Ive read many theories pertaining to Patsy being responsible for Jonbenets death, from bed wetting to stress over the holidays, Burke has been discussed too, but has anyone considered John as being responsible? if it was John( not saying I believe this) that killed JB, what would have triggered him?
I don't think nobody wants to discuss... I just think everyone's busy with holiday preparations. Ayeka
Terralee, Welcome to the forum. You are new to posting so please forgive those of us who are still getting ready for the holidays. The person who really has a handle on John as the doer is DocG. He has posted over the years and I believe he's the one that you might be interested in. He has spent a great deal of time and effort developing his theory. I'm sorry that I dont' know where to tell you to look for it. He is listed here and you may be able to find out his many postings from his name on his bio. Look under members at the top of this page. My memory can be fuzzy at times and I hope I have given you the correct person to look for. But as I recall he has done some research on the ransom note and John's handwriting analysis. If I have steered you incorrectly please forgive an old lady. I'm not the person to discuss John with either because though I believe he was involved in the coverup I don't beleive him to be the doer. However I am open to all good analysis with solid proof.
Atlanta In the 2000 interviews, John is questioned about fibers from John's shirt that were found in JonBenet's underwear. IMO This is evidence that John participated in the coverup, not that he was responsible for her death. IMO IF John Ramsey had been responsible for JonBenet's death or that it was likely he had sexually abused JonBenet, he would have been charged. My opinion is that John Ramsey is a liar and like Lou, a phoney Christian, but John Ramsey did not kill or sexually abuse any of his children.
Hi Terra! Welcome to FFJ. The forum discussion has been a little slower than usual due to the upcoming holidays, so please be patient with us. John has always been my favorite suspect frankly. But there are actually THREE crimes in this case according to the autopsy report, aside from the staging and obstruction issues, and insufficient evidence exists, at least publicly, to accurately apportion each of the crimes to a suspect or actual sequential finality. Crime 1: Lethal head injury, motive/weapon/suspect unknown Crime 2: Lethal strangulation by ligature, suspect/motive unknown Crime 3: Chronic and acute sexual assault, motive obvious, weapon and suspect unknown I have always believed that the sexual activity provided a substantial motive for the head injury, the strangulation and the cover-up. I believe there is overwhelming evidence to support the coroner's finding of chronic sexual assault and that it started what turned out to be a domino-effect homicide on Christmas night, 1996. I do not believe that whomever is good for the two lethal injuries to JB had any intention to take her life. I personally believe both the Ramsey adults participated in the staging (obstruction, evidence tampering, etc.) and that Burke or any other juvenile had nothing to do with the above 3 crimes. I do believe, however, that Burke has sufficient knowledge of the events surrounding the death of his sister by way of family discussions and/or personal knowledge. PR's sweater fibers entwined in the ligature and in the paint tote would support at least her involvement in the staging. JR's sweater fibers found in JB's crotch area seem to support a theory that JR was either molesting his daughter and/or deposited those fibers when enacting the cover-up. Why he would feel the need to clean his daughter's crotch area as part of the staging would be an extremely pivotal and salient question. "Evidence" such as the Hi Tec bootprint, suitcase, scuff mark and broken window I have ruled out as true evidence on the basis that these items cannot be fixed as having been placed in their locations during the commission of any of the above listed crimes. IOW, all or any of them could have been placed in their respective locations hours, days, weeks or months prior to the actual death. None of them suggest evidence of any intruder either, as all could have been placed in their locations by family members or invitees of the family for many other reasons than commission of a crime. The degraded and unuseable DNA evidence from JB's fingernails, as well as the unidentified DNA material from her panties have not been explained to my satisfaction in the last 7 years by anyone investigating the case or discussing it. Furthermore, only the publicly known evidence supporting the staging of the crime can place that particular activity in the basement. The head injury and the sexual assaults may not have occurred in that location, but elsewhere in the house or even outside the home. There was no external bleeding from the head wound so no such forensic evidence would be available. Delmar England aka Easy Writer has done an outstanding analysis of the "garotte" and Misty has done an outstanding analysis of the autopsy report, specifically regarding the above 3 injuries. If you haven't already, do read both! Bottom line: Any discussion I could offer you regarding JR as a legitimate suspect could only be conjecture due to the lack of evidence currently disclosed.
Strangulation was the cause of JonBenet's death. And the ligature around JonBenet's neck is what caused JonBenet's death. Whoever placed the ligature around JonBenet's neck is responsible for her death. Fibers from Patsy's jacket are wound into the ligature.(Possibly from loosening the ligature during staging) Ask yourself these questions: 1. Who is the most likely sexual abuser of JBR? 2. Was the "garrotte"(a misleading term) a control device or a device intended to kill? 3. Why haven't John or Patsy been prosecuted when fibers from their clothing are all over the crime scene. Get back to me with your answers.
You Talkin' ta ME, Spade? "Strangulation was the cause of JonBenet's death. And the ligature around JonBenet's neck is what caused JonBenet's death. Whoever placed the ligature around JonBenet's neck is responsible for her death. Fibers from Patsy's jacket are wound into the ligature.(Possibly from loosening the ligature during staging) Ask yourself these questions: 1. Who is the most likely sexual abuser of JBR? 2. Was the "garrotte"(a misleading term) a control device or a device intended to kill? 3. Why haven't John or Patsy been prosecuted when fibers from their clothing are all over the crime scene. Get back to me with your answers." If so, here are my answers. Per Meyer's autopsy report: "Craniopathologic correlation: Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma." Apparently Dr. Meyer could not distinguish which lethal injury occurred first, therefore associated them both to form a joint COD. Misty's analysis of those injuries provides significant factors to consider in afixing sequentialization of the injuries. Both alone however would have caused death. It is my personal opinion that both injuries occurred at sufficiently close enough timing to make articulation of the sequencing impossible. Question 1: The answer cannot be determined by known forensic evidence. Speculation could argue Burke, John Ramsey, Grandpa Paugh or even Patsy Ramsey. Question 2: The ligature was most definitely fashioned as a control device, however, it is my personal opinion that it was intended to imitate an erotic asphyxiation device by the stagers of the scene (and a poor imitation at that) to misdirect and deceive investigators into believing this was a sex crime, i.e., a random crazed kidnapping intruder pedophile. I believe Smit was brought in by Hunter to be THE promoter of this stupid theory on the assumption that his stellar career would provide him the kind of credibility the Rs' defense lacked just in case Plan A failed. It didn't. At best, Smit's chit distracted enough and now, no longer needed, has been retired along with the "good" detective. Question 3: A question I have been asking for 7 years. While the fiber and other evidence publicly known that was collected from the actual crime scene does not tie either PR or JR to the head wound, it does indeed connect PR to the lethal ligature strangulation and she should be prosecuted for that alone. The fiber evidence alone would provide a successful verdict. I also believe there is substantial other evidence to tie at least PR into the entire staging, including the RN. John's sweater fibers also tie him in to a possible sexual assault and/or participation in the staging, both of which are prosecutable crimes. Should JR be charged with sexual assault, those fibers are so incredibly persuasive I have no doubt the prosecution would succeed. The only answer I can give for why neither have been prosecuted is the information I posted with regard to FW's 1998 letter to the people of CO wherein we see the original intent and legal strategies employed to not only kill the case but exhonerate the perp(s), i.e., Plan A. This is a case that money, politics and favoritism at the extreme waylaid and only federal authorities have the power to correct the wrongs. In doing so, however, a helluva lot of power-mongers in CO would have to be brought down as well.
Thank you everyone for your responses, youve shared alot of good info here, may you all have a happy and healthy new year.
Thank you everyone for your responses, youve shared alot of good info here, may you all have a happy and healthy new year.
My thoughts 1. Who is the most likely sexual abuser of JBR? JAR and/or John 2. Was the "garrotte"(a misleading term) a control device or a device intended to kill? it was a child's version of a "control" device 3. Why haven't John or Patsy been prosecuted when fibers from their clothing are all over the crime scene. because they were rich
DejaNu & Ayjay Thank you for your response. Here are my answers: All of the following is just my opinion: 1. Who is the most likely sexual abuser of JBR? IMO Burke. My reasons are the nature of the abuse indicates a juvenile and the fact that if a child is sexualized at an early age the odds of that child abusing his/her siblings increases expotentially. This phenomenon is throughly discussed in Dr Mcdonald and Det. Tom Haney's criminology textbook: "Crime Scene Investigation". Here is how I expressed this in the Door #3 thread: My opinion is that Burke was the most likely abuser of JonBenet. My opinion is based on: 1. JonBenet had been penetrated by a foreign object. Not an adult penis. Juvenile behavior. 2. Both Ramsey children had been sexualized at an early age. Many studies (including a book co-authored by Tom Haney) show that children who have experienced this level of sexualization are VERY likely to incest their younger siblings. 3. Questions asked of both John and Patsy in the 1998 interviews about the book: "Why Johnny Can't tell Right from Wrong" and incest. 4. A statement by Linda Arndt in her deposition that her opinion of evidence of incest in the Ramsey family was shared by the "entire department os social services". 5. The process of elimination. Since Neither John, John Andrew, or Patsy Ramsey (others who had access to commit the prior abuse) is a likely sexual abuser. 2. Was the "garrotte"(a misleading term) a control device or a device intended to kill? Definitely a control device. Particularly when you hear Henry Lee and Mike Kane strongly suggest that JonBenet's death was an accident. 3. Why haven't John or Patsy been prosecuted when fibers from their clothing are all over the crime scene. IMO It is because LE can't pin down who did what. The answer lies behind Door #3. I think the DA's office was sold that this was a terrible accident with an unprosecutable perp BEFORE Fleet White and John Ramsey "found" JonBenet's body on December 26, 1996 at 1:15 PM. IMO Bryan Morgan was the salesman and Peter Hofstrom was the sucker.
Spade, thanks for sharing your theory with us. I largely agree with you in regard to family incest and don't necessarily disagree with you regarding Burke. Being of a legal mind and career, I'm trained to a habit to make decisions based on evidence, and your theory that because an adult penis was not the weapon of choice in the assault, but a foreign object, the conclusion leads to a juvenile perp. There is insufficient tangible evidence of the sexual crime to tell us more specifically who the perp was. But I ask you to factor into your thinking this: IF the sexual assaulter had been a female, therefore absent a penis, she would have had no other choice of weapon BUT a foreign object. On that basis alone, a female perp could be just as likely as a juvenile, see what I'm saying. In addition, family incest in the present generation begins with family incest in the previous generation (ad infinitum in some cases). I am not aware of any publicly disclosed information about John Ramsey that would lead me to a conclusion that he is a pedophile (though my gut has always told me something's hinky there), but I clearly see psychoemotional and behavioral patterns in Patsy Ramsey that most definitely indicate a familial history of at least sexualization, if not abuse of some sort (I could discuss this subject alone for hours). If I go by my forensic psych experience and information known about both parents, I'd have to choose Patsy as the sexual perp at this point. My search goes on with regard to John because I truly believe he is the sexual perp and Miss Putsy either had no idea or dismissed it (denial) as nothing sexual. Incest isn't necessarily coitus or overt, especially in its early stages. Also, could you expand your answer on this point: "3. Questions asked of both John and Patsy in the 1998 interviews about the book: "Why Johnny Can't tell Right from Wrong" and incest." The reason I ask is that I examined that book and found it to be a general parental guide to modern day societal "temptations" such as drugs, teenage pregnancy, general rebellion, Columbine-type behaviors that Christian parents should be aware of and guide their children away from. I did not perceive that book as specifically addressing incest. If you could post those questions and answers from 1998 to broaden my own understanding, I'd appreciate it. As to the ligature being a juvenile work, what leads you to that conclusion? It was amateurish at best, but from what I know of it, it seems to be somewhat of a stretch to conclude it was fashioned by a child (although my mind is open). Thanks!
so Spade, who do you think killed jonbenet? i would like to hear your full theory...... from start to finish...... do you think that if burke was the sexual perp then he killed her???????? and the parents covered up???? i am so anxious to hear your answer....... please let us all know ASAP. thanks, purr
Purr I don't know who killed JonBenet. There are several scenarios that fit the evidence known to the public but there is so much misleading information from the Ramsey's and the DA's office that it is difficult to sort fact from fiction. On the Lou Smit thread, I posted that Lou 's response to my question about the possibility that the "intruder" was a juvenile guest of Burke's was: "Absolutely". IMO the use of the word intruder is as misleading as the use of the term garrote.
i know you dont know who killed her, but i was asking....... what is your "gut" feeling on who did kill her and how....... with all the evidence we do have???? you were able to explain your theory that burke was the one who sexually abused jonbenet.......... so i thought you would explain your theory on who killed her........ i thought it was interesting on janscott's web site.. his latest column about jonbenet. he said jonbenet was raped. and you know what......he was right! i just have never heard it said that way.... usually we are quoting the autopsy... explaining of the sexual abuse... but it was RAPE!!! another question Spade, do you think that it was burke who sexually abused, raped, jonbenet that night with the paint stick? do you think burke was old enough.....and to be "into" sexual asphyxiation? to make the garrette? or was that all staged? do you think burke killed jonbenet accidentally while doing sexual "play" and the parents covered up for him and thus said...... "we are not talking to you"!!!???? i am just curious as to your thoughts.... since you seem to have an inside track on all the "goings on". let me know. thanks, purr
My thoughts (some of them!) Which came first? the head blow or strangulation? The autopsy report states that death was due to strangulation associated with the head blow. Make no mistake, though...cause of death was strangulation. It makes no difference whether the head blow came first or last...it didn't kill her. If there had been no strangulation, the head blow would have killed her. BUT...death was due to the strangulation...regardless of the timing of the head blow. Personally, I believe the head blow came first...ergo Kane's, et als, reference to "accidental". The head blow caused unconsciousness, and probably gave the "appearance" of death. The garotte was staging, nothing more. I believe the parents believed JonBenet was dead (or knew she'd die) from the head blow, so to cover up the "accident", they staged the garotting which would divert attention away from the real cause (and perps) of the 'accident', and put that attention on the garotting which is affiliated with mob killings and deviant sexual behavior. IOW, the garotting would divert attention AWAY from the real perps as neither parent has any history of mob membership or deviant sexual behavior. Patsy's fibers in the paint tray, in the ligature, and on the duct tape put her smack in the middle of the crime. That's enough evidence to seal that woman's fate! Remember...death was due to strangulation, and here you've got Patsy's fibers CAUGHT IN THE LIGATURE ON THE VICTIM'S THROAT! IOW, the evidence links Patsy to the murder weapon! The ligature is the murder weapon because the victim's death was caused by ligature strangulation! There's no need to find a blunt instrument, because JonBenet died from strangulation before she could die from a head blow. There's no need to figure out who wrote the note...JonBenet died from ligature strangulation, not a note! Patsy's fibers from the jacket she wore on the night of the murder are caught in the ligature...the murder weapon! It places her at the crime scene with the body at the time of death! Everything else is irrelevant! The reason why this case wasn't prosecuted by Hunter is because Hunter and his staff were incapable of prosecuting a murder. It's that simple. Given the "scare" that they were up against top notch attorneys (Haddon & Morgan), and coupled with the fact that the likely perps were best friends and business partners with a former prosecutor all add up to case that would never see the light of a courthouse.
Another Thought... Patsy can be linked without question to the crime scene, the victim, and the murder weapon. This is why Lin Wood is so adamant about the DNA material. Like Patsy the Perp, Wood is doing his best to divert attention away from the perp...knowing full well the DNA DOES NOT match Patsy. He wants us, and the courts, to IGNORE the fact that his client can be directly linked to the murder weapon. He is trying to make a case (which CANNOT be proved beyond a reasonable doubt) that whoever deposited this DNA is the killer. There is NO evidence that links that DNA to the crime, let alone the killer! The murder weapon...think about it!! The murder weapon has Patsy written all over it....the paintstick came out of HER paint tray; fibers from HER jacket are intertwined in the ligature that was embedded in JonBenet's throat! Fibers from her jacket were in the paint tray that held the paintstick that was later broken, inserted inside the victim's vagina, and then wrapped to the end of the ligature! MORE of Patsy's fibers were found on the duct tape that covered the victim's mouth! Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it reasonable to ignore the fact that Patsy's fibers from the coat she wore on the night of the murder are found in the paint tray that held the paintstick? caught in the ligature embedded in the victim's throat? stuck in the adhesive of the duct tape that covered the victim's mouth? Is it reasonable to ignore this direct evidentiary linkage to the victim and to the murder weapon and to the crime scene because DNA found in a minute quantity...which CANNOT be linked to the murder in any way...is present? Is it reasonable to place the entire case on this DNA "evidence" which can't even be proven to BE evidence? There is no other evidence supporting this DNA as evidentiary to this crime! Experts, notably Dr. Henry Lee, have stated, "this is not a DNA case." So why is Lin Wood trying to MAKE it a DNA case? I'll tell you why. The REAL evidence in this case links his client to the murder weapon, to the victim, to the crime scene, to the murder. The DNA is a red herring being used by the Ramseys and their attorney to divert attention away from them. In essence, Lin Wood is trying to recreate the murder, leaving out, of course, his clients' involvement. So here's MY question: Is that "reasonable"?
