Put the garrote in Patsy's hands

Still think you're way out on a limb

I still think you're way out on a limb with this one MJenn. Whether planes can fly with no flight schedule whatsoever etc., etc., As I said before, there were many other occasions when John Andrew Ramsey could have tackled this murder. This is just too far fetched, and not believable. I think it's too ridiculoius for words!

 

Well, I understand, elle...

I researched this theory for two years, however, and it's no more farfetched than her mom went nuts one night and damaged her hymen while "wiping" her, then caused some "accident," then strangled the life out of her and wrote the mother of all ransom notes right before she did her hair and makeup and began her 5 year act of innocence, complete with book tour and mini-series; or her dad was molesting her and her mom went nuts; or Burke was a homicidal child...and they all have covered it to this day with bogus ransom notes and lawyers out the wazoo.

There are some who think JAR was in Boulder already that night, also, and that the family was all involved in giving him an alibi.

All I know is that no matter how you slice it, the sexual molestation and garroting of a six year old child in her own home on Christmas night with three family members all in the house claiming not to have heard a thing while an intruder schlepped around writing a long, rambling ransom note and covering his tracks...is RIDICULOUS. There is NO THEORY that isn't ridiculous. This crime is RIDICULOUS. So, yeah, I know the JAR theory is also RIDICULOUS.

But the fact remains: he had the opportunity. It was possible. That's all I'm saying. In a crime this twisted, I think ruling out ANYONE close to the victim is naive. And for many elements of this crime...including A LOT of the evidence...JAR is implicated.

So you explain it. All of it. Make it fit. Track the crime, explain all the evidence--including how petechial hemorrhages got on the neck of a dead body, if you're going with Mr. England's claim that "post mortem swelling" caused the embedding of the garrote and she wasn't strangled at all (I think that's what he said, but no one has addressed that question I had, so maybe I got that wrong.) Then give us the motive.

Because with this case, either it all fits, or there's reasonable doubt, hands down. And we're back to square one.

 

While you guys are figuring it all out, tell me something...that pic MJenn posted of JB at autopsy, there is a distinct line below and at an angle to the rope that is still wrapped around her neck.

This mark tells me there was friction and pulling below the area where the rope rests at autopsy. Makes me wonder if there wasn't Some struggling with that rope.

Also, the more I reconsider this case, the more rage I see against something someone yet focused n JB.

Mels

 

MJenn

As you know, I'm with you on the JAR thingy. I certainly hold him right up at the top. That cussed ATM slip is messy, tho. As for timing, perhaps JAR used that time as he'd be in Atlanta as an alibi. OR...maybe he'd just had it with the little brat who'd almost snitched on him Dec. 23rd. These are just some things I'm bandying...of course. I think John and Patsy would cover for him, too. The death penalty, if nothing else, would be a big catalyst for that. I have NOT ruled him out.

 

Yep, lots of rage and overkill

I, too, don't see this crime as something done with cold hands, but with controlled rage. I look at JonBenet's battered and abused body and I see something quite evil at work, something driven by a demon hidden from others. I still can't reconcile her parents doing all these evil things to her purely to cover up an accident. There is nothing accidental about that garrote and the sexual molestation, which was arguably ongoing for at least a short time. The note was not an accident. The body hidden in the basement was not an accident. The wrist ligatures and the tape were not accidents. The humiliation to her little body was no accident. The disrespect to JonBenet was NO ACCIDENT. It was deliberate. It was symbolic. It had meaning to the killer.

The only question is what was that meaning--WHY? As Douglas says, find out the WHY and you'll know WHO.

So, was the meaning to the killer to make it APPEAR that he/she was a pedophile/kidnapper/intruder? A sadist? A terrorist? All of these? To cover for something else? For incest? For incest that would be discovered in an emergency room? Sacrifice the child for the master, the millionaire, the life-style, the remaining family members?

Or was the meaning to the killer that he/she wanted to control JonBenet, to silence her, to have the ultimate power over her innocence--to possess her, like any abuser wants to possess the object of his abuse?

Death of innocence, indeed....

 

Imon...teller slip is no problem

Even if it WAS JAR at the teller at 9 pm...EVEN IF THERE WAS A PICTURE (nononononononodon'tevengothereorI'llscream!!!) My timeline started at 9 pm at the teller and went to 6 am the next morning in Lucinda's house. So HE HAD THE TIME. That's 9 HOURS. It is a tight time frame. That's why it's an ALIBI. It would have been daring, wildly improbable, and therefore...the perfect alibi, as long as Brad Millard backed it up.

But remember John Douglas' profile of the killer? Same age range. High risk taking behavior.... Douglas may have gotten sloppy in his retirement and book-writing/lecturing mode, but he's no dummy. With JAR, IT'S AN INTRUDER AND A RAMSEY. Think about it.

But I can't say I think he did it above the other three people known to be in the house that night. Frankly, if I could reconcile the Rams sending Burke out the door without one of them the next morning, I'd go back to thinking he was the trigger somehow that night. How could they possibly feel comfortable that a 10 year old boy who'd just killed his sister wouldn't blurt that out at some point? If they could come up with this wild plan to cover for Burke, they could have come up with one that kept Burke in the company of one of them. And they NEVER had to let him be interviewed. Why would they, if he could have let the whole thing out? Turn him over to skilled psychological manipulators who could trick a child fairly easily, when all they had to say was, he's too traumatized from losing his sister and his doctor says no? I don't think so.

Which leaves me with John, because I see this as a murder that started with sexual abuse and I see the garrote as something a man would have made, not a woman. Not because she couldn't have made it, but because I don't see a mother thinking of that without some prior experience in this area. Patsy Ramsey doesn't strike me as someone who dwelt on the finer points of how to strangle someone. Navy training...S&M...autoerotic/erotic asphyxia sex play....those seem possibilities that lead me to suspect a male.

Think about this: John went to sleep last. John woke up first. So we at least have the possibility that if that was the truth and Patsy really didn't know any better, John is the one who had OPPORTUNITY between the two of them.

John is the one who got the most lawyers. John's ex and her children with him are the ones who got lawyered up. John KNEW he'd be the one targeted because of the molestation, didn't he? Because of the garrote. John told Steve Thomas HE WAS THERE that night. Remember?

But for good measure...here's another crazy idea: what if John did kill her, and then woke Patsy up and told her Burke did it, by accident, and he covered it up. Then he got Patsy to help him cover by writing the note.

OK, I'm too tired to think anymore. I'm in the Twilight Zone. Whathappenedinthathousethatnight?

 

MJenn

Yes, of course! That timeline for JAR would work. Also, JAR had drinking problems at that time (might still, dunno) which would fit into the profile as well. He's high on my list but also, like you, I think John is the culprit or at least has the liability for Patsy's part. Incest is a dark and sinful happening. I don't believe John or Patsy would ever admit to it. The death penalty in the state would also keep them from admitting to JAR doing it, too, I think. What if JAR was molesting JB and JOHN swung at him, missed, and killed JB?

I don't know what happened in that house that night, BUT it sure wasn't tiddlywinks.

 

better watch it, folks

Better watch it, folks. You're about to talk yourselves over to the intruder side of the fence. LOL

MJenn - I don't agree with your theory about JAR at all, but you are certainly right about all the theories being ridiculous. That's what is so fascinating about the case.

 

MJenn

I really like the way you think.

Ayeka

 

MJenn

You rule! You are the most dedicated person on these forums. You write with such passion...you make the most sense. I've always believed it was Patsy, but you got me to thinking.

JAR would forgive the killer. JAR thinks one of his flashy step-mothers friends was responsible. JAR asks why the killer would leave the note on the back staircase. JAR talks about the movie Ransom.

Someone coveted that little girl...someone so obsessed with her, IMO. that they finally took her...not once but twice.

Questions: Who took the suitcase with the duvet and book downstairs to the basement? Did the BPD ever ask the Ramseys? Was JAR asked? Was JAR asked if he placed the duvet and book in his suitcase?

Wouldn't a semen stained duvet be placed downstairs to be washed in the washing machine? Who took it downstairs to be washed? JAR? LHP? PATSY?

Why was JAR's book tangled in with the duvet? Was he laying in bed reminiscing about his childhood? Was he reading to JonBenet? Is there a Christmas Dr. Seuss book? Ooops...how the grinch stole Christmas?

John Ramsey said he read to JonBenet. Then he changed his story. Was John reading the Dr. Seuss book to JonBenet that night? Or was it JAR?

Arghhhh!