Members' Theories

This is just ONE website about it....I can post more if needed.

http://www.cell-phone-radiation.org/children.html

Here is part of the article..

"A child's head contains more fluid than that of an adult. Consequently, this increased amount of water acts as a conductor of the radiation. Also, the skull bones in the head of a child don't fully harden until about 22 years of age. Therefore, the bones that make up their skull are softer. Softer bones means the radiation will penetrate deeper into the head."

Softer bones not only mean that radiation from a cell-phone will penetrate deeper into the head of a child, it also means that it wouldn't take alot of force to crack it open. There is another site, that I have posted before...and that I will try and find again, that states that a child can crack their skull from falling off a bike. So, this tells me that although I do NOT BELIEVE that BURKE was involved at all in this....he, a nine year old at the time, COULD have caused JB's head injury. Because of this...I STILL believe that the injury came from being slung onto the side of something such as the toilet, the sink...or the tub. Contrary to popular belief...according to what I have read on the thickness of a child's skull.....a violent shove WOULD HAVE caused the injury to JB's skull. It would not have taken the strength of a MAN with a powerful blow, to have caused her injury. I stand by my original theory....Patsy caused the blow by a violent shoving...or slinging.

 

As for my theory, I can see various combinations of who did what that night being convincingly argued. The only thing I don't think happened is that an intruder came in and spent hours in the home, wrote the note, hid while the Ramseys returned and prepared for bed, then spent more time in the home feeding pineapple to JonBenet, doing "whatever" for an hour or two, then molested her with a paintbrush, bludgeoned, strangled, and murdered her, leaving her body behind, along with the no-ransom note.

I also cannot elimate Burke all the way round. Statistically, the majority of sexual molestation in the home is done against younger siblings by older brothers. It used to be called "playing doctor". Patsy herself said JonBenet sometimes went into Burke's room to sleep when she'd wet the bed. One book reported Burke was the one who kept the maglight in his room.

Remember the call to Dr. Beuf three times in one hour, after office hours, on Dec. 17th? Why couldn't Patsy "remember" what that was about, if it was so urgent? IF the prior molestation involved Burke and the parents found out, Burke could have been angry at JonBenet because he was in trouble. That might square with the 911 enhanced tape: though I can't say what the words were, the tones were very harsh.

Why would Burke NOT get up or call out to his parents if he heard them scurrying around, frantic, even when they came into his room? It doesn't make sense to me.

Something we haven't talked about much, either, that I was thinking about recently: remember the "letter" in the tab from Judith Phillips' daughter to JonBenet? The one brought up at the swamp to implicate Judith, giving jams the opportunity to trash the woman again with jams' RST gossip? That letter talked about how JonBenet and Judith's daughter made Burke mad by turning off his Nintendo videogame while he was playing, so he chased them to JonBenet's bathroom and banged on the door they had locked. That got me to thinking about how many kids get frustrated playing those games and throw the consoles around, have tantrums, more or less. That's COMMON with these games. There have been a BOATLOAD of studies on it, in fact. Back before 1996, there were no 3-D games, of course, no "first person shooter" games, but the difficulty and intensity of playing them still created a lot of tension and aggression in children. Maybe that was a factor in an angry outburst. Perhaps Burke, excited with his new, groundbreaking 3-D Ninetendo game system, was secretly playing his new Nintendo in his room and JonBenet woke up and went in there. Siblings fight. Maybe that is what started the events of that night: "We didn't mean for this to happen," one source reported Patsy saying.

Or maybe both children were awake when they got home, the parents went to get ready for bed, Patsy was also doing last minute things for the trip, and Burke and JonBenet ate pineapple: Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple on the table, remember. Then Burke was playing his game, the parents said go to bed, Burke kept playing, JonBenet pulled the plug, Burke reacted with an angry blow. Because they knew about the molestation, Patsy and John made some calls and came up with a plan.

Of course, the problem with this theory, as with all theories about that head blow, followed by the strangulation, is the time issue. Since we don't have court testimony given by experts who were directly involved in the case, especially Meyers, no way to know, is there? This can be argued so many ways, and has been. If the head blow had to be followed by the strangulation soon after, that changes things. So maybe it was later after all had gone to bed when the altercation happened between Burke and JonBenet. Maybe he planned to teach her a lesson, and it went all wrong. His swiss knife was found downstairs near the cellar room, near the paint tray. It had been hidden by the maid in the cupboard where the diapers were found hanging out by LE and photographed in the crime scene pictures. Patsy said she took some diapers out of that pack earlier that day to take on the Big Red Boat. Maybe Burke saw his knife then, or maybe Patsy did and gave it back to him.

Or maybe none of the above. For Burke to have done all that and kept it to himself through two LE interviews and a grand jury would be extraordinary. This is why I haven't been able to find Burke being involved as entirely plausible. While in many ways it makes the most sense, in this way it is the least convincing.

Burke could be innocent as a lamb and it all falls on John and/or Patsy. You all know how those theories go, so no need to repeat them. It's simply frustrating to even try to fit everything together when there truly is so much we don't know. The bedwetting theory is credible. The "Patsy gone haywire" theory is no less so, when it's already so bizarre, why not? John is naturally going to be suspect with the prior molestation evidence the RST protests too much.

Maddening, isn't it? It's why we're still here, with a puzzle we just can't put together, but can't stop trying. Since Patsy and John were undoubtedly, in my mind, covering up the events of that night with staging, and the molestation before that night as well, IMO. As BobC often says, intruders don't stage crime scenes.

I don't think we will ever know for sure what happened exactly, only that the three people known to be in the home will always be under that umbrella.

 

Thanks, Ames. This is why I find it credible that Burke COULD be the one who struck the head blow. Kids DO fight, fiercely.

For John or Patsy to have struck that blow, he or she would have to have completely lost control of his or her faculties and common sense, forgetting or not caring that a short time later, he/she would have to EXPLAIN IN COURT why JonBenet had her skull cracked in half. It could have happened, of course. It does happen, all the time.

Or it could been done deliberately to keep JonBenet from telling others who was molesting her. Incest is a powerful secret to be kept at ALL costs, those who have experienced it say.

The theory that blow was directed at John by Patsy and struck JonBenet instead when Patsy "caught John molesting her" came directly from trying to explain WHY a parent would do such a thing.

But it also happens that it's common for children to injure each other. Some kids fight so hard it's a wonder they DON'T kill each other. Yet they don't have the ability to form intent because they can't fathom the repercussions of violent actions, as in the permancy of death. Children sometimes ask of a loved one who has died, is he coming back? They wait for that until they develop and realize the death is final.

 

I just don't think that if Berke did it, the Ramseys would have kept themselves in the limelight and Larry King and the book, etc. I think they would have let it go to let it die down. Besides Berke can be heard saying "what did you find". I just don't think he was the one.

I think Patsy did it and John helped cover it up. I think Patsy believes in her heart that it was an accident (e.g. "I know in my heart I did not do this") and therefore she did not do it.

I can see something horrible happening and that was NOT the intention at all - so the person can say, never did it, never meant it, not me. I am not a monster and so I am not going to leave my son who needs me for somethingn that was an ACCIDENT. I mean who would believe that one could cause and 8 1/2 inch gash in a child's head. She looks like she had been shot. But if she were violtently handled and she hit her head against the tub and then fell again, it can happen. She was little and tlhen it is over.

She did say to her friend "we did not mean for this to happen". I realize that is hearsay.

I think it was easy for John to get enraged because he is being accused by some of incest and he can transfer whatever feelings he has to DEFENDING his good name. He is infuriated over that and has verbalized it so much so that he could not get the words out on LKL with Steve Thomas (which show by the way he completely distorts and says Thomas fumbled through the whole thing).

John named too many people for him to not know something in this case. The Merrick interview is great.
By the way in the interview he says he wrote a book, anyone hear about it?

 

And you could be right, sboyd. I don't know the absolute answer.

But I believe the Ramseys' publicity campaigns, regardless of which one did what, were about salvaging their reputations. John eventually lost his AG job, remember, and hasn't been a CEO again. The only full time job I know of he's had was his "Jaleo" company branch, for a short period in Atlanta after he left AG when it was bought by GE in '97. Jaleo, some kind of company out of Spain, seems I remember, was the one Glen Stine also joined and moved with Susan Stine from Boulder to Atlanta to work with John. Since then, John's only employment that's been referred to publicly was as a "consultant", and that was way back when there were rumors the Ramseys were moving to Texas...or was it New Mexico? Arizona? Sorry, somewhere Southwest.

My point being that Patsy and John were big fish in a little pond in Boulder. They had the American Dream. Then they had the American Nightmare: the Fall from Grace. That's another element of this case key to why it's so embedded in the public consciousness. The Ramsey story is one of mythical proportions. Patsy and John displayed extreme hubris when they paraded themselves around on TV as ABOVE THE LAW, refusing to help LE find the killer of their child, blaming their refusal on LE, all while their child's murdered body lay in her grave and the killer roamed free. No parent I know would ever excuse such behavior if the parents hadn't done such a good job of selling "their story."

So my point, heymom, is that the Ramseys had a reason to become public figures, and it wasn't because any one of them was innocent, IMO. Patsy spent her entire life working to reach that star they'd finally reached. She'd done it. And she wasn't giving it up without a fight, IMO.

And THAT'S why JonBenet ended up in that basement.

 

Let me mention that this is a "guess", as to what was heard on the enhanced 911 tape. The actual words are not that clear. The assignment of what MIGHT have been said is more of a break down of syntax than anything. The quality and intensity of the voices is a deeper, male voice speaking in harsh tones with someone responding in a higher pitched, pleading, childlike voice.

That's what I heard when it was played on TV. Of course, I was hearing mostly likely a fourth generation tape being played over the air, so maybe it is clearer on the original enhanced tape. (As for the argument that the enhanced tape was never played on TV, Been There DT, I'm not going there, just sharing FYI if you want to consider it.)

 

While my strongest feelings are for a PDI scenario, I cannot rule out ANY of the Rs, including people though NOT to be in the house that night, like JAR.

 

could be Burke?

Due to the position of the skull fracture, I think if Burke did it, JBR had to be sitting down when struck. I don't think he was tall enough to hit that high on her head if they where both standing, an adult, though, would be tall enough.

 

John's role in the cover-up

I does happen that parents bring their severely injured children to the hospital with concocted stories about the child having fallen down the stairs etc., when in truth they want to hide that the child has been the victim of parental physical abuse. Why do these parents cover up for each other? Often the two of them have participated in the battering of the child, or one of them was aware of the abuse and did not step in.

If John was JonBenet's chronic sexual abuser, I can see him covering up for Patsy, since in that case he would have had something to hide too.
But suppose he had nothing to do with it all, i. e neither been sexually abusing JonBenet nor delivered the blow to her head - why would he cover up for Patsy who killed his own flesh and blood?
How many spouses would do this - cover up for their partner in such a case and invent a story for LE?
While my husband would do everyhing in his power to defend me if he felt I was unjustly accused of a criminal offense, he would never, ever cover up for me in such a case. Under no circumstances. And vice versa. Nor would I expect him to cover up for me. If I had snapped and lost it, I probably would have suffered a total breakdown, and my husband would have called an ambulance a soon as he saw what had happened.

Injuring one's child in one brief moment of rage might happen to any parent. Theroretically, even one shove or push can have fatal results.
I can see Patsy begging John on her knees not to turn her in, but that he actually gave in and actively helped her to cover it up - what was his motive? Pity for Patsy? Pity for Burke who might lose his mother also? Self-interest because he dreaded headlines like "Multimillionaire's wife bludgeons small daughter to death?"
All of the above?

Imo what KK wrote touches the core of the issue:

The Fall from Grace. Nothing prepared the Ramseys to face THAT, so they chose to cover up what had happened. Even going as far as callously tying a ligature around their dying child's neck and inflicting a genital wound.
They colluded in their joint deception of the public, and their conspiracy of silence about the truth tied them together until death parted them.

It is. Absolutely. One can get insights from this tragic case which reach far beyond studying the forensic evidence against the Ramseys.

 

rashomon said fibers were found in the crotch of the panties. The interview said in the panties, not the crotch. That's an example of an inappropriate elaboration. I've never had to resort to things like fibers, which could be transfered without direct involvement, in my argument.

 

Fiber evidence implicating John

I looked up the exact quote in the August/2000 interview with Patsy (for she was asked about John's shirt fibers too), and what it says there mentions even more damaging fiber evidence against John than I thought:


For fibers from John's shirt were found both on JonBenet's crotch and in her underpants.


8 MR. LEVIN: I understand your

9 position.

10 In addition to those questions,

11 there are some others that I would like you

12 to think about whether or not we can have

13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I

14 understand you are advising her not to today,

15 and those are there are black fibers that,

16 according to our testing that was conducted,

17 that match one of the two shirts that was

18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.

19 Those are located in the

20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in

21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two

22 other areas that we have intended to ask

23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in

24 explaining their presence in those locations.


The Bonita Papers mention those fibers on JonBenet's crotch too:

"During the vaginal examination, small dark colored fibers were found on JonBenet’s external labia."

[Important to note that these were not the navy blue cotton fibers fibers found in the vagina which are mentioned in the same paragraph:

"Small dark blue fibers, consistent with a cotton towel, were recovered from the vaginal area."]


So fibers consistent with those of John Ramsey's black wool shirt were found on JonBetnet's crotch and in the size 12 underpants. It does not say where exactly in the underpants those fibers were found, but the shirt fiber evidence found on the external labia is damaging enough.

There is no doubt in my mind that John Ramsey was involved at least in the cover-up, if not in much more.

Studying the fiber evidence is pivotal in criminal cases, especially in circumstantial evidence cases.
For blood, hair and fibers are often the 'silent witnesses' which help solve these cases.

How did fibers from John's shirt end up in these incriminating locations? Even die-hard IDIs (who were in denial over this fiber evidence by alleging it didn't exist) have admitted that "if it were true", it would sway them to RDI.

 

Texan, I think it's entirely possible for Burke to have swung the maglight or a bat or golf club and hit JonBenet on the top of the head at that level. Or, as you say, she could have been seated and he standing. I don't know, of course, if either of those happened. But I can't rule it out. I wish I could.

 

Paradox, we are not imaging that John Ramsey is in this up to his neck. What level of involvement is the only question, in my mind.

You are splitting hairs. Or should I say fibers.

What I don't understand is how you are so easily antagonized by the differing theories of others. Your theory is based on the purely speculative psychology of Patsy, along with Patsy's fibers and the ransom note, as far as I understand it. We all learned a lot about Patsy from her appearances and interviews, with LE, in deposition, and on TV programs. Yet none of us knew Patsy personally, and those who did will never admit and may not even know what the private Patsy was capable of in her psyche. So what you believe is certainly nothing you can prove from one book you can't even prove she read.

So all I'm saying is that there are many theories, many people are passionate about theirs, as you are. In the end, we learn a lot from all of them.

I've been at this a long time, and I have yet to see anyone present the evidence in this case that is ever going to be tried in court against ANYONE. Mary Lacy's arrest of PERV Karr proved to me no one left in Boulder LE who is charged with prosecuting this case or investigating it knows enough about it to make a case before a jury. They simply have let it go because of the lack of cooperation among the DA and the BPD, and the BPD was the ONLY hope for it, because they are the only ones who knew ALL of it. Lacy can hire detectives until the next century and she won't find anyone who can get up to speed on it, much less develop new evidence or come up with a case she can take to court against ANYONE.

Of course, you know this. Patsy is dead. Patsy will be reasonable doubt for any defendant because of the number of handwriting experts who will testify AT LEAST that Patsy cannot be eliminated as the writer of the note is. That's reasonable doubt for any jury and any defendant. Even with the confession of a FULL BLOWN SOCIOPATH like PERV Karr, Lacy coudn't make a case. That pretty much says it all.

So all we're left with are our speculations and arguments, and nothing else. We use what we think we know, and then we find out later it's not at all what we thought it was, like the "rope in a paper bag" myth and the "paper bag fibers in the bed and body bag" BS that even Judge Carnes had to accept because it was fed to her BY CASE DESTROYER LOU SMIT and no one rebutted it.

I respect your theory, Paradox, because you have a lot of interesting points which may or may not be true. That's pretty much ALL of the theories.

So the only theory that I can absolutely stand behind is this: OF THE THREE KNOWN PEOPLE IN THE HOME, ONE OR MORE OF THEM DID THIS TO JONBENET. Patsy is a GIVEN as involved because SHE WROTE THE RANSOM NOTE. If any person could PROVE which one did what, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

The rest of my time is spent rebutting the DISINFORMATION the RST has flooded the public with, carried along by the gullible, the naive, the stupid, and quite a few mental cases.

Truly, I'm tired of it all. I know it's a waste of time now and just a matter of habit and pigheadedness. It hurts my heart to think that someone murdered JonBenet, molested, bludgeoned, and strangled her, and she will never see justice. I will never have anything but full disrespect of the Ramseys for not fighting for her, for hiding the truth, and for harming so many people in their efforts to cover up what THEY did and for which they should have taken responsibility: the murder of JonBenet. They are true cowards, IMO.

What I DON'T want to see are members HERE going at each other as if WE'RE the enemy. We're pretty much all we have left. If we don't support each other, no matter our theoretical and personality differences, this, too, will end.

 

The fiber evidence against John is even more damaging than Paradox believes. For the shirt fibers were not only found in JonBenet's underpants, but also on her external labia.
(Sources posted in # 51)

 

Yes, I saw that, rashomon.

I've wondered if Smit came up with his "fibers from the duvet in the suitcase" as the source, which allegedly were consistent with fibers from the body as determined by the CBI but not by the FBI, to push his INTRUDER theory and not implicate John. I guess that the FBI determined the fibers were consistent with John's sweater.

But Smit didn't say THE DUVET FIBERS were the same ones in the genital area...did he? So maybe it's BOTH: duvet fibers ON THE BODY, but not the genital area; John's fibers in the genital area...? I don't guess we'll ever know.

And how MADDENING is this case?!! We can't get a STRAIGHT ANSWER FROM ANYONE!! We KNOW Smit either lies or has gotten things so confused, he's tainted a civil case under oath with INCORRECT INFORMATION about the evidence. On the other hand, the RST says LE lied about John's fibers. Since we can't see ANY of the forensic reports, we'll never make that argument one way or another.

WE'RE LIKE FRICKING RODENTS ON THAT STUPID SPINNING WHEEL!! ARRRRGH!!

 

So true. Homer couldn't have written it any better.

 

Where does it say fibers from John's shirt? Doesn't it say fibers from shirts provided by the Ramseys?

"So fibers consistent with those of John Ramsey's black wool shirt were found on JonBetnet's crotch and in the size 12 underpants."

Where does it say that?

 

Agreed. Since I believe the original crime of sexual abuse started before that night, I rule out no one from the family in that element of the crime. Since I also believe the Ramseys, as well as their family and friends, would lie about anything in this case to protect them, I also do not buy alibis that rely on them, nor character support.

 

The second reference from Patsy's interview says two shirts provided, BUT SPECIFIES THE BLACK SHIRT. Patsy had on a red sweater and a red and black jacket at the White's and the next morning when LE arrived, did she not? Let's compare:

John's interview:

 

The sources have been posted in #51.

Is the color of those duvet fibers mentioned anywhere?