Why Ramseys *and* Karr must be innocent

There was so much junk and material lying around in that basement that the tape and cord could have come from just about anything without the "rest of the roll or tape" available for comparison. We all have little bits and pieces of all sorts of things lying around the house don't we?

(I tend to simplify things when I can)

 

Barbara can you post the link to Cherokee's page on your quote?

 

Help

I have tried several times as you can see to post the link, but it doesn't come out as a "link"

What am I doing wrong?

 

I'm PC challenged....someone helppppppppppp.

It'd be great to read your signature and then click immediately on the link!

 

First click on the symbol above this text box that is for inserting a hyperlink. A little box will come up that says "Insert Text for Hyperlink." You write "Cherokee's linguistic analysis of ransom note" or whatever you want. Click OK. ANother box will come up to put the actual URL into. Paste the link into that. Make sure that the http part isn't duplicated. Then click OK and the HTML tags will come up in your text below. Not hard but a little confusing.

Heymom

 

I meant that when you reply to a message, you are into a text box. The Insert Hyperlink symbol is the one that looks like a globe with a little chain link on it. Does that help? It's a two-step process after that.

Heymom

 

I DID IT! Thanks Heymom

 

You did it! Excellent!

Heymom

 

307 posts to this crock??? Someone put an end to this...

 

:sprez:

 

Maybe it's going to become the trial and error thread. :sprez:

 

Dear Cherokee:

I did read your analysis of the ransom note. It is indeed quite impressive, and superior to any other I've read so far. It is scholarly, well-reasoned, researched, and documented; perceptive and highly persuasive--to a degree.

This reminds me of all the world of the movie Victor/Victoria in which Julie Andrews played a woman pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman. In effect, you here argue that in regard to the "ransom" note, we have Mrs. Ramsey pretending to be an intruder pretending to be Mrs. Ramsey. (So as to implicate the Ramseys, which, of course, no one (to her mind) would believe she would do.) This would have been most cleverly subtle and astute of her as an impromtu stratagem under great pressure.

I, on the other hand, have argued that we have an intruder pretending to be Mrs. Ramsey pretending to be an intruder (and thus pointing the finger back at her). In my scenario, though, as I have stated before, the perp would have had much more time to plan out every subtle detail in emplying his or her diabolic plan to not only rob the Ramseys of their beloved daughter, but to implicate them on top of it! (Which would also, by the way, cast suspician away from the actual perp.)

Your analysis confirms that either Mrs. Ramsey wrote the note (and not Mr. Ramsey (Burke is out of the question regarding the note)), or someone who knew her well wrote the note; probably had letters from her, or at least some substantial handwriting samples of hers, and knew the family's backgrounds and how, in particular, Mrs. Ramsey was prone to think and express herself.

One thing I think virtually all of us here can agree upon is that the current Boulder DA is wasting time and taxpayer money continuing to search for pedophiles who were strangers to the family like Karr. No one like that could have written this ransom note, as your most astute analysis shows.

I was particularly impressed with a couple of points of your ransom note analysis. You anticipated my question about the ransom note writer using periods (and presumably simply neglected the final one) in the "S.B.T.C," thus pointing to the note writer as having been "old school" in styling--not unlike Mrs. Ramsey. However, I believe "S.B.T.C" was yet another attempt to implicate the Ramseys, and that it stands for "Subic Bay Training Center" where Mr. Ramsey had served while on active duty in the Navy.

To my knowledge, the military has never used periods for initials used as acronyms. At least that was mot the case when I was in the Navy in the early to mid-seventies. If Mrs. Ramsey wrote this note, and if Mr. Ramsey had been complicit in the cover-up, one would have thought that he would have proofed the final note. If your theory is correct, who knows how many attempts were made to write such a letter before they were finally satisfied. Most people believe that the girl had been killed early in the morning of the 26th, so they would have had several hours.

In regard to your point about the writer referring to "tomorrow morning," as if it were still Christmas day in his or her mind, and that the Ramseys chose to put the date of death as 12/25/96 on the girl's tombstone, is very astute indeed.

Finally, I had not been aware that Mr. Ramsey had apparently run for political office a couple of years ago and lost. What office had he run for, where, and in which party, please?

Once again, I commend you for your most impressive and seemingly professional work regarding your analysis of the ransom note. Still, I maintain that it can point to one of two conclusions, whereas you have apparently firmly settled in your mind upon one alone--not unlike Mr. Smit who seems unable to shake his pedophilia and stun gun "instincts,'" and Steve Thomas with his mere speculation as fact concerning bed wetting "setting Mrs. Ramsey off."

Thank you.

 

uhhh

I don't think the analysis trys to say that the note was written by PR pretending to be an intruder pretending to be PR. How about it is just PR writing the note.
Pretty simple.

 

To all:

In a previous note, I asked if anyone had considered "the choking game" in regard to this murder, implying that Burke Ramsey possibly accidentally killed his sister, which his parents attempted to subsequently cover-up. Did that imply that I have changed my mind about him and now considered him a suspect?

No. I made this point by way of being sardonic to show the difficulty you all have here that believe the Ramseys were guilty of the crime and cover-up. The point is when one can show no clear motive, myriad possibilities present themselves of an impulsive nature, with it being virtually impossible to determine the needle in the proverbial haystack that would prove the correct guess. As I said before, unless one or more of the family were to confess the truth (assuming the family is guilty), it is hopeless for the DA to know which one to charge with the actual crime.

However, some might take seriously the possibilty that Burke Ramsey killed his sister, either under my hypothetical scenario or that he had simply bashed her head in a sudden and impulsive rage over--again--one of myriad possible speculated causes. Thus, I hoped to show how absurd this entire exercise in rank speculation truly is. Burke Ramsey could not have killed his sister.

Firstly, the more I read concerning the nature and character of this (then) boy, the word "impulsive" and he sound more and more mutually exclusive. The child seemed phlegmatic to the point of one wondering if he had been marginally autistic! Where is the boundary line between a "tendency" and a "condition." You just "have" to go back into the house twice before leaving for work each morning to make certain the burners and water taps are all off. Does this mean you have OCD? A mild case? A marginal case?

Although it appears to me that BR physically resembles his mom more than his dad, he seems otherwise a "chip-of-the-old-block" of the paternal side of his family. His paternal grandfather was a highly-decorated combat pilot in WWII, and all said that JR was a virtual clone of his father. JR has been characterized as quiet, slow to anger and, above all, aloof to the point of being perceived as being cold. The consummate role type of such men would be Charles Lindbergh. I.e., the fearless, rugged individualist; seemingly addicted to danger and averse to emotion. Such people live very much within themselves.

If one reads statements attributed to Burke, this profile fits him to a tee. I have known such people, and I can tell you that when they have resentments against a person, their reaction is invariably not to actively seek revenge of some kind, but rather to simply turn away from the person all together. Such people have absolutely no problem with self-esteem. Indeed, it is just the opposite. From their perspective, denying themselves to another is the ultimate form of "revenge."

If Burke Ramsey had any resentment towards his sister, he would not have bashed her head in. Rather, he would have ignored her to the largest extent possible within the confines of his sense of familial obligation.

From reading statements attributed to the boy, I have been impressed by the high degree of sophistication in his thought processes at age ten or so. Few kids I have known that age ever would have used an expression like: "I was afraid we would be tied-up all day and that the trip to Michigan was off." [Referring to the police being in the house that morning.]

This was a very bright kid who lived very much inside himself, and had only been hampered to some extent in school by his inability to relate to outside stimuli, thus limiting his efforts to translate his relatively sophisticated thought processes into the practical demands of an academic school setting. "I can see it in my mind, but I can't show you the answer."

But there is a more solid piece of evidence that would exonerate BR as the perp than a mere personality profile.

(Continued)

 

To all: (Continued)

Someone here speculated that Burke and JB came down together for a surreptitious midnight snack. JB said something to "set him off" and he then bashed her head in. This sounds logical and the most likely of all speculations of what happened that night. As I said, it is problematic in the extreme that either adult Ramsey would have lied and covered up for the other if the other had just murdered their child. But both wouild for their remaining child. But if Burke had just killed his sister in a fit of rage, then it begs the question: "Then what?"

The parents would have needed considerable time to stage this elaborate cover-up attempt, so we can assume that either the boy ran to his parents' bedroom or they had heard the commotion.

Let's examine the former scenario first. The boy comes running into the Ramsey's bedroom and wakes them. What is the prospective dialogue?

"Mom! Dad! I just hit JonBenet on the head and she's hurt bad! I think she's dead!"

"Really? Well, don't worry about it, son. These things happen. You go back to bed and your mother and I will take care of everything. Just tell the police and everyone in the morning that you had been in bed all night and heard nothing and know nothing."

"Patsy, go get a flashlight...."

This is, of course, absurd. The parents would have flipped the lights on, made a mad dash downstairs, flipping light switches on before them in the process in a hurried and panicked effort to first access the situation, hoping their son had either been exaggerating or engaging in some sick, practical joke.

The whole house would have been lit up for a least a considerable period of time, while PR was probably falling apart and JR calculating what to do. Yet no neighbor reported any signs of all these lights that night. Indeed, with one exception, the neighbors reported that the house had been completely dark, and that even a light in a sunroom which the family normally left burning all night, as a sort of nightlight I would assume, had been off that night.

The one neighbor who did report lights on around midnight, was a Mr. Gibbons, whose house was to the North of the Ramsey's. He reported having (from his geographic perspective) seen the Ramsey's kitchen light on dim around midnight, strongly pointing to the kids' midnight snack. He also reported having seen "odd lights" that night which, as I speculated before, were almost certainly flashlights.

One might counter that for the length of time the house had been lit up, the Ramseys just got lucky and no neighbor had been awake by then or noticed them if they had been. But if the Ramseys were guilty, they turned all the lights off once they decided upon their cover-up plan. Would Mr. Ramsey have taken such a gamble on top of the huge gamble of the cover-up attempt itself? "Maybe no one saw the lights?"

I doubt it. At around midnight the day after Christmas, too many people would still be likely to be up and drive by the house or even walk by it with their dogs. There was just too much risk to have carried on with such a plan at the time.

If the parents had heard the commotion and ran downstairs, the same considerations would have applied.

 

"I don't think the analysis trys to say that the note was written by PR pretending to be an intruder pretending to be PR. How about it is just PR writing the note."

"Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I cannot choose the wine in front of you. But you would have known I was not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!"

"As I said before, unless one or more of the family were to confess the truth (assuming the family is guilty), it is hopeless for the DA to know which one to charge with the actual crime."

THAT one we agree on!

 

bit late to charge her i would have thought !!

but he's fair game.. ..
and anyone who removed evidence is accesory to murder after the fact..
then theres those that have perverted the course of justice..
obstruction.....
could have a field day really....if you wanted.

 

Dear Desert:

"Daniel; It is not known exactly which came first, the head blow or strangulation. Also the flashligh was a gift to John form his son John Andrew, not sure of the year it was '95 or'96."

Can you please give your source for the origin of the flashlight you posted, please? This is a very important point. If JR's adult son gave him the flashlight, then what is all this I've read about JR denyng it was his, and what is his explanation for it lying out in plain sight as if someone within the family had used it?

As I said before, one of the problems with this case is that so much one reads contradicts what one reads elsewhere; and I don't mean just from internet posters, but rather from published sources as well.

 

Dear Kang:

As I posted before, from what I have read in Colorado one cannot be charged as an accessory after the fact until it is determined who committed the actual fact (crime).

A very interesting point here is a question I posted but no one answered. If the DA had determined that Burke had been the actual killer, since they could not charge him due to his age; and assuming all three Ramseys continued to deny that was the case, how would the DA have gone about establishing that the boy had been guilty to both close the case and charge the adult Ramseys as AATF?

As I also said, not being able to charge a kid from seven to nine with any crime, not even as a juvenile, seems crazy of and it itself. But that's another point.

 

Dear Texan:

"don't think the analysis trys to say that the note was written by PR pretending to be an intruder pretending to be PR. How about it is just PR writing the note. Pretty simple."

--The problem with that is if PR wrote the note, then why make it seem like it had to be someone who knew the family, probably well? Why not just write a note sounding like it came from some run-of-the mill kidnapper(s) for ransom after a rich kid who "blew it," inadvertently killed the child, and then ran off in panic leaving the already positioned note? Why not ask for a million dollars? Why all the personal references? If PR wrote the note, then she was obviously either deliberately pointing the finger at some unnamed family acquaintance, or pretending to be an intruder trying to point the finger back at her and her family. That's both obvious and "pretty simple."

--Someone made a conscious decision to make the note personal. "Why?" is the question. The note is obviosuly calculated. You cannot ignore that fact.