Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 142
  1. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Well, I think I've caught up now.

    I do think that Patsy was coming up with a scenario that she beileved would quickly divert LE from the family and allow Burke, Patsy, and John time to get out of the house after the body was quickly found.

    I believe they were looking to get to Bynum as quickly as they could, so he could become their legal shield before LE had a chance to pick up that there was no kidnapping.

    In the meantime, I believe the many friends called over were for that purpose: a shield between the Ramseys and LE that morning. Like squirrels, the Ramseys were working to scatter "predatory" LE's attention by keeping them busy, IMO.

    I have said this before, but I'll repeat it for this discussion: I once saw one of those "former" FBI profilers talking about this ransom note on TV, and he said someone who writes a fake ransom note inherently includes "fear" that is relevent to him/her. So whoever wrote the note probably had entertained some kind of fear about his/her child being kidnapped.

    We know that Ransom was playing in Boulder, a movie which JAR mentioned to LE himself in an interview and said was a story about a family JUST LIKE THE RAMSEYS. It really is. I watched it recently and the story is astonishing when you consider that the ransom note writer so perfectly mimics what happened in that movie:

    • The ransom note threats and language are similar to the kidnappers' phone calls to to the parents in the movie: lots of high tech stuff used, etc.
    • The instructions of how TO DELIVER the money involves a lot of long, complicated directions to keep LE from following the father when he tries TO DELIVER the money.
    • The mother collapses at one point and almost vomits--John mentioned several times that Patsy was throwing up that morning...sort of.
    • The child in the movie had his hands restrained and cuffed to the bed and his mouth and eyes duct taped.
      • The kidnappers intended all along to kill the child.


    I also believe it's very possible, in fact probable, that Patsy knew all about the kidnapping of members of a rich family because of John's employer, Lockheed Martin. As I said above, John traveled for the company overseas and it would be a surprise if he never attended any Lockheed Martin training or had any info about safety protocol and security in a world where kidnapping is literally an industry in some countries.

    I've also written about this, but let me repeat it because it illustrates to me how improbable it is that John was never given any info on company policy and protocol regarding the safety of its executives:

    Here's the context:

    Years before the Ramsey kidnapping, the only thing I knew about Lockheed Martin was it had a large operation near Atlanta where they built planes and was a major defense contractor, and only knew that because it's such a large American corporation and manufactures part of our military defense equipment, who hadn't heard of it. But I had no special or even conscious interest in the company. Just knew it existed and loosely what I have said above.

    So I had a social friend whose music hobby intersected with mine in that we belonged to a local booster club of sorts. He was married, and me, too. I met his wife and she was a nice woman. He was a nice guy, as well, and we participated in various projects with that club that brought us to working together from time to time on them. I'll call him Bob--not his name, though.

    In that context, we became friends, as well, enough so that we talked about personal stuff at times, when we had time. Nothing too personal, but just the kind of conversation that you get into while waiting for this or that to happen or equipment or personnel to arrive, etc.

    So one evening, waiting for something or other, Bob started talking about his wife. I can't remember the lead in, but he surprised me by telling me her father was rich and had a large business, etc. I was surprised because Bob and his wife were in no way wealthy on the surface that you'd notice. They looked and seemed just like...us--had average jobs, education, etc.

    The story Bob told me was fascinating because I had no idea about this kind of international business operation and experience--I'm a sucker for a good story, too. And it was interesting:

    Bob said he once went as a guest to South America with his father-in-law during a business trip. Having never traveled with that kind of private jet, limo's, etc., Bob was having a good time. But he said that it was scary, as well, because they traveled with security guards and the limo's were bullet-proof, every hotel had security gates, big time armed protection. While Bob wouldn't even tell me what his father-in-law's business was, apparently it was a private business that did work for various gov'ts. And the security was because of the potential for kidnapping.

    Some time after the Ramsey murder, I think, I read a long article in Vanity Fair about kidnapping as an industry in many countries like those in South America. Even today, so-called rebel factions kidnap executives of rich companies to collect the ransom. It's literally a business deal, one in which the victim will always be returned if the ransom is paid, because if the kidnappers keep that faith, they will always get paid. In such companies, exec's who travel in those areas often actually have insurance in the event of being kidnapped. I am not making this up.

    Consider that back in the 70's, John Paul Getty's grandson was kidnapped in Italy, his ear sent to his grandfather when he first refused to pay, and then once paid, the grandson was released--can't say unharmed, either. This was a well publicized kidnapping, as well. There are entire neighborhoods in Italy known to have been built with the monies collected from kidnap victims. Insane, isn't it? But that's the reality of being rich, successful, and traveling in FOREIGN countries.

    So your premise about the writer of the ransom note trying to build a story about a kidnapping gone wrong is very plausible to me, learnin. I believe Patsy had access to such information and probably had seen Ransom. I think it came immediately to mind when she needed to divert LE in such a way as to be able to get the family out of the house without being arrested. She didn't do too badly.

    But I still believe that it only worked because the Ramseys had help working at some other level. I find it highly suspicious that even Boulder PD allowed what happened that day to transpire so carelessly. If they believed a child's safety was at issue, forget that her parents were rich and employed by LM, there is no reason on earth the FBI shouldn't have been called immediately and given jurisdiction.

    Why did the FBI not take over jurisdiction? There was no question they had it. Someone had to tell them to stand down, IMO.

    What LE agency would leave a single officer in the home alone with 8 or 9 civilians at a crime scene when kidnappers were supposed to be calling? I don't believe it for one minute.

    And once the body was found, who has a child's body found in the basement and walks away like the Ramseys did that day?

    So I think the ransom note was really propaganda and a PR missive, written with the expectation that the body would be found and the Ramseys would be out of there before many questions could be asked at all. Blame the foreign faction, absolve AG/LM, too. (Always something that I have thought is a telling detail--why would a foreign faction or kidnapper of any kind like John Ramsey and his business but kidnap and kill his child?) Stick to the script--Ransom--for family and friends and business associates and life would go on though the "handful" would be missed.

    Okay, too much writing, I know, but I can't help it, obviously. This is a complicated case and I use everything I know to figure out what I can. I may be totally off, I am aware of that. But this crime was not committed by someone who wasn't thinking hard, using elements from life to construct a getaway and cover up. It has logic to the person or people who committed the various deeds. Thinking through it backwards is hard, and it requires climbing over innumerable obstacles left by Team Ramsey, a professional group of WORLD-CLASS defense experts and shills who have kept us busy for 14 years with lies, evasions, red herrings, an unending supply of "intruder" suspects, fake clues, and legal threats and deterents, as well.

    Well, that's what I think, anyhow.
    Extremely interesting, kk. I agree with you. I've never thought about the help going as high as you indicate, but, I've always thought local political power was working for the Ramseys. You've really got me thinking now that the help may really have come from even higher up

    Although I believe the ransom note author(s) had a particular motive in mind, like you, I believe there were secondary motives which served the author's purpose. You mentioned several; it served as a way of the R's getting people to the scene for distance and chaos, etc. It was a way of having the police find the body instead of the R's calling to report a body. I, also, believe that, if BR was involved in the first assault, the ransom note was a way of letting him off the hook in his own mind; to make him think some one else was responsible for the actual death. In that way, he wouldn't see his "secret" as really being a lie, etc.

    As I think about the note and the crime scene, however, I believe the author really intended to stage a kidnapping, with kidnappers holding the girl in the basement, and killing her when the police were called. I read, somewhere, (and maybe it was in several different works in regards to the ransom note) that someone, who is lying, will use more words than necessary to convince the one listening that what they are saying is true.

    If there is one thing, in this ransom note, that is overkill, it is the warnings directed toward John about what will happen if he doesn't carry out the instructions to a T. "Listen carefully!" "Don't grow a brain, John!" "You must follow the instructions." "We are monitoring.." "The two men watching over your daughter don't particularly like you." "You can try to deceive us but be warned...." You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to outsmart us." "You and your family are under constant scrutiny." "Don't think that killing will be difficult!" "Don't underestimate us John." "It is up to you now, John."

    The greatest percentage of this long letter is to let John know what will happen if he.....what? what?....calls the police.....

    Since this is a lie, the author overkills the subject trying to convince police that this was a kidnapping gone bad.

    If police would have walked into that cellar room first thing in the morning, what would they have seen on the surface, before the autopsy was performed? They would have seen a lifeless little girl who looked like she had been held against her will, bound, gagged. No signs of head trauma. No signs of a brutal struggle. The only obvious lethal assault being the ligature tightened around her neck. They would have seen her covered with a blanket. The blood, I believe, had been wiped clean, and she was redressed to make it look exactly like a kidnapping. This is exactly what a person would have seen on first observation. A little girl who had been killed with a rope tightened around her neck.

    Of course, it wasn't a well thought out plan, LE saw right through the staging but a panicked perp would not think so clearly, no?

  2. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    Also, the foreign faction members (or at least one of them) still had to have remained in the house as well, in order to "kill" JonBenet immediately after the police call). Aside from the absurdity of this, the stage of the body's rigor mortis contradicts such a scenario anyway. But still, it may well have played a role in the stager's panicked mind frantically trying to put a story together for LE to swallow.

    I believe it was more the fear of being seen which stopped them. Parents cruel enough to tie a cord around their child's neck and inflict the genital wound (even if they believed she was already dead, it still is a cruel act) are capable of anything imo.
    Imo the Ramseys intially wanted to dump the body outside without a ransom note, having a "child abducted from her bed, tortured and killed by a sexual predator" scenario in mind.
    But when removing the body from the home was regarded as too risky after all, they switched to a "political kidnapping for ransom" scene instead. This switch would explain why the body was wiped clean of blood and redressed in underwear, covering the previously staged sexual assault.
    Imo the blanket was used for the staged scene to suggest JonBenet had been quickly grabbed from her bed together with the blanket covering her.
    Yes. I believe the body was wiped clean to stage the kidnapping for ransom scene. I'm beginning to think that the jab was not done as a staging. I'm beginning to think the little girl was penetrated on purpose and then the head blow came. Then she was wiped clean for staging purposes. I guess what I'm beginning to believe is that there was no quick jab in order to stage a sexual assault or cover one. I'm beginning to believe the vag. penetration started the whole thing in motion.

  3. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    We know that Ransom was playing in Boulder, a movie which JAR mentioned to LE himself in an interview and said was a story about a family JUST LIKE THE RAMSEYS. It really is. I watched it recently and the story is astonishing when you consider that the ransom note writer so perfectly mimics what happened in that movie:

    • The ransom note threats and language are similar to the kidnappers' phone calls to to the parents in the movie: lots of high tech stuff used, etc.
    • The instructions of how TO DELIVER the money involves a lot of long, complicated directions to keep LE from following the father when he tries TO DELIVER the money.
    • The mother collapses at one point and almost vomits--John mentioned several times that Patsy was throwing up that morning...sort of.
    • The child in the movie had his hands restrained and cuffed to the bed and his mouth and eyes duct taped.
      • The kidnappers intended all along to kill the child.


    ....But I still believe that it only worked because the Ramseys had help working at some other level. I find it highly suspicious that even Boulder PD allowed what happened that day to transpire so carelessly. If they believed a child's safety was at issue, forget that her parents were rich and employed by LM, there is no reason on earth the FBI shouldn't have been called immediately and given jurisdiction.

    Why did the FBI not take over jurisdiction? There was no question they had it. Someone had to tell them to stand down, IMO.

    What LE agency would leave a single officer in the home alone with 8 or 9 civilians at a crime scene when kidnappers were supposed to be calling? I don't believe it for one minute.

    And once the body was found, who has a child's body found in the basement and walks away like the Ramseys did that day?
    It's true that women often throw up in movies--usually when they find out their husbands are cheating on them. Maybe we can blame An Unmarried Woman for that. I don't think it happens in real life. (I do think Patsy had ample reason to throw up, though.)

    An FBI agent did go to the crime scene. I read this just the other day in Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. Ron Walker was his name. According to Schiller, John Eller dismissed the FBI from the case. Some law enforcement agencies don't have that much respect for the FBI.

    As far as Arndt being by herself, they were operating with a reduced crew and maybe they figured she could handle a bunch of tame yuppies. They had a trap set up on the phone so they probably assumed she wouldn't have much to do.

    I agree about the Ramseys walking away. I find that beyond odd. I'd probably sit outside the morgue all night.
    Last edited by fr brown; October 15, 2010, 9:54 am at Fri Oct 15 9:54:28 UTC 2010.

  4. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Courtesy of Little: John Andrew Ramsey mentions the movie "Ransom"
    from Steve Thomas "JonBenét":

    Steve Thomas "JonBenét"

    56

    While Arndt handled the writing samples, the elder kids of John
    Ramsey from his first marriage were made available for interviews and evidence samples.
    Melinda Ramsey, twenty-two, wore a white pullover and jeans, and
    her eyes were puffy from weeping. She was attractive and polite when a detective and a sheriff's investigator began questioning her, but by the time the interview was done she was left with her head buried in her arms, crying. They had pressed her hard about the possibility of inappropriate sexual behavior in the family. Melinda vehemently denied that, and in fact revealed nothing of significance, since she was in Atlanta at the time of the murder. She had been caught in a web not of



    57
    her own making, and the interview left her with a bad taste about
    dealing with police.

    Gosage and I interviewed twenty-year-old John Andrew Ramsey.

    He was a lanky young man with dark eyes and short dark hair, who

    wore a checkered shirt, a winter jacket, and an attitude. When the

    blood tech moved close with her needle, the former Eagle Scout, who

    was now a third-semester sophomore at the University of Colorado,

    whispered, Although he also claimed to have been in Atlanta when the crime

    occurred, we had to check him out because of the neighbor who had

    reported seeing him on Christmas Day. We had to determine who was

    right.

    We asked him to put his thoughts on paper, and he wrote a document

    that brimmed with feelings about his little stepsister being murdered,

    giving us a glimpse into his world. He caught our attention

    immediately by writing, knowledge of my family and how we lived day to day. Why would

    they leave the ransom note on the back staircase instead of the front?" border="0" alt="" />
    Good question, I thought. How would a stranger know which stair-
    way Patsy Ramsey would come down that morning?


    He ridiculed the idea of a small foreign faction being involved, was
    certain the crime had nothing to do with his father's company, and
    questioned why a ransom note was left at all. "Why did they ask for
    $118,OOO? I could pay that amount," he wrote. Someone was envious
    of their wealth and thought of the Ramseys as "rich bastards," he said.

    John Andrew told us that whoever did this was probably uneducated,
    were amateurs at kidnapping, and had seen the movie Ransom, in which
    the family of Mel Gibson's character was a "spitting image" of his own.
    He did not believe anyone came in through the broken basement window.
    They had a key, he surmised.


    In one comment, he described his stepmother as “flashy" and
    guessed that the killer might be someone close to her.

    John Andrew also buttressed the comments of the housekeeper's husband, Mervin Pugh, and former nanny Suzanne Savage about the house being difficult to navigate. "You don't know your way around real easy right off the bat. . . . You have to open lots of doors. It has lots of ups and downs," and the basement entrance was hard to find. It was be-coming very clear to the police just how difficult it would have been for any stranger to get to that distant basement storage room.

    Last edited by Elle_1; October 15, 2010, 9:53 am at Fri Oct 15 9:53:05 UTC 2010. Reason: TEXT
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  5. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    From acandyrose:

    http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-ransomnote.htm

    Movie "In the Nick of Time"

    1999 February 18 - Lawrence Schillers book "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town

    Page 225:

    "On the night JonBenet was murdered, the movie 'Nick of Time' aired at 7:30 P.M. on a Boulder cable channel. The story centers on an unarmed political faction that kidnaps a six-year-old girl. The victim is told, "Listen to me very carefully.' Bill Cox, who was staying with Fleet and Priscilla White, told the police he remembered watching the movie that night."
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  6. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Just copied this to let the posters see the full page 225 - Lawrence Schiller "Perfect Murder Perfect Town"

     
     
    had a good rest. You'll need it." Jonbenét's ransom note said, "The
    deliver
    y will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested."
    In the movie Speed, a terrorist played by Dennis Hopper says, "You
    know that I
    'm on top of you. Do not attempt to grow a brain."The ran-
    som note contained the following: "You and your famil
    y are under con-
    stant scrutiny as well a
    s the authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John."
    On the night jonBenet wa
    s murdered, the movie Nick of Time
    aired at 7:30 P.M. on a Boulder cable channel. The story centers on an
    unnamed political faction that kidnaps
    a six-year-old girl. The victim
    is told, "Listen to me
    very carefully." Bill Cox, who was staying with
    Fleet and Priscilla White
    , told the police he remembered watching
    the movie that night. The ransom note begins
    , "Listen carefully!"



    The ransom note would become public only in September 1997.



    Karen Howard, an emplo
    yee of Access Graphics, said that she was
    struck by the words
    "you are not the only fat cat around." Howard
    remembered that Patsy's father
    , Don Paugh, used the word cats all the
    time; for example
    , "Those cats down in marketing."
    Once the CBI
    's handwriting analysts no longer needed the ransom note,
    the lab turned its attention to lifting fingerprints from the paper.
    Technicians would have to immerse the page
    s in various chemical solu-
    tions, which would react with the
    amino acids, fats, and waxes that are
    transmitted to objects b
    y human hands.The pages would then be dried so
    that the chemic
    als could react with and expose any latent fingerprints or
    pal
    m prints. The CBl told the police and Pete Hofstrorn that the process
    would make the paper fibers
    swell, forever altering the relationship
    between the ink
    and the paper surface. As a result, further examination
    and analysis of the ind
    entations in the paper, a critical component in
    handwriting analysis
    , might become impossible.The ink might run. Some
    of th
    e tests might even cause the document to turn black.
    Hofstrom knew that if the Ramseys were eventually charged in the
    mu
    rder, they would want their own handwriting experts to testify, and
    an
    y reputable analyst would have to examine the original note to make
    an
    assessement. Hofstrorn felt the Ramseys should have the same chance
    to r
    eview the documents that the police had.
    He told Patrick Burke about the situation. and in a letter the
    lawyer registered a formal objection to destructive testing of the ran-
    som note. Burke presented Hofstrorn wlith a set of conditions to be
    met before he would allow the CBIto test the note for the police. He


    225


    How grateful I am to Little when she sends me copies. When I print anything there are mistakes in the text. I just don't understand why my HP scanner can copy and make mistakes. (?) Unbelievable! I changed a few errors. Moab explained it to me a long time ago. and Little also confirmed this situation. Glad I don't do this for a living.

    Wasn't my scanner. I printed a copy of this from my scanner and it turned out just fine. It was posting it here which caused the trouble, and this may well be what Moab told me could happen(?). Thanks again Moab for all you do here!
    Last edited by Elle_1; October 15, 2010, 9:40 pm at Fri Oct 15 21:40:17 UTC 2010.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  7. #43

    Default

    Thanks Elle and Little. Y'all are always on hand with sources. You two are pure TNT!

    Hofstrom and the Ramsey attorneys objected to processing the ransom note, the most critical connection to the killer, because the Ramseys wanted to have it for their own defense.

    Who believes these are the actions of innocent parents desperate to find the person who murdered their child? Who could still be a very real threat to their remaining family and themselves? Not me.

    "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.

  8. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    It's true that women often throw up in movies--usually when they find out their husbands are cheating on them. Maybe we can blame An Unmarried Woman for that. I don't think it happens in real life. (I do think Patsy had ample reason to throw up, though.)

    An FBI agent did go to the crime scene. I read this just the other day in Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. Ron Walker was his name. According to Schiller, John Eller dismissed the FBI from the case. Some law enforcement agencies don't have that much respect for the FBI.

    As far as Arndt being by herself, they were operating with a reduced crew and maybe they figured she could handle a bunch of tame yuppies. They had a trap set up on the phone so they probably assumed she wouldn't have much to do.

    I agree about the Ramseys walking away. I find that beyond odd. I'd probably sit outside the morgue all night.
    Maybe I'm wrong, but when it's a child kidnapping and especially when it's credited to a "small foreign faction" which can be considered possibly taking the child across state lines, the FBI has jurisdiction. It would not have been Eller's place to tell the FBI to step down, as I understand it. They would have had legal authority to take over immediately. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I understand it. Once it was a murder, then that jurisdiction would revert back to Boulder. But with the phones tapped and everyone operating as if it were a kidnapping until John found the body, how can the FBI be dismissed by Eller? That's my point.

    As to Ron Walker, he's the agent who told the BPD after reading the ransom note that morning they'd likely find a body. But until they did, it was still a kidnapping as far as how they were handling it: phone taps, copying the ransom money for delivery, etc.

    Sorry, this just doesn't make sense to me. The BPD may have been shorthanded, but they had several detectives and police officers who were there and then left Arndt. I find that extremely odd. They had somewhere more important to be? Who leaves one detective at a scene with a group of civilians expecting a call from terrorists who have kidnapped a child? If they didn't believe the child was kidnapped but had fallen victim to someone within the home, even worse. Then she is unable to get backup when she saw she needed it? Like nobody in the BPD thought it might be important that she could get in touch quickly? Completely unbelievable to me.

    I"m not buying it.

    "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.

  9. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    Yes. I believe the body was wiped clean to stage the kidnapping for ransom scene. I'm beginning to think that the jab was not done as a staging. I'm beginning to think the little girl was penetrated on purpose and then the head blow came. Then she was wiped clean for staging purposes. I guess what I'm beginning to believe is that there was no quick jab in order to stage a sexual assault or cover one. I'm beginning to believe the vag. penetration started the whole thing in motion.
    Could be, Learnin. But if that's the case, then the sexual assault by paintbrush indicates the perp preferred something other than physical contact with the victim. Was that how the prior vaginal injuries occurred, as well?

    The issue for me is that if the child was being molested in some other manner THAT NIGHT that led to the murder, then there would have been no need to insert the paintbrush. She would already be...oh god, how to put this dreadful sequence..."freshly" molested that night.

    What I wonder is if the person who inserted that paintbrush had any idea that the older vaginal injuries would show up in a post mortem examination of the body. If that person were a lay person, this would require some technical knowledge of forensics, wouldn't it? Or would that person have thought that this paintbrush would cause sufficient injury to cover up what had been done before? Maybe someone was called who could explain it, or what needed to be done? Just brainstorming here.

    Here's the logical sequence I come up with:

    The paintbrush was inserted, then broken to use in the garrote as a handle. It seems if it were broken first, that would be more damaging to the tissues in the vagina than indicated in the autopsy. It also seems counter-intuitive in some way, but that's an opinion based on speculation, that's all.

    Then the broken segment of paintbrush was tied onto the long end of the garrote cord. That cord could have been tied on the neck anywhere, but the location of the knot at the back of the neck indicates to me that the knot was tied from the back. Since she was on her stomach by the paint tray more than likely, indicated by the paint strip on her chin matching paint in the tray or possibly a dried strip dislodged from the paintbrush when it was broken there, as the slivers found near the paint tray indicate, it seems likely the cord was tied on her neck there, from behind. Also a carpet fiber from the basement was found stuck to her chin, if memory serves, more evidence her face was on the carpet.

    Since I don't believe all this was possible to do to a fighting, terrified child without obvious defensive injuries showing up on her body, and they didn't, I think she was unconscious during these actions.

    Also, the location of the blow to the head is at the very top of the skull, just a little to the right of center, from the picture of the skull cracks. If she were lying on the floor, on her stomach, with someone behind/above her, her body held down by at least one point of counter-resistence to keep it from being pulled up when the garrote was pulled from behind/above her, then how does one person do all that and deliver a blow to the top of the head at the same time?

    I can't figure out how that's possible. I really can't.

    It seems to me she had to be upright when the blow was struck, unless someone was standing over her while she was prone on a surface of some kind, on her stomach, and the swing came from high above. I don't know, though, just working through it in my mind, so it's all speculation on my part. But if she were in her bed, with the headboard near the top of her head, asleep, how would someone get a sufficient swing from that direction? They'd have to stand or kneel on the bed...but the angle still isn't right, is it? Unless she was lying with her head at the bottom of the bed, where her pillow was found, which seems possible, because her blood was found on the pillowcase, remember.

    Dr. Spitz's demonstration might be the best indication we have of how that happened. It has been said he tested the head injury on a child-sized cadaver, but I don't know if that was true or not.


    "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. #46

    Default

    One more thing: I personally think the bruises on the side of the face might have happened when the child was held down to provide counter-force so the garrote could be pulled tight from behind. Maybe something was lying on the floor under her face?

    "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. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Maybe I'm wrong, but when it's a child kidnapping and especially when it's credited to a "small foreign faction" which can be considered possibly taking the child across state lines, the FBI has jurisdiction. It would not have been Eller's place to tell the FBI to step down, as I understand it. They would have had legal authority to take over immediately. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I understand it. Once it was a murder, then that jurisdiction would revert back to Boulder. But with the phones tapped and everyone operating as if it were a kidnapping until John found the body, how can the FBI be dismissed by Eller? That's my point.

    As to Ron Walker, he's the agent who told the BPD after reading the ransom note that morning they'd likely find a body. But until they did, it was still a kidnapping as far as how they were handling it: phone taps, copying the ransom money for delivery, etc.

    Sorry, this just doesn't make sense to me. The BPD may have been shorthanded, but they had several detectives and police officers who were there and then left Arndt. I find that extremely odd. They had somewhere more important to be? Who leaves one detective at a scene with a group of civilians expecting a call from terrorists who have kidnapped a child? If they didn't believe the child was kidnapped but had fallen victim to someone within the home, even worse. Then she is unable to get backup when she saw she needed it? Like nobody in the BPD thought it might be important that she could get in touch quickly? Completely unbelievable to me.

    I"m not buying it.
    I'm fairly sure the FBI was dismissed after the homicide was discovered.

    I think the BPD did have other places to be. Didn't somebody go to interview the housekeeper? Somebody else to Ramsey's business? Somebody took the ransom note to police headquarters for processing and brought a copy back.

    Some of the cops, at least, came rushing back once the body was discovered.

    I'll have to read how Thomas describes it. As I remember, he thought it was ill-advised to leave Arndt alone, but not sinister.

  12. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Thanks Elle and Little. Y'all are always on hand with sources. You two are pure TNT!

    Hofstrom and the Ramsey attorneys objected to processing the ransom note, the most critical connection to the killer, because the Ramseys wanted to have it for their own defense.

    Who believes these are the actions of innocent parents desperate to find the person who murdered their child? Who could still be a very real threat to their remaining family and themselves? Not me.
    Glad to be of help, KK. Little does have a lot of good information on hand with having written her book "Journey Beyond Reason" and she is very obliging when it comes to the JonBenét case. I thought you may have written one too. I'm sure you have already written it here on the FFJ forum. Just print all your posts and put them in book form.

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Thanks Elle and Little. Y'all are always on hand with sources. You two are pure TNT!

    Hofstrom and the Ramsey attorneys objected to processing the ransom note, the most critical connection to the killer, because the Ramseys wanted to have it for their own defense.

    Who believes these are the actions of innocent parents desperate to find the person who murdered their child? Who could still be a very real threat to their remaining family and themselves? Not me.
    Glad to be of help, KK. Little does have a lot of good information on hand with having written her book "Journey Beyond Reason" and she is very obliging when it comes to the JonBenét case. I thought you may have written one too. I'm sure you have already written it here on the FFJ forum. Just print all your posts and put them in book form.

    I wonder how many of the White's guests watched the " Nick of Time" movie along with Bill Cox on Christmas night, especially Patsy (?) The same statements were in the JonBenét ransom note(?).
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.



Similar Threads

  1. Risk vs. Benefit and the Ransom Note
    By Learnin in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 6, 2009, 5:41 pm, Tue Oct 6 17:41:14 UTC 2009
  2. A Real Ransom Note & Kidnapping
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: March 14, 2007, 8:11 am, Wed Mar 14 8:11:13 UTC 2007
  3. Ransom note fingerprints
    By Barbara in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: June 6, 2004, 11:29 pm, Sun Jun 6 23:29:17 UTC 2004
  4. The trail of the ransom note
    By MJenn in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: May 16, 2002, 11:21 pm, Thu May 16 23:21:17 UTC 2002
  5. Ramsey Case Ransom Note
    By Dunvegan in forum Evidence Files: Ramsey murder case
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 14, 2001, 4:49 pm, Wed Nov 14 16:49:17 UTC 2001

Posting Permissions

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