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

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Tricia, Jun 9, 2004.

  1. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    “Evil people - and things that don't fitâ€

    “This is going to be long (sorry). I feel a ramble coming on.â€

    No problem.

    Thanks, Jayelles for allowing me to bring the post over. I think
    it will work to clarify a few things. I will point out areas of
    agreement and areas of disagreement and explain why.

    I begin with what I see as a general framework with room for
    variables within, but said variables must always be consistent
    with known facts. The framework is built of known facts in
    conjunction with high probabilities within said framework.

    The Ramseys arrived home from the White’s party between nine and
    ten. I don’t see this contested in word or deed. Whether JonBenet
    was asleep or awake is not critical to the scenario except in the
    scenario the Ramseys present, not in establishing the crime
    itself. I see no reason to doubt that Burke had been put to bed.
    John had gone to bed while Patsy remained downstairs getting some
    things ready for the trip tomorrow. This is where JonBenet comes
    into the picture; never having been put to bed, or getting up and
    coming downstairs does not alter the basics of this part of the
    crime scene.

    The partially digested pineapple found in JonBenet’s system helps
    to set the time frame of death which coincides with the general
    layout described above. Research reveals that pineapple is an
    acid fruit with the maximum full digestion time of two hours.
    Pineapple is one of the faster ones of the acid fruit category,
    hence, less than two hours.

    Only about ten percent of the digestion takes place in the
    stomach. Using this percentage to establish a general ratio,
    since the undigested pineapple was found in the intestine, not in
    the stomach, a rough estimate of time of death is around twenty
    minutes after she ate the pineapple.

    Part of the note talking about being rested for tomorrow, the
    time needed and taken to set up the scene, Patsy wearing the same
    clothes the next day, along with other factors establish the time
    of death between the time they arrived home and midnight. The
    same clothes thing also goes along with Patsy being the one
    remaining behind and directly involved in the fatal event.

    “The idea of a bad man killing JonBenet has always been the
    easiest to understand.â€

    Not for me. The evidence immediately sets the parameters of
    theory to Ramsey household and fatal accident with high
    probability of Patsy culpability as will be explained in the
    following.

    “She was a treasured child - I honestly believe that she was the
    most precious thing in Patsy's life.â€

    I don’t think so, but that is a long story not within the scope
    of this response.

    “I can't conceive of a motive for John killing her.â€

    Nor can I?

    “I don't believe that her father sexually abused her....â€

    Nor do I. Even though I see John as a real low life, I also see
    him as a caring father much manipulated by Patsy. I think the
    idea of genital assault with an object, John would have found so
    horribly repulsive, that he could not bring himself to commit
    such an act even upon a child already dead. Patsy, on the other
    hand, is a different matter. This is one cold creature.

    “I have never been able to visualise a scenario where either or
    both Ramseys decided to kill their precious youngest child -...â€

    Nor I. Decision to kill was never part of the scene as the
    evidence shows and will be explained in more detail as we move
    along.

    “An accident followed by a cover-up has some merit, I agree.â€

    The evidence says this is the only theory with evidentiary merit.
    Absence of premeditation revealed by amateurish, ad hoc creations
    with materials at hand shows unplanned and of emergency nature.

    “Still, I do believe the headblow probably came last and so that
    means the strangulation came first - what kind of "accident"
    involves strangulation - except rage. If either Patsy or John
    Ramsey had raged at JonBenet, wouldn't the other have interceded?
    It doesn't make sense.

    The head trauma last is not consistent with the evidence. In
    fact, there is no case against the Ramseys with the head trauma
    last. It is only with the head trauma as the primary, it all
    makes sense and ties in with the rest of the evidence without
    contradiction. I’m talking about actual evidence, not the
    aberrations of the RST.

    “I emphasise that I don't believe Burke was involved in his
    sister's death.â€

    I agree.

    “So my best theory to date has been that the killer was someone
    who knew the family and who had an obsession for Patsy. It still
    seemed far-fetched, but stranger things have happened. I
    considered the killer to be intelligent and to have hated
    JonBenet - been jealous of JonBenet because of the obsession with
    Patsyâ€

    I see this as predicated upon the notion of premeditated murder
    as opposed to accident. Which concept does the actual evidence
    fit?

    “I firmly believe that had they immediately sat down with police
    and told them everything they knew, that police would have moved
    on and that perhaps the killer would have been caught.â€

    If the Ramseys told the police everything they knew. The killer
    would have definitely been caught via confession. :)

    “So now we have Tracey's theory. Not just one bad man, but two.
    Doing it for kicks and $$$s. Working in a pair makes more sense
    than the lone intruder-perp. They would egg each other on. Mr X
    is the scary one, the control freak and Helgoth tagging on for
    the thrill and hoping for $$$s. Yes, I can buy this theory even
    although it is disturbing to imagine JonBenet's terrifying end at
    the hand of two men in black, her parents close by and not
    responding.â€

    So what is wrong with it? Some pieces still don't gel.â€

    None of the pieces jell. Traceys’ theory is based on fantasy.
    Compounding contradictions is all that can come of it. The base
    options are premeditated murder, or felony homicide
    (manslaughter) without conscious intent. Obviously, motive to
    deliberately kill attaches only to the former. Motive to try to
    hide the truth via a staged crime scene goes to the latter.

    A theory based on fact has each and every item of alleged
    evidence interlocked in a non contradictory manner. Alleged
    evidence is not always actual evidence. The reason “some pieces
    don’t gel†is because the evidence fits either one, or the other,
    not both.

    “Then there is the matter of the ransom note. If Kenady is to be
    believed, Helgoth and Mr X PLANNED a kidnapping. A ransom note is
    a key part of a kidnapping.â€

    Yes, the note is a key part, but not of a kidnaping. The note
    itself is evidence there was no kidnaping. You have already named
    several suspicious things and things that don’t fit. Suppose we
    pick it up at the beginning.

    Do you see the length of the note as a bit suspicious? Do you
    find the $118,000 ransom demand amount a bit odd making you
    wonder about the mentality of the writer? What about the be
    rested for tomorrow bit that implies that John was to see the
    note BEFORE tomorrow? This was in the mind of the note writer.
    What could have or did prompt this admonition? Concern by an
    intruder for the victim’s parent? Or concern for self and much
    apprehension about tomorrow?

    Upon observing that the note was written with Ramsey materials,
    adding the above, what is the logical conclusion except bogus
    note? At this juncture, the note tells that something has been
    done that can’t be undone? It tells that JonBenet is dead, but
    not the exact when and how? What is the proper action of the
    officer in attendance? What is the primary question dictated by
    all these “oddities.?†Ans. “OK, John and Patsy, the note is as
    phony as a three dollar bill. I know it and you know it. Where is
    JonBenet’s body?â€

    Had this evidence been followed and action taken accordingly, the
    case would have been “solved†almost immediately since at this
    time and place, this kind of confrontation had a estimated 99%
    probability of bringing out a confession. When it didn’t happen,
    an ever-increasing buffer myth nearly eliminated the chance of
    confession.

    “Where did they plan to keep Jonbenet? Kidnappers usually have
    this carefully planned. If not, these guys must really have been
    the Bungle Brothers.â€

    No kidnaper. No plan, hence, no viable answer to your question as
    it stands.

    “Where did they park for several hours whilst waiting? If they
    waited for hours inside the ramsey home, surely they would have
    needed to pee or poo? Even at the low end of the waiting scale,
    they would have to have stayed still, silent and not had to
    relieve themselves for at least 2 hours (an hour after the
    ramseys arrived home and an hour before to case the house and
    write the ransom note).â€

    Same as above.

    “Finally (for now), there is still the matter of the pineapple.
    Tracey has never addressed this and as Lou Smit says - it is the
    big bugaboo. Experts say 2-5 hours for digestion.

    What experts? I checked three internet nutrition\digestion
    sources. All three said the same thing of two hours max with
    pineapple less for complete digestion.

    “If she ate it before going to the Whites, that means she died
    soon after returning home. If she ate it AFTER returning from the
    Whites, that means the ramseys lied about her being asleep.â€

    Probably, but not necessarily. She could have been asleep, but
    woke up and came down stairs. Again, this is critical only to
    Ramsey scenario, not to the happening of the fatal event.

    “Of course, there is always the possibility that Helgoth and Mr X
    only intended the Ramsey home to be another midnight burglary and
    that JonBenet disturbed them in their deeds as she crept upstairs
    after sneaking a piece of pineapple....â€

    Given the locked doors, basement window closed all but an inch or
    so, chair against door, and no need to go into the train room to
    get to where the body was placed, there is no evidence whatsoever
    to suggest that anyone came into the house. Again, all the
    “intruder†entrance and exit stuff is nonsense contrary to the
    actual evidence.

    Every question presupposes an antecedent conclusion from which
    the question is derived. The questions asked the Ramseys are
    limited to the scope and subject matter parameters set by what
    the media questioners believe. What do the questioners believe? “
    JonBenet was “ deliberately murderedâ€, “strangled and beatenâ€,
    “sexually assaultedâ€, “viciously choked to death with a garroteâ€,
    “ an intruder came through the basement window.â€

    Due to all sorts of bungling and idiot Smit running wild, this is
    the picture created by Ramsey fabrications and RST propaganda and
    put out for public consumption from day one. It provided
    voluminous media grist spanning the globe. It has but one
    problem: EVERY ELEMENT OF IT IS A LIE.

    First, there was no sexual assault. There was a genital assault
    with an object to try to make it look like sexual motivation.
    This staging is as crude as the rest. The so-called instrument of
    vicious strangulation is made of material and in a manner
    contrary to strangulation. It didn’t happen. All in all, without
    repeating all the flaws, suffice it to say, the actual evidence
    does not say death by strangulation. It says ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT
    LOOK LIKE DEATH BY STRANGULATION. In other words, what is
    evidenced by the evidence is staging.

    Staging, by definition, is to divert focus away from the truth.
    In this instance, staging trying to convey death by strangulation
    means death by means other than strangulation. To wit, the skull
    fracture. This in turn, goes to motivation for attempt to hide
    the truth about the skull fracture because said truth does not
    bode well for the perpetrator(s). Who had ability and
    opportunity? Who stood to gain or protect by the staging if
    successful? Intruder? Ramseys? (The truth of staging takes away
    the root myth upon which literally every intruder theory is
    manufactured.)

    From fact, i.e., from actual evidence, the case is
    straightforward and elementary. Staged strangulation scene =
    attempt to hide truth about cause of death = antecedent event
    causing skull fracture = violent confrontation between JonBenet
    and another party = culpable party or parties who stand to
    protect or gain by the deception if successful.

    It an easy call from either direction. Patsy had a violent
    confrontation with JonBenet resulting in the skull fracture.
    Since the scalp was not lacerated and cause of death not readily
    seen (and no thought of what an autopsy would reveal), she
    decided to try to make it look like a kidnaping and death by
    strangulation. She enlisted John’s help. This is the only
    scenario the evidence fits.

    There is no evidentiary question as to which came first. Staged
    crime scene is demonstrable fact. There was no motivation to
    stage the crime scene without the skull fracture as the primary.
    All the seven years plus of intruder nonsense is not derived from
    nor connected to the actual evidence in any way. As implied, all
    the intruder BS comes about only by denying the actual evidence.

    The truth about the amateurish “garrote scene†is not only
    absolutely necessary to fit the pieces together and know what
    happened, if the case ever get to court, it is THE MOST IMPORTANT
    piece of evidence. You can bet there will be opposing experts
    about handwriting, lie detectors, psychology, etc. This won’t
    work with the “garrote scene†evidence.

    There cannot be an opposing expert on the “garrote scene.†Anyone
    who doesn’t understand and who by words tries to make of it
    “professional strangling tool†will come across as a fool. This
    person will actually help convince the jury of the truth. Anyone
    who does understands it can either confirm, or try to pretend the
    opposite of truth. Trying to deny won’t work because there is
    physical evidence to refute. The TRUTH can be physically
    demonstrated right before a jury in a manner so convincing, they
    will have no doubt the whole thing is a prop, a staging of
    strangulation as the cause of death to hide the head trauma as
    real cause of death as known by the perpetrator. The rest is
    downhill for the Ramseys.

    A thought that often crosses my mind is how difficult the Ramseys
    have made if for themselves when simplicity would have worked
    much better. If Patsy had called 911 and made up a story about
    JonBenet falling and striking her head, chances are, they would
    have believed her and that would have been the end of it. No,
    “drama mama†had to do her thing and stage a high risk, grand,
    but amateurish, production attempt at deception so poorly done it
    was like trying to hide an elephant with Saran Wrap. That wasn’t
    smart at all. What does this say about LE and the media who fell
    for the con?

    Thanks again, Jayelles, for your openness and for allowing me to
    bring this over from WS to use in clarifying some points.
     
  2. purr

    purr Active Member

    i do NOT say this in a mean or crass way.............

    why do you think Patsy is dying from cancer???

    because Patsy murdered her very own daughter. she did it!!!!.............
    and it has "eaten away at her" for the rest of her life!

    Patsy wont last much longer!

    i pray to God that there is a death bed confession!!!
    but i doubt it highly!

    in my humble opinion,
    purr
     
  3. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    EasyWriter

    Agreed

    Yes, JonBenet's state of wakefuleness is a variable whose value speaks to the truthfulness of the Ramseys. Watching John Ramsey over the years, I have noticed his tendency to dismiss things seemingly in an effort to cut off a line of questioning. I consider Burke saying that JonBenet was awake and climbed the stairs herself and of course - the pineapple. If JonBenet had been awake for a little while on arriving home form the Whites, it would explain the pineapple in a more satisfactory way. However, the Ramseys have stuck to their story that she was "zonked" and didn't even waken when she was changed, nor did her parents waken her to empty her bladder given that she was a bed-wetter. I wonder - did John Ramsey decide that this was the simpler story? It would cut off an entire line of questioning if JonBenet was simply asleep.

    It has also been said that there are other factors which can slow down digestion - illness for example. I've read accounts (which I cannot produce) which have suggested that JonBenet was a little off colour that day and that this plus the excitement of Christmas, may have slowed down her digestion rate. I think this nis feasible. We have an expression here "my dinner is just lying in my stomach" - an indicator that the person may be unwell and their digestion is slow as a result.

    I am inclined to think that if patsy had killed Jonbenet in those clothes, then she would have changed them when they got rid of the cord and tape and practice notes. I don't think it's odd that Patsy woud have put on the same outfit two days in a row. She only wore it for a few hours on Christmas Day and she wasn't cooking a meal or carrying shopping bags - or doing anything that would work up a sweat so her outfit was most likely quite fresh still. If she'd been planning to spend the 26th with a different set of people, then I think she would have changed, but the Big Kids hadn't seen her in that outfit the day before, so she would be expecting to get two days value out of it.



    I knew when I typed this that I wasn't phrasing it correctly! I did actually change it twice :) What I mean is that people are more believing of a bad man killing a small child. It would be considerably more of a shock, or less easy to believe/understand that a respectable, caring mother had done so. It's the whole thing about the bogie man I suppose.

    I consider the following:-

    Timing of the incident - I imagine that Christmas Night is a low crime night - borne out by the fact that staffing was low at the BPD. That swings against an intruder.

    Scene of the incident - inside the Ramsey house. An intruder would have to run the gauntlet of

    a) being seen
    b) gaining access
    c) not being caught inside the house.

    The Ramseys did not have any of these risks.

    So yes, the ramseys have a higher degree of opportunity. But it's a question of probability. 80% chance it was a ramsey still means 20% chance it was not a Ramsey.

    Without knowing why you don't think she was a treasured child, I can't really comment. Patsy spent a lot of time with JonBenet and was involved in her schooling, took her on trips and played make-believe with her. I'm sure she had her faults as we all do, but I don't see JonBenet as a neglected child.




    That's interesting, because I would see John as the manipulator! I think he calls the shots in the house, albeit quietly.


    The ransom note written with ramsey materials does suggest improvisation to me. Also, having seen the characters with whom Helgoth and Mr X associated, I cannot imagine them discussing their "attaches". These guys looked like druggies to me. My daughter ticked me off for saying this because as she says "just because someone is a drug addict, it doesn't mean they didn't have an education or a good background"!


    More...
     
  4. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    More...

    I have seen convincing arguments for the headblow coming first, but since it is a matter which seemingly CAN be disputed amongst experts, I will refrain from speculation. Actually, I have in the past considered that the garotte may have been a method of concealing manual strangulation. The triangular abrasion on her neck is IMO consistent with a neckband being twisted harshly. I can't think of a headblow accident that would cause the injury to Jonbenet unless it were with a baseball bat or a golfclub and I don't see that being the parents!


    Lou Smit says that if the headblow came first and it was an accident, that the time taken to think, plot, get cord and duct tape, move he to the basement ...etc would have meant much more bleeding inside her skull. That makes sense to me.

     
  5. Little

    Little Member

    It was Ninjas

    Sorry if this has already been posted.

    http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=bf1011dfcb4fcc0a
     
  6. "J_R"

    "J_R" Shutter Bug Bee

    :duh:



    That gate don't swing and neither does Tracy's "prime suspect" who's DNA has been eliminated.



    :beammeup: Scotty
     
  7. Freebird

    Freebird Active Member

    He!! why not ninjas....everyone from sex rings and dead men to Santa has been accused. I see no reason for immunity to those foreign ninjas./eyeroll
     
  8. Elle

    Elle Member

    According to Pam Griffin, who made outfits for JonBenét, Patsy would talk to her about her battle with cancer, or her worries about JonBenét's incontinence. Patsy told Pam that JonBenét waited until an emergency was imminent and as a result was still having accidents. Patsy complained that JonBenét had frequent infections from wet underpants, and that Patsy would waken JonBenét at midnight to use the bathroom; sometimes Patsy was just in the nick of time and sometimes she was too late. Pam understood how aggravating that could be for a mother, having a daughter who used to wait until the last minute to go. PMPT Lawrence Schiller HB page 94

    Of course, Patsy denied wakening JonBenét on Christmas night at midnight.
    This would have pinpointed her contact with her daughter at that time, so she had to deny this action.
     
  9. DocG

    DocG Banned

    test

    testing 1 2 3
     
  10. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    loud and clear
     
  11. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Jayelles and EasyWriter

    (Sorry about the testing. Often when I try to post here I get kicked out for some reason.)

    Thanks to EasyWriter and Jayelles for some very interesting thinking. Both make some excellent points, which I'd like to comment on, from my own perspective.

    EW, quoting J:

    “She was a treasured child - I honestly believe that she was the
    most precious thing in Patsy's life.â€

    I don’t think so, but that is a long story not within the scope
    of this response.

    “I can't conceive of a motive for John killing her.â€

    DocG: There is much evidence that Patsy was a loving mother who in fact doted on and spoiled JonBenet. (Or at least tried to spoil her -- the little girl actually behaved in an unspoiled manner it would seem.) Her pageant participation was a big part of Patsy's life.

    As far as John was concerned, we actually know very little about him. He was away for long stretches of time. JonBenet clearly loved him but it's not really clear how he felt about her. We have no way of knowing, do we? Incest always has to be considered in cases such as this. There's no evidence that John was ever into pedophilia -- but again, he was away for long stretches of time. We know little about his activities during such trips.

    Jayelles:
    “An accident followed by a cover-up has some merit, I agree.â€

    DocG: I agree. But what sort of accident? What would be the motive to cover up an accident by making it look like murder? Usually it's the other way round, no?

    J:
    “Still, I do believe the headblow probably came last and so that
    means the strangulation came first -
    EW: what kind of "accident"
    involves strangulation - except rage. If either Patsy or John
    Ramsey had raged at JonBenet, wouldn't the other have interceded?
    It doesn't make sense.
    EW: The head trauma last is not consistent with the evidence. In
    fact, there is no case against the Ramseys with the head trauma
    last.

    DocG: Nevertheless, according to Wecht (as correctly quoted by Jayelles), there would have been a LOT more blood if that head blow came first. If not external than certainly internal. But that doesn't rule out the Ramseys. It just rules out Patsy. The kind of "accident" that could involve strangulation could be the sort of perverted father-daughter sex game suggested by Wecht. This could have involved "gentle" manual strangulation, so gentle that the perp might not have realized what he was doing. The motive for the "garotte" (which looks as phoney to me as it does to EW) could have been to point away from the sex game, making it look more like the act of a violent intruder. Also the perp might have been afraid his prints could be lifted from her neck, so could have tried to obliterate them with the cord. I have no theory regarding the head blow, but it does seem most likely that it came AFTER the strangulation.

    J:
    “So my best theory to date has been that the killer was someone
    who knew the family and who had an obsession for Patsy."

    DocG: There is simply no evidence of an intruder. Nor is the phoney ransom note consistent with an intruder. A kidnapper would have actually kidnapped her. If something had gone wrong with that plan he wouldn't have left a note at all. A pedophile out to simply attack and kill the girl would not have left a note, certainly not a hand printed one. Neither would someone "with an obsession for Patsy." Or someout "out to get John." As I see it, the only motive for writing the note would be by an insider, someone trying to buy time to get the body out of the house before the police were called. Of course the police WERE called. But the caller was Patsy -- which tells me she must be innocent. Which leaves . . .

    EW: None of the pieces jell. Traceys’ theory is based on fantasy.

    DocG: Agreed.

    EW: First, there was no sexual assault. There was a genital assault
    with an object to try to make it look like sexual motivation.

    DocG: I agree with Wecht that there IS evidence not only of a sexual assault but of prior molestation. However, there is no evidence she was attacked with any object. The paint brush handle would have injured her vagina much more than was the case and there would have been a lot more bleeding. It's likely that the molestation was digital. Traces from the brush handle could have been placed there by the perp after the murder as part of the "garotte" coverup plan.

    EW:
    Patsy had a violent
    confrontation with JonBenet resulting in the skull fracture.
    Since the scalp was not lacerated and cause of death not readily
    seen (and no thought of what an autopsy would reveal), she
    decided to try to make it look like a kidnaping and death by
    strangulation. She enlisted John’s help. This is the only
    scenario the evidence fits.

    DocG: A skull fracture could have easily been explained as a (different sort of) accident. No need to stage a phoney breakin and murder. It's hard to believe John would have cooperated in any sort of coverup, especially such a nutty one. Why not just report it as an accident, maybe she hit her head against the bathtub or fell down the stairs, that sort of thing?

    No, there's no evidence pointing to Patsy, THAT is a fantasy. It all points toward John. All but the declaration "ruling him out" as the note writer. That seems to have mesmerized just about everyone trying to puzzle out the case. Everything else is open to question. THAT conclusion has been accepted as Gospel.
     
  12. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Hi DocG

    What do you think about John's political aspirations?
     
  13. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Jayelles

    It's an interesting decision on his part. Clearly he hasn't been able to get the sort of employment he'd like. So if you can't get a job any other way, maybe running for political office is a good alternative. If any of the local bigwigs are actually supporting his candidacy, why hasn't one of them offered the guy a job by now? I guess the shadow that lies over his life could also cast a shadow on someones business, so he'd be perceived as a liability to anyone who might want to hire him. But as the holder of a public office that wouldn't be so much a problem would it?

    Maybe the idea of running is also a way for him to test the waters, to see if in fact that shadow is still there. If he can at least get nominated, maybe that would demonstrate to the local businessmen that he wouldn't be a liability as an employee.

    The guy has definitely been through a very tough time, no question. If he's really innocent, I feel for him.
     
  14. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    DocG:

    Jayelles:
    “An accident followed by a cover-up has some merit, I agree.â€

    DocG: I agree. But what sort of accident? What would be the
    motive to cover up an accident by making it look like murder?
    Usually it's the other way round, no?

    The probability of suspecting a parent for a fatal accident is a
    whole lot higher that suspecting a parent of a deliberate murder.
    In correlation, as has been covered in detail before, literally
    every piece of evidence converges upon accident followed by
    intent to deceive.

    J:
    “Still, I do believe the headblow probably came last and so that
    means the strangulation came first -

    EW: what kind of "accident"
    involves strangulation - except rage.

    “If either Patsy or John
    Ramsey had raged at JonBenet, wouldn't the other have interceded?
    It doesn't make sense.â€

    I read the evidence to tell me the psychology; not the other way
    around. In this instance, the read is that Patsy and JonBenet
    were downstairs and John upstairs when the event happened. Ergo,
    John had no opportunity to intercede even if he so desired.

    EW: The head trauma last is not consistent with the evidence. In
    fact, there is no case against the Ramseys with the head trauma
    last.

    DocG: Nevertheless, according to Wecht (as correctly quoted by
    Jayelles), there would have been a LOT more blood if that head
    blow came first. If not external than certainly internal.

    Buried somewhere deep in my files is extensive research on this.
    Not only from personal experience, but from that research, it is
    established that even very severe head traumas sometimes bleed
    very little.

    “But that doesn't rule out the Ramseys. It just rules out Patsy.
    The kind of "accident" that could involve strangulation could be
    the sort of perverted father-daughter sex game suggested by
    Wecht.


    Wecht is an excellent example as to why an expert is not allowed
    to testify in court in areas not in his established area. When
    Wecht talks about sex games with the apparatus found at the
    scene, he tells me he is inventing, not detecting. This means I
    don’t trust his word any more than I do that of Lou Smit. There
    is not a single thing about the scene that even remotely suggests
    sex games.

    “This could have involved "gentle" manual strangulation, so
    gentle that the perp might not have realized what he was doing.â€

    Didn’t happen. The whole “garrote scene†was amateurish staging
    to try to make it look like death by strangulation and nothing
    else.

    “The motive for the "garotte" (which looks as phoney to me as it
    does to EW) could have been to point away from the sex game,
    making it look more like the act of a violent intruder. Also the
    perp might have been afraid his prints could be lifted from her
    neck, so could have tried to obliterate them with the cord. I
    have no theory regarding the head blow, but it does seem most
    likely that it came AFTER the strangulation.â€

    As a hypothesis, take the “garrote scene†as staging. Staging by
    definition is to create a face value scene away from the truth.
    If staging, what’s the point except of trying to sell the idea of
    death by strangulation if not to deny head trauma as the primary?

    It makes no difference whether we know the mind or minds behind
    this or not. This is what the evidence says. The “no mother could
    do†this mindset is anti investigation and anti truth.

    J:
    “So my best theory to date has been that the killer was someone
    who knew the family and who had an obsession for Patsy."

    Sorry, I see no evidentiary connection to this idea; and it
    contradicts the evidence has already been established and
    discussed. All evidence local and Patsy wrote the note. I see no
    way out of the Ramsey house.

    DocG: As I see it, the only motive for writing the note would be
    by an insider, someone trying to buy time to get the body out of
    the house before the police were called. Of course the police
    WERE called. But the caller was Patsy -- which tells me she must
    be innocent. Which leaves . . .

    The bogus ransom note goes with a bogus kidnaping theme and bogus
    death by strangulation. That’s it’s value regardless of who is
    doing the staging.

    DocG: I agree with Wecht that there IS evidence not only of a
    sexual assault but of prior molestation.

    I cannot confirm nor deny prior molestation, but seriously doubt
    it. For sure, I don’t take Wecht’s word for it. What I do not
    doubt is that it played no part in the skull fracture and
    attempted cover up.

    EW:
    Patsy had a violent
    confrontation with JonBenet resulting in the skull fracture.
    Since the scalp was not lacerated and cause of death not readily
    seen (and no thought of what an autopsy would reveal), she
    decided to try to make it look like a kidnaping and death by
    strangulation. She enlisted John’s help. This is the only
    scenario the evidence fits.

    DocG: A skull fracture could have easily been explained as a
    (different sort of) accident. No need to stage a phoney breakin
    and murder.

    Know what, you’re right. Why in the hell didn’t Patsy just call
    911 and say JonBenet had an accident. In all probability, no one
    would have doubted her word; no need to stage a phony
    kidnap\murder, but she did. What does the evidence say of this
    thinking. It says that Patsy trusted her ability to deceive more
    than truth that others would take her word.

    “It's hard to believe John would have cooperated in any sort of
    coverup, especially such a nutty one. Why not just report it as
    an accident, maybe she hit her head against the bathtub or fell
    down the stairs, that sort of thing?â€

    Right, why not? Ask Patsy. I’m just reading the evidence as to
    what was done, not why they chose this route. Don’t try to
    superimpose your mentality on Patsy and John. It won’t fit.
    Things make sense only when you see then from the perspective of
    the mentality that created them. This is done by letting the
    evidence tell what happened rather than interjecting personal
    values and choices.

    No, there's no evidence pointing to Patsy, THAT is a fantasy. It
    all points toward John. All but the declaration "ruling him out"
    as the note writer. That seems to have mesmerized just about
    everyone trying to puzzle out the case. Everything else is open
    to question. THAT conclusion has been accepted as Gospel.

    Since I already have a bunch of stuff already available online, I
    won’t repeat here. As pertain to Patsy as the perpetrator, see
    that section in my letter to Mary Keenan. If there is anything
    you wish to question, please do so. Just quote what you disagree
    with and say why, so I will have a base for response.
     
  15. Elle

    Elle Member



    I couldn't believe any mother could do to JonBenét what she did, but Delmar explained this was because I was placing my own personal value on this. I wouldn't do this, therefore Patsy Ramsey couldn't do this. As soon as I stopped placing this personal value on this incident, I began looking at this situation in a different way.

    I now believe Patsy was capable of carrying out the staging she did on JonBenét. She couldn't face the truth of the public knowing she had lost her temper and was in a rage when the head injury occured, whether it was from the flashlight, or from throwing JonBenét against the tub or toilet, or a hard surface. She had to make the staging look as accurate as possible. Yes, she was capable of this. She was part actress as she strutted the boards as a beauty queen plus her award winning talent for writing a speech on "copyright" with the help of a friend.

    This came about when Patsy failed to obtain the copyright of the soliloquy from the "Prime of Miss Jean Brodie." She wrote the Copyright Speech the night before the talent competition the next day. Remind you of anything? The ransom note being written the night before. Yes, she was an actress all right! This came easy to Patsy Ramsey. She majored in journalism.
     
  16. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    interesting question

    Why not stage it to look like another kind of accident such as a fall down the stairs?

    Someone in that household read enough to know that forensic investigation could uncover a faked accident. Someone staging would have to stage an accident where the damage was to the side of JBR's head. That damage isn't likely to ocurr in an accidental fall down the stairs, was too much damage for a fall against a tub or corner of a table without some force behind it. Someone knew enough to realize that as soon as the investigator's figured out that that much damage was unlikely without her or the object hitting her had to be moving with quite a bit of force and their goose would be cooked.

    They obviously had to make an outsider seem to be the culprit. A botched burglary wouldn't be good. Why would the youngest person in the house be killed? Even if she woke up and heard something, she wouldn't be likely to get up and investigate. She would probably hide or run up the stairs to mom and dad. A kidnapping would seem a better choice. The real bug in this is the sexual assault/abuse aspect of it. That isn't any part of a kidnapping for money or political purposes as the ransom note suggests the motive to be. It is totally unnecessary and IF it is strictly staging and not the reason for the staging, it would tend to incriminate a woman, who would stage the crime as if a man did it.

    It seems to me though that a case for previous assault/abuse of the genital area can be made and may just be the main reason for the staging and that would definitely not be covered by an accidental fall.
     
  17. Elle

    Elle Member

    interesting question

    There's a lot to digest in your post Texan, and you have covered very important points here.

    This would also account for why a 911 call was not made immediately after the head injury, if it was an accident, because the sexual abuse would have been discovered. The Ramseys had no choice but to make it look like a pedophile, or some sex depraved male obsessed with JonBenét, create the amateur garotte and hope it would be mistaken for an erotic asphyxiation tool.
     
  18. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Texan:

    “interesting question
    Why not stage it to look like another kind of accident such as a
    fall down the stairs?â€

    A little known fact is that a mind operates by natural laws no
    less real than the law of gravity. Although each mind will hold a
    different content, the natural processing of information and
    beliefs is always the same.

    For instance, a person may say anything which may be true, or may
    be false. However, one can act only upon what one believes to be
    true. To hold as not true is to say doesn’t exist, “Nothingâ€
    cannot prompt action. Ergo, if there is a conflict between what
    one claims to believe and actions, look to the actions every time
    to tell what the person really does believe.

    In the event, a parent or parents have a child kidnaped and
    priority is the safe return of the child, every thought and every
    action is directed toward this end. If a ransom note, this
    connection will be read over and over again trying to find some
    link to help in locating the missing child.

    I can give a bit of slack if this doesn’t happen. However, when
    other persons are called in, none reputed to be able to help find
    the allegedly kidnaped child, this distracting move away from the
    alleged priority, this action translated into words says loud and
    clear: “WE KNOW THERE WAS NO KIDNAPING.†Had an attending officer
    picked up on this and acted accordingly, there would not have
    been the mess that followed, and is still going on.

    “Someone in that household read enough to know that forensic
    investigation could uncover a faked accident. Someone staging
    would have to stage an accident where the damage was to the side
    of JBR's head.â€

    Actually, no staging was necessary. What if Patsy had called 911
    immediately and made up a story about JonBenet falling and
    striking her head, a story generally consistent with the location
    and degree of the head injury? Chances are, no one would have
    doubted her word, and most of us would have never heard of the
    incident.

    That potential and opportune 911 call did not happen. This tells
    of the mentality and the attitude of Patsy Ramsey. If we convert
    the actions that followed to words, it would be close to this:
    “They won’t believe me if I tell them that JonBenet had an
    accident. They will blame me. However, I can stage a crime scene
    pointing away from me that they will believed, hence, believe I
    am innocent.â€

    What came through was (and is) the general psychology of
    deception and manipulation as the chosen norm for this person.
    This same mentality shows up in the “ransom noteâ€, not of a few
    words, but a long directive script. Simplicity and relative
    safety from detection were dismissed in deference to the desire
    to deceive and belief in ability to deceive. Given the evidence
    that has been overlooked in the case and\or distorted beyond
    recognition, just about any story Patsy made up would have been
    accepted without question. Yet, her beliefs directed her toward
    the very high risk route of staging the crime scene.

    “That damage isn't likely to ocurr in an accidental fall down the
    stairs, was too much damage for a fall against a tub or corner of
    a table without some force behind it. Someone knew enough to
    realize that as soon as the investigator's figured out that that
    much damage was unlikely without her or the object hitting her
    had to be moving with quite a bit of force and their goose would
    be cooked.â€

    I think you’re giving Patsy credit for analytical thought not
    consistent with her mentality. The whole scene, from note, phony
    “garrote sceneâ€, etc. show panic reaction, not definitive,
    analytical planning.

    “The real bug in this is the sexual assault/abuse aspect of it.
    That isn't any part of a kidnapping for money or political
    purposes as the ransom note suggests the motive to be.â€

    This confirms what I said above: panic driven multiple motives in
    conflict; very chaotic thought, flaw after flaw after flaw;
    really messed up heads. Yet, chosen rather than a simple lie.

    “It is totally unnecessary and IF it is strictly staging and not
    the reason for the staging, it would tend to incriminate a woman,
    who would stage the crime as if a man did it.â€

    Not conclusive, but does lean that way.

    “It seems to me though that a case for previous assault/abuse of
    the genital area can be made and may just be the main reason for
    the staging and that would definitely not be covered by an
    accidental fall.â€

    Although I cannot say with absolute certainty, I seriously doubt
    prior sexual abuse for numerous reasons mentioned before; and I certainly don’t buy the sex game idea with the silly apparatus.

    At this juncture, as motive we have, “politicalâ€, “monetaryâ€
    “sexual.†She didn’t pick from column A, or B, or C. She picked
    all three. This choice and others reveal “random associationâ€
    without much thought as to continuity and believability.

    As I said before and said again, a contrary mentality will not
    fit the mentality that created the scene. The scene tells the
    truth of what happened and the truth of the mentality behind it.
    It’s a mess.
     
  19. Voyager

    Voyager Active Member

    EasyWriter....

    Were it not for the evidence of prior sexual abuse, and the murderer's knowlege of that evidence, there would have been no reason for staging a murder....

    There are many ways to explain head trauma which do not involve murder, pedophelia, or an intruder.....Children die from head traumas caused by accident every day in this country....The problem of course with the Ramseys was how to explain the prior vaginal trauma in a 6 yr. old child....

    The Ramseys probably chose the garrote staging because they reckoned that it was the type of sexual crime that would be most divergent from the type of crime of which they might be suspected....In their minds, the garrot and insertion of a stick into the child's vaginal opening were probably the most horrific and foreign sexual perversion possible, and not something that upper class, loving, Christian parents would be connected with....Hence the long and complicated ransom note explaining what their imagined monsterous intruders were capable of.....

    Without the prior sexual abuse component, the head trauma could have been explained by pushing JonBenet off of the second story balcony outside her window, and saying she fell while waiting out there for Santa.....Or that she fell down the winding iron stair case while scuffling with Burke.....There are a number of more plausable explanations than the intruder/pedophile invented in the ransom note....But since there was a sexual component in the case, there had to be an intruder component, someone from outside the home who could also be used to explain the sexual trauma.....Both the note and the staging had to be extremely foreign from the perceived Ramsey image....Hence, the small foreign faction, and the amateur attempt at the perversion of the garrote...

    My assertion is that the prior sexual abuse is key in this case....It is both the motive for the killing and the central evidence that had to be hidden by the murderer....

    Voyager
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2004
  20. Voyager

    Voyager Active Member

    Further Thoughts on the Murder.....

    I theorize that it is entirely possible that any one or combination of the three persons known to have been in the Ramsey home that night was capable of committing the murder of JonBenet....This is assuming that the death/murder was caused by the head trauma...be it purposeful or accidental murder....

    John could reasonably have killed JonBenet to keep her from telling anyone that he was sexually abusing her...

    Patsy could have killed JonBenet with a vicious head blow during an explosion of anger when she caught JonBenet involved sexually with either Burke or John that night or out of anger when JonBenet made a late night confession about being involved sexually with John, Burke, or some other male family member....

    Or my least favorite possibility, that Patsy was sexually abusing JonBenet and killed her when JonBenet threatened to tell....

    I know that there is great resistance, even among forum members, to believe that Burke could be either the sexual abuser or the murderer, but I theorize that this is also a possibility.....For instance, if Burke and JonBenet were playing Dr. and Burke in some way caused JonBenet physical pain, she might have screamed causing Burke to grab the maglight on the night stand, and in a panic to shut her up, smash her violently over the head with that innocent instrument....

    There are a number of variations on each of these possibilities which could be entirely possible in my opinion....There in lies the great difficulty in prosecuting this case....Even if it could be proved that there was no intruder, no intention of kidnapping, and that Patsy wrote the ransom note, without an actual confession, how could it be proved which of the Ramseys delivered the fatal head blow, and which of them constructed and installed the garrote which may have contributed to JonBenet's death?......
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice