1. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Fly your posts always intirgue me and I like your attention to detail and the way your stick to the facts (at least as we know them). I mean that sincerely. Anyway here's my question--I would like to know your constitutionally protected opinion on whether or not you think the ramseys were involved in Jonbenet's death. If you don't wanna say, that's cool. I recall you saying a while back that you weren't convinced that they are guilty, but I just would like to hear how unconvinced you are. I mean do you think, given what we know, that there's a 40 %chance they were involved, 20 %, 0% whatever.

    I am not talking about whether or not in can be proved in a court of law--I'm just talking gut feeling here, court of public opinion.

    I base my belief in their guilt on the simple fact that the crime scene was obviously staged. Period. Killers don't stage crime scenes in other peoples' homes.
     
  2. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    OOOPS

    I got cut off when some snooty employee walked in as I was typing.


    Anyway--so, Fly, if you think that there's roughly, say a 40% likelyhood that the Ramseys are innocent, then that means there must be a scenario that would work regarding all the staging at this crime scene. Have you ever, in five years heard an intruder theory that holds up to scrutiny? I haven't in all this time. If you have I'd like to hear it.
     
  3. fly

    fly Member

    BobC

    BobC - Check out my posts on page 2 and page 3 of the Burke thread. Those will give a thumbnail sketch of my position.

    I haven't seen a scenario involving a parent or an intruder that didn't have significant problems -- at least based on my understanding of the evidence.

    If I had to put numbers to it, I'd probably have to go 52 vs 48%. Very little confidence.
     
  4. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Okay

    I reviewed those threads as per your request so let me ask you a few things. When you say the evidence is a mess and doesn't totally back any one theory, I hope your realize that that is the exact reason why the CBI and FBI caklled it "classic staging." The overlapping of sexual predator "evidence" with kidnapping "evidence" for example is textbook staging. This is also why Ressler and others knew that whoever killed Jonbenet was not a career criminal--in fact the confused staging shows the work of an unsophisticated, inexperienced killer who really didn't know the first thing about covering up a crime.

    Also--I must take issue with your statement about a missing motive that would show that either J or P was capable of doing something this "evil." People snap all the time. Most killers are first time killers. I just saw a show on TLC about a father who had no criminal record, no record of any kind of violence, and one day he just picked up a sledge hammer and bashed in the heads of his two sons. His only "reason" for doing this was simply "I snapped."

    So I understand what you're saying--neither J nor P had any known predisposition towards extreme violence. However, people with absolutely NO history of violence can and do kill their own children. Look at Susan Smith and Andrea Yates.
     
  5. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Howz this for a scenario which explain everything? Jonbenet wets her bed, Patsy is ****ed, tries to change the bed, JBR gets bratty and won't do what she's told and Patsy loses it. She flips out--tries to manually strangle her, gets tired, grabs the flashlight and hits her with it. When she calms down she stages the crime scene and redresses the child, cleaning her bed area as well.

    Simple. Neat. Everything fits.

    I've read about several serial killers who complained about how hard it was to manually strangle someone, so don't laugh.
     
  6. JR

    JR FFJ Senior Member

    BobC

    You can add in the man who was "having a bad morning" back in Januray and decided to drive his truck through HEB (a grocery store for those unfamiliar with the name), killing one woman and seriously injuring another.

    If we knew what made people "snap" we could prevent such tragedies, IMHO.
     
  7. Cookie

    Cookie Member

    What ABout?

    The intruder theory just doesn't make ANY sense to me. I have tried to keep an open mind about the theory, but I just can't get past certain things:

    1) If indeed, a kidnapper or intruder killed JBR, why would that person or persons leave the body in the house instead of dumping it somewhere in Boulder? Why would they take the chance of leaving evidence at the crime scene? Makes no sense.

    2) The ransom note.......no intruder, in their right mind, would write such an incredibly lenghty note. Makes no sense.

    3) Why didn't the kidnappers make the call the next morning? Makes no sense.

    4) Why would an intruder wipe down the body or change her clothes?

    5) Why is there no evidence, even on a cellular level, of an intruder. Did they wear a skin diving suit with flippers?

    6) Why were PR's furry fibers found under the masking tape on JBR's mouth?

    There's more later......
     
  8. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Not just "Patsy's furry fibers" but a beaver hair follicle as well, and of course Patsy was wearing beaver-trimmed boots that night. A coinicidence? Yeah Babe.

    Anyway--you're absolutely right that none of that stuff makes any sense regarding an intruder. But EVERYTHING makes sense if you follow the badly-staged-by-a-clueless-first-time-killer theory.

    Fly--what are the holes in this theory? I'm not being mean--I like debating you. I know you aren't advocating their innocence.

    The cops know someone vaccumed that carpet next to JBR's bed--that's another thing that makes sense for a paniced parent to do, but no intruder would do it in a million years. It's beyond ludicous.
     
  9. fly

    fly Member

    sure

    Yes, I realize that people just snap and you don't have to have killed (or done anything illegal) before. That issue complicates the Ramsey case, IMO, but certainly doesn't rule them out in my mind.

    The Smith and Yates cases are probably poor examples to cite as comparable, however. There was no sudden explosion of uncontrolled violence, and there was a motive of sorts. Yates has very serious mental problems that greatly distorted her thinking, leading to a "justification" or motive from her perspective. That is pretty common when a parent methodically and/or slowly kills her/his kids. If PR or JR were seriously mentally disturbed, a heck of a lot of problems would be eliminated, but there isn't any evidence of that, IMO. Smith arguably had mental problems, and another factor may have provided some motive - the boyfriend's attitude.

    If this situation involved only one means of lethal attack, especially one done quickly, the "just snapped" idea would be much more likely, IMO. What we have here is strangulation, with a prepared device no less, AND a massive blow to the head AND sexual abuse to boot. All done when JBR was alive. The more things you put in sequence, the less it looks like a "losing it" scenario, IMO.

    Sure, what you propose is possible, but how likely? More likely than an intruder who molests and murders and writes a note all in the kid's home? Maybe not, which is one reason I tend to stay in the RDI camp.

    Exactly what did the FBI, etc. declare was the staged component? The note is my guess, and as I posted on the other thread, that note (assuming PR might be the author) is one of the big things that keeps me in the RDI camp.

    By your scenario, however, you have to add the sexual abuse as staging because the rage is over bedwetting or some other irritation, right? But how does that work? JBR's already been strangled (maybe in two separate episodes, by your account) and had her head bashed in. Does she live long enough for PR/JR to decide a sexual attack is also necessary, carry it out, and have enough time for her to bleed both internally and externally? Again, not impossible, but how likely?

    The only way the "losing it" scenario works is if the garotte is staging. But again, the garotte seems to be the lethal agent of strangulation. I don't think the evidence is very consistent with it being added later (except perhaps the fact that it was tied directly on her).

    There's no good evidence of an initial manual strangulation, is there?. I know somebody (Spitz?) suggested maybe her shirt was the initial means, but how easy is it to maintain enough pressure that way - especially if you have a struggling kid fighting you?

    IMO, all the scenarios (parent and intruder) require some pretty unusual element to be true, despite the odds. The problem is in determining which element that is.

    Sorry about the stream of consciousness style here. No time to think, write, review and revise.
     
  10. fly

    fly Member

    no offense taken

    BobC - No offense taken. The possibility that you were "being mean" never crossed my mind. I don't have any problem with being challenged to explain my thinking. I'm not THAT big a hypocrite, LOL.

    About the beaver hair... Are you sure about PR having beaver trimmed boots? Jameson has repeatedly denied that PR owned such boots. No, I don't take jameson's word as gospel, but she tends to do more spinning than flat out stating untruths.

    And where was the vacuumed carpet by the bed info published? That's the first I've heard that. Also, why would a parent feel compelled to vacuum? Especially if your bedwetting/losing it scenario were true? Just panicky, random activity? If that did occur, then we pretty much have to believe that Burke is lying through his teeth, in addition to JR and PR. Again, not impossible.

    Cookie - if I could be convinced that the DNA, no matter how little a sample it was, was not related to the crime, tossing the intruder theory would be a heck of a lot easier. The arguments about it being degraded and thus predating the crime are kind of tough to put complete faith in, given that BPD has apparently been using it to evaluate possible suspects and the fact that reportedly it was both under her nails and in her panties. I might be convinced if I ever saw an authoritative explanation, but we haven't had that, IMO.
     
  11. Cookie

    Cookie Member

    Beaver Boots

    I know that PR owned those boots. I saw her wear them on several occasions. I remember thinking those were great boots and I wanted a pair. Jameson doesn't know what she is talking about.
     
  12. JR

    JR FFJ Senior Member

    Fly - What if?

    What if the person who snapped, snapped because s/he had discovered the molestation was taking place. and hence, what if, the sexual assault is staging to cover up prior molestation?

    If someone had been molesting JBR even for just a few days prior to the murder, what if s/he felt jamming the paintbrush inside JBR's vaginal canal was enough to mask (or destroy any evidence of) any prior abuse. Would that not suffice as a reason to stage a sexual assualt?

    I believe the boots trimmed in beaver hair were taken into evidence a year or so after the murder along with the clothes the Ramseys may or may not have been wearing -"they couldn't recall."
     
  13. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Yep

    Patsy owned the boots, as Miss Cookie has seen with her own eyes, plus I have a photo of her (somewhere) of her wearing them. And so does the BPD.

    Fly--I have it on very good authority that at least one expert who was consulted by the bPD felt that JBR was MANUALLY strangled and that the ligature was probably used later. So yes--I think the manual strangulation happened first and the garrote was used as staging to make it look more exotic.

    I also believe that the bruising to the outside of the vagina was part of the rage attack. There is no question that this was a rage killing.
     
  14. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    COOKIE

    Here's a question I've been meaning to ask you forever:

    Do you think John would have stayed by Patsy's side (as he has) if he had nothing to do with the murder?

    And howabout Patsy? Would she have stood by him in your opinion?

    It's always been fascinating to me that Patsy is NEVER seen without JR and the main reason I think they're both involved is that they've never ratted each other out.
     
  15. fly

    fly Member

    cookie, BobC, JR

    Well, that's very interesting to have the beaver boots confirmed.

    BobC - Spitz (I think) suggested the sort-of manual (actually her shirt) strangulation. Manual strangulation usually leaves pretty distinctive marks, and I don't think those are present here. And I sure thought the characteristics of the ligature mark and petechial hemorrhaging had been described as consistent with the ligature killing her.

    This is one of the reasons I said the evidence is a mess. One expert says one thing, another says another - and I'm not just talking about prosecution vs. Ramsey experts.

    JR - The obvious question concerning your rage at discovering sexual abuse is: "Is rage at the child and killing her a plausible reaction to finding out she'd been molested?"

    Sorry, but I don't buy the line that PR is consumed with perfection or social standing and would rather kill her daughter than have such a scandal occur (explanations as to why the answer might be "yes"). For one thing, I think that sort of "logic" requires the person have some significant mental problems to begin with, and PR has never shown anything to suggest that, IMO. Also, it's hard to imagine staying with the person who was the abuser, even if he was wealthy. IMO, killing your kid is WAY down the list of likely reactions.
     
  16. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Yeah--when I got word early on that she was probably strangled manually, I may have assumed that that meant by hands only. Later when Spitz came out with that stuff about a shirt being used I wondered about the definition of "manual." But I swear to God I seem to recall something about what was thought to be a thumb mark on the neck as well.

    It's possible that with later professional review, these thumb marks may have turned out to be something else altogether--who knows. That's why I wish there'd be a trial so we could find this stuff out for sure.

    But one thing is for sure--Patsy lied about the boots and I also know she refused to turn those boots over to the BPD for at least a year (if she ever turned them over at all). I know that for a while all the BPD had was a photo--and couldn't prove that they were actually beaver fur. You know they could have been mole-rat fur, or say, maybe yeti fur, or even faux fur.

    My money's on beaver fur.
     
  17. Cookie

    Cookie Member

    So little

    The fact that there was so little DNA was under her one fingenail leads me to believe that the foreign DNA was insignificant. JBR could have touched a doll or anything in her room that had someone elses trace on it. For example, a friend playing in her room the night of the Christmas party......the older the DNA trace, the more insignificant it becomes. The reason it was found in her panties could be a number of reasons: she scratched herself, her hand fell during the torture, or perhaps she was wearing someone elses panties (Daffney White).

    Whatever the reason, the DNA trace is so insignificant, that it should not be the roadblock that it has become. I believe that the RAMS are just using it as a smokescreen. I believe they would point to ANYTHING that is the least bit unexplainable to throw people off.

    What we need to look closer to is the fact that she was completely wiped down. How wierd is that? What "intruder" would take the time to do that. NOT!
     
  18. Cookie

    Cookie Member

    For Bob C

    Very interesting question about JR and PR...

    I believe that both of them were in on the coverup and or the murder together. That is why I believe that each of them has not ratted on the other. This is the only scernio that makes sense to me, other than they would want to keep their family (such as it is) intact for Burke's sake. But, I can't imagine JR putting on a performance on sitting close to PR, if she was the only one responsible.

    JR remains at PR's side to keep her from saying the wrong thing. She has or had a tendency to talk tooo much and his presence is used either as a buffer or reminder to be careful what you say.
     
  19. JR

    JR FFJ Senior Member

    If one parent (or someone else) was molesting JBR and the other parent walked in and swung out of rage at the molester and missed...and so we come full circle...

    Trying to figure it out can make you nuts can't it?
     
  20. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    those boots

    I think it was in the book ITRMI that one of the cops said they thought they saw Patsy wearing those boots during their questioning at their lawyers office.
     
  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