen and pad was she going to use? She could hardly run to the all night store and purchase these. All she had in the house belonged to the Ramseys. If she used John's, how was that going to help when they had to know he surely would be the prime suspect once the molestation was found. Was she going to implicate Burke by getting into his school supplies? What intruder would have rifled through the children's school materials to write on? The pad was right there in the hall, along with the pen on the desk; if you're going to blame an intruder and you have to use something from the house to write a ransom note on, it seems to me that the pad and pen in plain site would be more likely to be used in such a circumstance by an intruder--which was the idea.

    I do think Patsy was trying to point the finger at particular suspects in writing the note. She used John's business in the first paragraph to set up a large body of suspects, from terrorists to competitors or people with grudges, which every company is going to have disgruntled employees, etc.

    She did put some thought into the ransom note, which the missing pages of the "practice note" prove. What ransom note writer sits down to compose the note at the home of the victim and writes at least two drafts, 2.5 pages long? Not some stranger/intruder who could not predict that no one would show up unexpectedly at this busy home with lots of family and friends in and out all the time, especially during holidays.

    Just like that old intruder/stranger would not hide under the bed in a bedroom with piles of clothes laid out to pack in the suitcase on top, waiting for the family to go to bed so he could make his move. Puhleeze. How insanely dumb do you have to be to think that happened, AND tell the world that BS on a morning show with Katie Couric?

    Too bad Smit never thought to actually study the LE interviews with Patsy, when she was asked about someone hiding under the bed; she said there was no room under the bed, that it was so low she couldn't put anything under there. D'oh!

    Lou Smit created more absurd myths in this investigation than anyone. He made up evidence out of thin air to prove there was an intruder. He ignored and/or twisted solid forensic and circumstantial evidence to prove the Ramseys were innocent. And he couldn't interview a suspect worth a damn, not to mention, even read the transcript or watch the video of a suspect being questioned and figure out when he or she was so obviously lying a child would know it.

    But I digress...sigh.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  11. #143

    Default Drugs linked to brain damage 30 years ago

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...o-2127504.html

    "Secret documents reveal that government-funded experts were warned nearly 30 years ago that tranquillisers that were later prescribed to millions of people could cause brain damage.

    The Medical Research Council (MRC) agreed in 1982 that there should be large-scale studies to examine the long-term impact of benzodiazepines after research by a leading psychiatrist showed brain shrinkage in some patients similar to the effects of long-term alcohol abuse."


    Xanax is a benzodiazepine.

  12. #144
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Yes, there was a bathroom in the basement, which LE in fact dismantled during their investigation.

    There was a laundry room in the basement, as well, and Patsy insisted to LE she laundered clothes for the family plenty.

    JonBenet could have gotten lint and dirt on her feet before or after the Whites' party. We only have Patsy's word that JonBenet didn't take a bath before she went, which means we don't really know.

    What someone once asked, and I have no answer, did JonBenet have that white mold on the bottom of her feet? Was a sample of the dirt on her feet taken for processing? I've never heard anyone speak to this question who would know, so I have no answers. But that might be important.

    I have often wondered if someone was using that blanket found in JAR's suitcase in the basement, to lay down with JonBenet, read her a book in the basement to lure her into a vulnerable situation while the others slept upstairs, or something like that. Is that why the suitcase was used under the window, in case LE found evidence on the blanket or body that matched? There was a chair right there, after all, so why wouldn't an "intruder" use that to attempt to climb out a window, instead of a suitcase which would have been unstable at best?

    Obviously I don't believe any intruder used anything in the home, but while staging the scene to look like an intruder was there, why use the suitcase instead of the obvious chair, if all you 're trying to do is stage an exit? Was it to imply that the killer tried to put JonBenet in the suitcase? Lou Smit sure fell for that. Fool.

    I saw a true crime show once where four elements of staging were listed. I think I wrote about it here. One thing that I remember: in staging the crime scene to look like an intruder is the guilty party, a trail used to exit is usually created.

    But why the suitcase and not a simple chair? It's been speculated, and it's a theory, that different elments leading to different members of the family were used to confuse things.

    About Patsy's note pad and pen: what else did she have? Whose pen and pad was she going to use? She could hardly run to the all night store and purchase these. All she had in the house belonged to the Ramseys. If she used John's, how was that going to help when they had to know he surely would be the prime suspect once the molestation was found. Was she going to implicate Burke by getting into his school supplies? What intruder would have rifled through the children's school materials to write on? The pad was right there in the hall, along with the pen on the desk; if you're going to blame an intruder and you have to use something from the house to write a ransom note on, it seems to me that the pad and pen in plain site would be more likely to be used in such a circumstance by an intruder--which was the idea.

    I do think Patsy was trying to point the finger at particular suspects in writing the note. She used John's business in the first paragraph to set up a large body of suspects, from terrorists to competitors or people with grudges, which every company is going to have disgruntled employees, etc.

    She did put some thought into the ransom note, which the missing pages of the "practice note" prove. What ransom note writer sits down to compose the note at the home of the victim and writes at least two drafts, 2.5 pages long? Not some stranger/intruder who could not predict that no one would show up unexpectedly at this busy home with lots of family and friends in and out all the time, especially during holidays.

    Just like that old intruder/stranger would not hide under the bed in a bedroom with piles of clothes laid out to pack in the suitcase on top, waiting for the family to go to bed so he could make his move. Puhleeze. How insanely dumb do you have to be to think that happened, AND tell the world that BS on a morning show with Katie Couric?

    Too bad Smit never thought to actually study the LE interviews with Patsy, when she was asked about someone hiding under the bed; she said there was no room under the bed, that it was so low she couldn't put anything under there. D'oh!

    Lou Smit created more absurd myths in this investigation than anyone. He made up evidence out of thin air to prove there was an intruder. He ignored and/or twisted solid forensic and circumstantial evidence to prove the Ramseys were innocent. And he couldn't interview a suspect worth a damn, not to mention, even read the transcript or watch the video of a suspect being questioned and figure out when he or she was so obviously lying a child would know it.

    But I digress...sigh.
    KK wrote:

    I have often wondered if someone was using that blanket found in JAR's suitcase in the basement, to lay down with JonBenet, read her a book in the basement to lure her into a vulnerable situation while the others slept upstairs, or something like that. Is that why the suitcase was used under the window, in case LE found evidence on the blanket or body that matched? There was a chair right there, after all, so why wouldn't an "intruder" use that to attempt to climb out a window, instead of a suitcase which would have been unstable at best?
    I can understand why you're thinking along these lines KK, and quite rightly so! If someone was doing this on a regular basis; how convenient for the culprit, but when could this caper have been carried out? During the time John was visiting Patsy in hospital? Was there ever a time when JAR was there ? Wouldn't Burke Ramsey have been present as well, therefore the perpetrator was stymied by Burke's presence? With JonBenét Ramsey just being six years old, I doubt her absence with those in charge would have been noticed, and someone surely would have gone to see where she was and if she was okay(?).

    The only way this sexual interference could have been carried out is if the person responsible had no interruptions from anyone else. It was too risky with other family members around; therefore who was in this position to feel safe and secure more than anyone else in this family when alone with JonBenét Ramsey? I shudder at the thought, but how many family members actually stayed overnight during Patsy's time in hospital? John Ramsey had to have been there at all times, short of some other adult supervising(?). How many were involved in this personal task, I wonder?


    KK wrote:

    Obviously I don't believe any intruder used anything in the home, but while staging the scene to look like an intruder was there, why use the suitcase instead of the obvious chair, if all you 're trying to do is stage an exit? Was it to imply that the killer tried to put JonBenet in the suitcase? Lou Smit sure fell for that. Fool.
    Idiotic thought by Lou Smit! Hypothetically, it's possible the suitcase was placed there "purposely" as part of the staging by Patsy and John, because neither one of them would purposely incriminate John Andrew, John's very own son, therefore Patsy and John couldn't be involved in this. Patsy Ramsey's thinking was crafty!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.



Similar Threads

  1. It's Official. Patsy is not doing well. Cancer taking hold.
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: September 23, 2005, 5:24 pm, Fri Sep 23 17:24:34 UTC 2005

Posting Permissions

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