Are you ready for the new Tracy Crock-'O-Crap?

I keep coming back too!

Like you, Doc, I keep returning! However, the reason why I cannot even consider an "intruder" angle of any kind is because there wasn't one, and it's just a waste of energy going up avenues which have been concocted to sidetrack us away from the Ramsey family.

I admit to being strongly influenced by Delmar England's thinking, because this man took one look at this garrote and knew it was a fake, without having read any of the books. This sure caught my attention. This to me is the only positive concrete evidence I have come across. All the rest coming from the RST and posters everywhere can't come up to par with this.

Delmar England is talking about demonstrating evidence which was found at the scene of the crime; not invisible evidence from invisible ghosts!

Why can't we have some top investigator ask Delmar England to demonstrate why he knows the garotte was a fake sex tool? He's willing to demonstrate to anyone interested. This tells me, he can put his money where his mouth is. None of us can give a demonstration like this. I would like to see it. For sure, I can see that John Ramsey and Lou Smith need to polish their glasses. Even I can see how simple this garotte is, and yet they call it "complex."

So...it seems we agree to disagree, Doc, but I wish you all the best just the same. I will be the first one to shake your hand if you prove Delmar England is wrong. Know anyone in the TV Media who would take him on? Wouldn't it be great if someone out there had some influence with someone famous in the newscasting TV world? Anyone?

 

DocG

If we are to believe John Kenady (Tracey's star witness) then Helgoth was motivated by money:-

So the suggestion is clearly that the intent to kidnap for money was genuine. So why not take the body as you say?

Also, these guys were both supposedly violent paedophiles - yet the sexual abuse was minimal.

 

I'm not disputing Delmar's reading of the "garotte" as staging. I too thought he did a great job on that. But to go from that to the conclusion JonBenet was killed as the result of a head blow inflicted, either directly or indirectly, by her mother, now that's a HUGE stretch. And there isn't a shred of evidence to back it up. As I said, it makes no SENSE to assume Patsy would have accidently caused JonBenet's death and then tried to cover it up by means of an outrageously complex and in fact nutty staging of a phoney kidnapping. It also makes no sense for her to write a note telling her husband not to call the police and then going ahead and calling them herself. And it makes no sense for her to concoct a patently phoney ransom note, knowing that the body would eventually be found in the house and the note then exposed as fake. Why would she have wanted to do that, what would it have done for her? By the same token, the intruder theory also makes no sense. Both theories can and should be dismissed for exactly the same reason: in order for the accused to have done what was done he or she would have to have been totally off the wall, totally out of it, totally stupid. This crime IMO was NOT committed by that sort of person. If such an idiotic fool had killed JonBenet that person would have been arrested on day one.

As far as means of death is concerned, I was also impressed by Cyril Wecht's argument that the head blow must have been PRECEDED by strangulation. The evidence for that is at least as strong as what Delmar presented vis a vis the "garotte." Therefore, if we do as Delmar has done, and limit ourselves to these two possibilities, we are totally sytmied. The case would seem to be beyond rational analysis. My conclusion is that there MUST be a third possibility. And the one that presents itself most readily to MY mind is the possibility that John Ramsey might have killed JonBenet accidently during a sex game. Not the one Wecht proposes, which assumes she was strangled by the garotte, but a sex game involving manual strangulation. This would also explain why the killer felt the need to stage the garotte -- as a way of obliterating any possible prints he might have left on the victim's neck.

But such a scenario points to John, NOT Patsy, and for some odd reason, hardly anyone on this list wants to go there. But that's OK. I'm used to it. Having fun anyhow, on the endless carousel.

 

I, for one, don't rule John out as being involved in this crime. I have felt since day one that this was a male Ramsey that committed this thing and Patsy was always last on my list. Although I admit I have always leaned toward Burke as being involved (not the ransom note), I am still on that merry-go-round of perps. IMO, Patsy is definitely involved in the staging. Her fibers are all over the place, as we know. However, John's supposedly are in the underwear (the bullchit comment he made was defensive, IMO). I dunno, I can think of all kinds of scenarios involving John. And remember, he's the one that supposedly was in the shower that morning, unlike Patsy, with her shower being broken. Also, I have seen John's handwriting samples online and can see similarities with the ransom note, but then so are Patsy's. Personally, I think it is possible they both could have been in on writing that note. I know John was supposedly ruled out as writer, but I was amazed to hear that after what I saw.

 

I'm glad we agree on so much of this. I too was amazed that John was ruled out. So was Brugnatelli, a documentation expert from Italy who's devoted a web site to his comparisons. To me that ruling is in all likelihood the HUGE mistake that's caused this case to become unsolvable. Once that ruling was made, all eyes went from John, the most likely suspect, to Patsy, who is IMO far less likely motivewise and totally unlikely logicwise.

I think John could have done it all totally on his own, probably during some sort of incest related act that got out of hand. This to me is FAR more likely than a head blow due to maternal rage over bedwetting.

The fibers from Patsy's sweater are hard to see as meaningful evidence. She'd been in close contact with JonBenet, so it would have been easy for some of those fibers to transfer to her and from her to her attacker, as he put together the "garotte." John's fibers in JonBenet's privates are MUCH harder to explain.

And yes John was the one who took a shower. If YOU had just been up all night covering up a crime, would you a) remain in the same clothing you'd been up in all night? b) remove your clothing and take a shower?

I do think Patsy may have told some "white lies" on the advice of their legal team, which had the unenviable task of defending BOTH of them. But I don't thinks she's guilty of the death of JonBenet or the coverup. Remember, she's the one who offered to take 10 lie detector tests. To John that suggestion was the biggest insult of his life. And Patsy was the one who was under "medications" for weeks or even months while John fended off the questions of the BPD.

 

Good points DocG. I think maybe it was samples of John's writing that you put up online, now that I think about it. I truly believe he should not have been excluded and was impressed with these samples.

 

Unchanged theory.

Hi Thor, this is like old times. Your theory is still the same as it was three years ago when we first posted. You haven't changed it one tiny iota. Who would have thought we would still be talking about this case in three years time, and yet here we are, no further forward than we were back then.

I did change my theory as you know, and I jumped off the fence. I am grateul to Delmar for helping me jump off.

Yes, both of us thought John Ramsey's handwriting was similar to the ransom note as well as Patsy's. I still feel the same about that, but lean more towards the content being related to Patsy, through Delmar's teaching.

 

Hi Elle, yes, my perp is still male, you're right. After all this time, I still keep coming back to that. Altho, I will say that I respect Delmar and even tho I don't think Patsy did it, I can look at it from that point of view. He says that I cannot see Patsy doing it because I (being female) cannot envision doing that to my child. Delmar makes a helluva lot of sense in this regard. You look at it from a female point of view and not being Patsy, I cannot see it her way. I will say that the only possible way I can see Patsy as the killer is an accident and coverup or...she's got mental problems and is in denial. That is possible, I will admit. And, I have not seen all the evidence. But for some reason, I keep going back to that circle involving a male....

 

DocG

I think it is excellent to think outside the box. Initially, I felt a male murdered JBR and strangling is a male type of crime. I can't get too excited by the manual strangulation thing though because there really is no evidence of it, such as bruises in a finger configuration and the hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage is not fractured.

You seem to agree with Wecht about the strangulation coming first and the head blow later but there are other forensic pathologists who do not agree with that theory. There is swelling of the brain and some bleeding, indicating she was alive at the time of the head blow. Of course that doesn't mean strangulation didn't occur first - it just means she was still alive.

My question is-what kind of sex game with a child involves manual strangulation? Erotic asphixiation is supposed to give a thrill to the one with a lack of oxygen. JR doing manual strangulation on JBR as part of a sex game makes no more sense than PR hitting her on the head and going into a panic mode. I may be wrong but I don't think the goal of most father's that molest their daughters is to give the daughter pleasure. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that. Wouldn't it be more difficult to get a little girl to keep her mouth shut about what is going on if she thinks she could be strangled to death? JR would have to know there would be problems hiding something bad going on but he would have to know how hard it would be to hide bruises on JBR's neck from Patsy.

 

Who knows, Thor, you could be right!? At least we can prove to the Swamp Swimmers that we can discuss the JonBenét case without being snide and sarcastic to each other. I've respected your opinion over the years and enjoyed your excellent posts. Yes, it really does change your thinking once you get rid of the "I wouldn't do that kind of thing to my own daughter" thought, because Patsy isn't "you" ... and try and think of Patsy's personae.

I would say Texan has made a good point where John Ramsey is concerned with the following statement.

He's right! I think a daughter would be quick to report to her mother about something of this magnitude.

 

Texan's question is excellent. And I'm not sure I can respond in a manner that others will find acceptable. All I can say is that the evidence leads us to the point that we are forced to consider just such a possibility. Strangulation in all likelihood preceded the head blow. The "garotte" setup was almost certainly staging and NOT the source of the strangulation. Which suggests manual strangulation prior to both head blow AND "garotte." Which, in turn, would go a LONG way toward explaining why the "garotte" was empoyed at all (to point away from and/or destroy possible prints on the victim's neck). So now the question is: why was JonBenet strangled -- and by whom?

If an intruder strangled her manually, that person would ALSO have wanted to hide any possible prints, and so could also have been motivated to concoct the "garotte" staging. So the "garotte" does not in itself tell us this had to have been done by an insider. However, there are plenty of other reasons to doubt the existence of an intruder, which for me and so many others remains highly unlikely.

So, following the evidence, we are led to the conclusion that the most likely possibility is: gentle manual strangulation by someone inside the house, probably accidental. There are many reasons to doubt Burke could have done this. If Patsy did it, that would certainly be highly unusual behavior for a female. (And there are IMO many other reasons to discount Patsy as a suspect.) Clearly the most likely suspect for this sort of activity would be the father. There are many many known cases of father-daughter incest, even in the "best" of families with no known history of aberrant behavior.

Given the above, we can now return to Texan's question, but with a greater sense of urgency. We now have a conflict between what the evidence is telling us and our own sense of propriety -- and also our own interpretation of the psychology of those involved. IMO the evidence should always be given priority. On this I completely agee with Delmar.

So, given the evidence of manual strangulation by the father, what exactly happened and why? But at this point the evidence fails us. There IS no evidence that could answer that question. We can only speculate. And from here on I have to ask your forgiveness because what I'm about to say may be offensive to some of you. John might have been carelessly caressing JonBenet's neck and, as he got more and more excited, increased the pressure without realizing it and, not knowing his own strength, accidently strangled her. It's possible, also, that he had his hands around her neck because that enhanced his sense of power over her. So it's not necessary to assume that erotic strangulation in the usual sense was involved.

Some have claimed such a scenario to be impossible because, typically, manual strangulation leaves telltale marks on the victim's neck. However, there is a notorious case involving a famous French philosopher, Louis Althusser, which is in some ways eerily similar to my own speculations here. Althusser claimed he was gently massaging his wife's neck, as he often did, at her request. When he was done, he discovered to his horror (or so he claimed) that she was dead. He called the police and explained what happened, but initially wasn't believed because there were no marks on his wife's neck. It was only when an autopsy was performed that it became clear she'd been strangled. If you do an internet search on "Althusser" you'll get the details regarding this truly bizarre case. Whether Althusser killed his wife deliberately or accidentally will probably never be known. But it IS a fact that the strangulation left NO marks on the victim's neck.

When we consider the Ramsey case, we have a father who is many times larger and more powerful than his daughter. If in fact some sort of molestation was going on, and he had his hands around her neck, it's not difficult to imagine that he could have strangled her without knowing it and without leaving any marks, as with Althusser.

 

Ofcom

Have received a complaint about the documentary. It's in their latest report out this week. No details as yet. They take months to investigate and report. They are extremely thorough.

It's not too late for other complaints. However, if Steve Gigax is going to complain, it might be advantageous for him to do it now when Ofcom have Tracey's doc under investigation anyway.

 

This is great news, Jayelles! Thank you for the update! Look forward to more news. Will miss you while you're away, but I do have bbc.uk on my pc and I'll keep a lookout for it.

 

Elle

It won't be on bbc.co.uk. It will take months for this to be processed, but the results will be posted on www.ofcom.org.uk

Leaving in a few hours. It's chaos here. There are 9 relatives staying with us just now - all flying out early tomorrow morning. Someone remarked last night that we're like "the Broons"!

 

Ofcom/Tracey documentary

Ha,ha,ha,ha! I remember that comic book! I remember a wee fellow called "Oor Wullie" who sat on a bucket. He's probably still sitting on it! Safe flight! Will ye all be wearing the same tartan? Have a great time!

Thanks for the url. We can all go there and check it out. This truly is good news that Tracey's documentary is being investigated.

 

Have a great holiday Jayelles! Relax and enjoy your trip.

 

Snap Out Of It, Boulder!!!!!

 

Did you call it a TV Station???? Better not let Michael Tracey hear that....