Laying the Foundation For Borg Mentality

Well, jameson's been known to accept tips and certain evidence kept in her freezer for DNA. I think she wasn't there the day they taught chain of evidence criteria in her Investigation 101 class.

 

I get it

I see! Then, "Ball-head?"

Speaking of Butt Head...My BIL and SIL from England sent our boys a game for Christmas one year - called "Butt-Head." Over here, that's an insult but in England it means nothing. We laughed and laughed at the name, and used to ask each other "Do you want to be a Butt-Head?" (You put on velcro'd cloth helmets and threw little balls at each other's heads.) :laffbig:

Heymom

 

Dear Cherokee:

In regard to the excerpts of letters from Mrs. Ramsey that you kindly posted, the second appears to have been written after the crime, as she mentions missing JB. As she signs off "Love, Mommy," I assume she was writing to Burke. (The two had been physically separated for a period of time for some reason? Burke perhaps attended boarding school for a spell after the crime?) If so, then this is yet another nail in the coffin to the BDI theory, as Mrs. Ramsey notes missing JB within the letter. If her son had killed his sister for whatever reason, I doubt she would be bringing up how much she missed JB to the boy; not after having covered-up for him. It would seem most incongruous of her to have done so.

Do you have copies of both these letters in their entirety, or even more of them? Do you have URLs for more samples of writing from PR and perhaps even from other potential suspects, intimates and friends of the family? If so, I would greatly appreciate the links.

Say what one might about Mr. Havens, I find his website to be very good and informative, and he appears well-educated and highly literate for a young person. I like the way he gives Mr. Smit's arguments and the police rebuttal (in many instances) to them (via a newspaper account). In regard to Mr. Smit's argument that abrasions on the child's neck are her own fingernail marks, indicating her struggling to remove the ligature around her neck in a fight for life, the police maintain the abrasions came from the knuckles of the perp while initially attempting to manually strangle the child.

However, if the head wound was inflicted first, and the strangling was pure staging by JR*, why the initial attempt at manual strangulation on his part? That makes no sense to me, either from a logistical or psychological perspective.

Thank you once again.

*After looking at close-up pictures of the garrote knot, I am convinced that there is no way in Hades that PR made that knot! I don't know what Mr. Ramsey's position had been in the Navy, and I do not know if officers in the Navy, or all officers if any, received the same training with knots that I had been given as a humble BM striker on a ship. It is possible that due to his naval training, he might have been so capable, but no way his former Miss West Virginia, social butterfly and journalism major of a wife!

 

Dear Mr. England:

You keep asking and harping on: What evidence is there of an intruder that fateful night?

Okay, firstly, a dead body was found in the house and the three surviving residents all deny involvement. This is the first obvious indication that there might have been an intruder. They all lied? Highly possible, yes. But if there had been an intruder who killed the child, then he or she lied instead, either actively, if questioned, or passively through silence.

Secondly, the Ramseys had not activated their alarm system for an extended period of time, confessing that they didn't know how to shut the blasted thing off if innocently activated, which had happened previously. They lived in low-crime area Boulder and were lulled into a false sense of security. They didn't think to have bodyguards for their children, and were even listed in the phone book with their address.

Lou Smit put forth a plausible theory as to how an intruder could have gained entry, and even if you don't accept his argument in this respect (and I do not accept much of what he argues either), it is also well within the realm of possibility that the intruder had a key to one or more of the doors and knew that the Ramseys did not activate their alarm system. This is in accordance with my IIDI (intimate intruder did it) theory. Who knows whom the Ramseys might have given a key to in the past, even temporarily, who then made a copy of it without their knowledge?

Thirdly, there are inconsistencies with any RDI theory, which have been discussed endlessly here and elsewhere. I shall not take the time to recount them all, and Detective Thomas, as one example, is forced to fall back upon "for some reason" and pure speculation ("bed wetting rage") in attempting to support his theory of the crime with many aspects.

As I stated previously, I am no great fan of former Boulder DA Alex Hunter (and even less of one of his protégé and successor!), but in this one instance, at least, he was absolutely right. If he had charged PR as Det. Thomas urged, with the evidence he had against her there was no way he could have gained a conviction, and then would have lost all opportunity for a future one had Mrs. Ramsey been in fact guilty. Since the accused would have been the victim's next of kin, there wouldn't have even been the chance of the small solace gained in the Simpson case with a subsequent civil suit. Who would have standing to sue on the victim's behalf?

Finally, and off topic, I read your "Word Games" chapter of your aforementioned book, attempting by analytic means to lay bare the system politic and expose it as what it is: legalized slavery. You are not saying anything new or particularly profound. Since the dawn of civilization, people have been paying what amounts to protection money; first to "strong men," initially in the literal sense of the word, and then to heredity chieftains, and finally to monarchs and their vassals, through the "pols" of contemporary times.

In any bell-shaped curve random distribution we find the average, as well as the above and below average specimens. When the human population reached a point where cultivation and craftsmanship produced items worth having--and stealing--weaker specimens (women, children and most men) were forced to pay tribute to the physically stronger in order to survive. Those strong men who also possessed enough intelligence to realize the wisdom of the fable of the golden goose, understood that it was far more profitable to allow weaker people to live and toil on and take a percentage of their labor over an extended period of time, rather than kill them outright and steal whatever they had at the given moment.

As society progressed and matters became more sophisticated, physical strength alone ceased to be the basis for control. Organizational talents also became critical, either exercised personally by monarchs and other assorted tyrants, or through ministers with brains whose found it in their interest to prop up whatever dynastic personage happened to be sitting on the throne at the moment.

Today we call tribute "taxes," and whomever controls the police and military both "owns us" and protects us, at least to some limited extent. This is as true today with democarcy as it was years ago with monarchies. Agreed.

So what exactly is your point, sir, in calling governance a form of "people ownership"? Is it simply to call a spade a spade? You find such to be profound of and in itself, or by reading the rest of your book will I discover that you claim to have some plan to eliminate random natural variables rendering certain individuals more powerful than others and with better attributes for survival, and thus eliminate the necessary symbiotic relationships we have established between the weak and strong among us; not unlike weaker specimens of wolves having forged an alliance with mankind for purposes of survival to have become the domesticated creatures we now commonly refer to as "dogs"? If so, I, for one, am certainly all ears!

 

First of all, Patsy and Burke were not separated when the letter was written. Secondly, Burke never attended boarding school. After JonBenet died, he continued to live with his parents.

I have never assumed Patsy was writing to Burke. The sample was written at the request of detectives who were sitting in the room with Patsy. They needed an example of her "spontaneous handwriting;" something that wasn't copied from another sheet of paper or book. They wanted her to make up the words as she wrote.

Patsy begins the spontaneous note as just random thoughts on her surroundings. Later, she changes her thoughts to include JonBenet. She is very conscious that her letter will be analyzed, and so she includes phrases that will make her seem like the "good mother." "I miss darling Jonni B" and "Love, Mommy" is intended to provoke sympathy for Patsy. The inclusion of the adjective "darling" is ornamental, not emotional. Notice Patsy is adamant about using the French accent mark on the nickname of "Jonni B" even though it is not the proper name "JonBenet." Patsy loved French accent marks; witness the word *attache'* in the Ransom Note.

You will find samples of Patsy's handwriting (including the ones I have posted) on ACandyRose's fantastic Ramsey resource web site at the following link:

http://www.acandyrose.com/

On that page you will find, you find a link specifically named "Patsy's Handwriting." It will take you to the following URL:

http://blabbieville.tripod.com/index.htm

Patsy was familar with the craft of macrame. There is nothing in the rope knot that could not have been done by a person trained in macrame knots.

 

To paraphrase the “evidence†you cite:

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, evidence of an intruder is the
resident Defendants say they didn’t do it.â€

I have to feel a bit sorry for anyone on this level of
“thinkingâ€, but not sorry enough to waste any more time on a
Lou Smit clone.

 

Nothing at all! The cord was just woven in and out and crossed sideways" Simple! Plant hangers on the other hand, with the twisted like braid, those are intricate! Took the course myself a long time ago.

 

"However, if the head wound was inflicted first, and the strangling was pure staging by JR*, why the initial attempt at manual strangulation on his part? That makes no sense to me, either from a logistical or psychological perspective."

The article is somewhat misleading. Werner Spitz said that it's likely that there manual strangulation and head wound were more or less simultaneous, followed up by the staged garrote.

"After looking at close-up pictures of the garrote knot, I am convinced that there is no way in Hades that PR made that knot! I don't know what Mr. Ramsey's position had been in the Navy, and I do not know if officers in the Navy, or all officers if any, received the same training with knots that I had been given as a humble BM striker on a ship. It is possible that due to his naval training, he might have been so capable, but no way his former Miss West Virginia, social butterfly and journalism major of a wife!"

Daniel, according to Michael Kane, the knot experts said that a child could have made that knot.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, evidence of an intruder is the
resident Defendants say they didn't do it."

That's what I thought.

 

Dear Mr. England:

"I have to feel a bit sorry for anyone on this level of
“thinkingâ€, but not sorry enough to waste any more time on a
Lou Smit clone."

--Ab hinc, ad eundem gradum? Non placet. Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam.

--Aquila non captat muscas.

 

In pace requiescat.