JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Harry D]

There was no time for the Ramseys to remove the body from the premises.

Why not? The investigators put JonBenet's time of death as early as 10pm. Even if it was a little later than that, Patsy didn't call the police until 5.25am.

Why write the ransom note if they're going to leave the body behind? That has only placed more suspicion on the Ramseys.

Also, re: the footprints in the snow, this page provides evidence that the walkways around the house were free of snow.

[Wickerman]

I just think that if the Ramseys had done this, they would've disposed of JonBenet's body instead of staging such an elaborate ruse. No body, no crime.

Exactly, and they had all the time in the world.
It was the Ramsey's decision when to call police, they were under no pressure for time. Plus they had all the time they needed to clean up and remove any implicating evidence.

You don't write a ransom note when you know the body is still in the house, as a theory that is plain silly.

[Wickerman]

The Kolar book has no teeth and the author hasn't the guts to name his suspect.

From an academic perspective this is what being impartial looks like.
These are the kind of books that offer the most reliable information.
Steve Thomas does have an axe to grind, James Kolar did not.

Little details like Officer French noticing that while Patsy and John were waiting for the 'kidnapper' to call Patsy had her face covered by her hands but he could see her fingers parted as she 'eyeballed' him. He noted it down in his notebook but of course this kind of small detail isn't 'evidence' just a point of interest.

I heard that too, to me it's not believable because looking through your fingers is what children do, not adults.
If Patsy is acting, she keeps the act up all the time the police are in the house, she can't drop her act the moment an officer turns his back. To my mind that's why the idea is just nonsense.

[Wickerman]

Another reason why the 'intruder' theory is invalid. No footsteps in the snow outside.

I can't believe you said that, it goes down as the most laughable "untruth" published by the police at the time.
The fact was there was no snow on the pathways, so of course there were no footprints.
Really Louisa, I though you had passed beyond this kind of rubbish.

[louisa]

Exactly, and they had all the time in the world.
It was the Ramsey's decision when to call police, they were under no pressure for time. Plus they had all the time they needed to clean up and remove any implicating evidence.

You don't write a ransom note when you know the body is still in the house, as a theory that is plain silly.

Yes, and that is why everything points to the Ramseys. They certainly had time to stage the scene but removing the body would have been way too risky. They settled upon the kidnapping theory.

I think they put the body in that tiny room while they thought of ways of disposing of it. Patsy wrote the ransom note. They couldn't risk removing the body in case they were seen or they left traces in the car, or whatever.

Then they decided to make it look as though JonBenet had been murdered by a sexual pervert and staged the scene accordingly.


Wickerman please do not be patronizing. I thought there were footsteps in the snow but I am prepared to accept I made an error there. It's been a while since I read all my books on this case. I still think there would have been frost in all outside areas on that bitter night. but maybe it was too solid to show prints.

I have picked you up on many incorrect points that you have put on this thread but you never reply to those.


It seems odd that you will not accept any of the facts that point to the Ramseys - you are totally blind to anything that does not fit your theory.

You say Steve Thomas was biased. In what way and why on earth should he be? He was a cop doing his job. This is going to be one of those points where you give no answer isn't it?

You are the one who is wholly biased. If you came up with anything plausible then I might acceed to your reasoning, but so far you haven't.

If you had an open mind to possibilities then you may see things differently.


"You don't write a ransom note when the body is still in the house"

Well they did, they had their reasons, AND they still got away with murder.


You are so completely on the side of the Ramseys that I'm beginning to wonder if you are John Ramsey!

[louisa]

You don't write a ransom note when you know the body is still in the house, as a theory that is plain silly.

Well that is EXACTLY what you're saying the 'intruder' did.

[Wickerman]

Well that is EXACTLY what you're saying the 'intruder' did.

Well, if that is what you think, then it appears you have not understood the intruder theory.

If we compare the Patsy coverup theory against the intruder theory we find that the most logical time the ransom note was written, if by Patsy, was after the death. Clearly no-one is suggesting Patsy would write it before JonBenet dies.
Alternately, thee most logical time for the Ransom note to be written, if by the intruder, is before the death.
Clearly it makes no sense to assume he wrote it after he kills her.

So, we have Patsy as the author after JonBenet dies, or the intruder as the author before JonBenet dies.

Leaving the two 'false start' pages makes sense regardless who wrote it.
Obviously there is no rational reason for the intruder to take away the two 'false start' pages - and why would he care?

[Wickerman]

Yes, and that is why everything points to the Ramseys. They certainly had time to stage the scene but removing the body would have been way too risky. They settled upon the kidnapping theory.

If they only called the police about 5:30 am, and JonBenet died 4, 5 or 6 hours before then they had several hours of darkness to get the body out of the house.

I think they put the body in that tiny room while they thought of ways of disposing of it. Patsy wrote the ransom note. They couldn't risk removing the body in case they were seen or they left traces in the car, or whatever.

Then they decided to make it look as though JonBenet had been murdered by a sexual pervert and staged the scene accordingly.

Making the scene look like a sexual pervert killed her, then writing a ransom note to suggest a kidnapping for ransom are two contradictory theories.

If they hid her body in that small spare room with the intention of getting it out of the house later, then why make it look like she was sexually assaulted? That suggests they intended her body to be found - which again negates against the point of writing a note to suggest kidnapping.

Wickerman please do not be patronizing. I thought there were footsteps in the snow but I am prepared to accept I made an error there. It's been a while since I read all my books on this case. I still think there would have been frost in all outside areas on that bitter night. but maybe it was too solid to show prints.

If you were going on memory, fair enough. I just thought everybody knew those stories about "no footprints in the snow", and "John Ramsey going missing for hours", etc. were all 'false-facts' released by the Boulder Police - long proven untrue.

I have picked you up on many incorrect points that you have put on this thread but you never reply to those.

Well, I apologize for that, but nothing comes to mind.
Maybe I didn't think the points I raised were incorrect, or perhaps someone else responded?

It seems odd that you will not accept any of the facts that point to the Ramseys - you are totally blind to anything that does not fit your theory.

I put the DNA evidence front and center, which you apparently do not.
All the other evidence must fit with the DNA evidence otherwise it is in conflict with it, and we should all appreciate how that will look.

You say Steve Thomas was biased. In what way and why on earth should he be? He was a cop doing his job. This is going to be one of those points where you give no answer isn't it?

I thought he explained this himself, he felt forced to resign because of the resistance he received - he was being told at the time his conclusions were wrong, he couldn't get his own way, so he resigned.
His argument (if I remember correctly) was with the D.A.'s office, who believed the Boulder Police were 'blinkered' in their investigation. Even to the extent of not letting the Grand Jury hear the DNA evidence - which obviously led to the indictment (in-camera) of the Ramsey's.
The D.A. could have charged the Boulder Police with perverting justice.

Lyn Wood threatened to sue the City due to their misconduct throughout the investigation and Mary Lacy had to agree, they botched the investigation, which led to her absolving the Ramsey's of any involvement.
I'd say that was sufficient cause for Steve Thomas to lash out in his own, and his departments defense.

You are the one who is wholly biased. If you came up with anything plausible then I might acceed to your reasoning, but so far you haven't.

If you had an open mind to possibilities then you may see things differently.

I wasn't aware I'd suggested anything of significance that has not been raised by a professional involved in the case.

You seem to prefer to follow a policeman who essentially lost his job over this case, whereas I have preferred to align myself with the scientific evidence (DNA) - which you seem to avoid talking about.
Also, Robert Whitson, a policeman who acknowledges he was wrong while working for the Boulder Police, then spent 6 years studying Psychology and wrote his PhD dissertation on the subject.
His conclusion that an intruder was responsible is relevant.

Then there is the FBI investigator (can't recall his name), who specialized in crimes against children, who also arrived at the same 'intruder' conclusion.

Finally, the initiator of the intruder theory, Lou Smit with 200 murder cases under his belt and a 90+ % success rate spanning over 30 years.
No-one had anything but the highest respect for Lou Smit, he was what was known as a plodder, he would analyze every inch of a crime scene never leaving anything to chance. Smit was a modern-day Sherlock Holmes, which is why his conclusion was so threatening to the investigation.

You are so completely on the side of the Ramseys that I'm beginning to wonder if you are John Ramsey!

I hope Abby doesn't read that....

[louisa]

You don't write a ransom note when you know the body is still in the house, as a theory that is plain silly.

But that is what YOU wrote Wickerman! I merely quoted you. Don't try and wriggle out of it.

I agree it's plain silly, but that is precisely what happened.

Alternately, thee most logical time for the Ransom note to be written, if by the intruder, is before the death.
Clearly it makes no sense to assume he wrote it after he kills her.

It was written AFTER JB was murdered. Written by Patsy. If she hadn't been in a state of panic at that time she would have written a shorter note that made more sense. The garbled nonsense in the note - written on HER pad with HER own pen fits what we know about this neurotic woman to a T. The author of the note clearly wasn't thinking straight because they tried to hide the fact it was written on that notepad by going to the middle of the pad before starting to write.

The Boulder police were not overly smart but they were not quite as thick as Patsy thought they were.

John Ramsey going missing for hours", etc. were all 'false-facts' released by the Boulder Police - long proven untrue.

Where did you read that this was untrue - in the book written by Patsy and John Ramsey? John was missing for at least an hour, as logged by Linda Arndt in her notebook.

Steve Thomas did not 'lose' his job but resigned due to frustration and stress in not getting justice for JonBenet. He wanted the Ramsey case to go before a Grand Jury but the DA was dead against it.

Money talks. JonBenet will never get justice as long as there are people hiding behind their lawyers.

If Patsy and John Ramsey had been ordinary poor people they would have been put on trial and found guilty; that is my opinion. As it happened they were found guilty by a Grand Jury but that was hushed up as well. The Ramseys and their lawyers win again! If for that reason only the justice system in the USA stinks.

DNA is flawed and can be contaminated. I will never believe that Patsy is not guilty of this crime, or at least covering up for her son.

This crime was never investigated the way it should have been.

You say that my theories make no sense. Well neither does the intruder theory.

Whoever killed JB wrote the ransom note and left it there while JB's body was still warm. Agreed? That makes the killer an odd specimen wouldn't you say? And the police had a very odd specimen in Patsy Ramsey.

[Pcdunn]

Re the snow -- there was not much snow around the house the day after Christmas, but there was some -- remember the Hi-Tek boot-print which was found? It is one of the pieces of physical evidence that supports the intruder theory, and the photograph of it indicates how sparse the snowfall had been.

Also, I don't think it is true that John and Patsy never were questioned separately by the police, as I have seen video evidence that they were.

[Wickerman]

But that is what YOU wrote Wickerman! I merely quoted you. Don't try and wriggle out of it.

No, no, my last reply was an attempt to explain to you why your last interpretation was wrong, the "EXACTLY what I said" statement.
You have turned the meaning around.

Where did you read that this was untrue - in the book written by Patsy and John Ramsey? John was missing for at least an hour, as logged by Linda Arndt in her notebook.

I'll give you the various points raised as best I can.
Read, We Have Your Daughter, by Paula Woodward.
The police released several false points to the press, enumerated below.
- Absence of footprints in the snow lead police to suspect the parents.
- John Ramsey left the crime scene for 50 minutes.
- That Det. French said, Patsy made an awkward attempt to conceal her grief, by peering at him through splayed fingers held over her eyes.
- John Ramsey flew his private jet back to Atlanta after the murder.
- Police leaked a belief that John Ramsey's had sexually abused his daughter, and they searched for pornography in the house.

Paula Woodward & the A&E research team uncovered the fact that not a single leak was true, among them...
- There was no snow on the pathways or driveway anywhere around the house.
- No handwriting expert has ever concluded that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note.
- John Ramsey did not leave his home that morning, nor did he fly his family back to Atlanta.
- Nor was any pornography found in the house.

DNA is flawed and can be contaminated. I will never believe that Patsy is not guilty of this crime, or at least covering up for her son.

Well, didn't you just recently accuse me of having a closed mind, yet you are the one who admits you "will never believe that Patsy is not guilty of this crime".
From your posts Louisa I have long determined your sole interest at this stage is to defend your theory. That seems like a closed mind to me.

This crime was never investigated the way it should have been.

Yes, and this was the fault of the Boulder Police.

You say that my theories make no sense. Well neither does the intruder theory.

Well let me ask you this Louisa.
Given the expertise of Lou Smit and his 30+ years of Homicide experience, and Bob Whitson and his 6 year PhD dissertation on criminal psychopathy & sadism, and the FBI investigator on crimes against children, Ken Lanning, that they all conclude the evidence points to an intruder.

Can you explain exactly what it is that you 'know', that these experienced individuals do not?
Or, conversely, would you be prepared for a moment to accept that they might 'know' something that you do not?

[Wickerman]

Re the snow -- there was not much snow around the house the day after Christmas, but there was some -- remember the Hi-Tek boot-print which was found? It is one of the pieces of physical evidence that supports the intruder theory, and the photograph of it indicates how sparse the snowfall had been.

I have seen a partial boot print on the floor of the basement, do you know if the outside print you mention was compared with the one from the basement?
There was also the faint impression of a boot on the top of the suitcase by the window, I'm not sure if they were able to determine a usable print from it though.
The print on the basement floor did not match any boots in the Ramsey house.

[louisa]

Wickerman -Here are some questions for you. If you can answer them I would be obliged.

1. As you yourself have stated, it would be absurd for a murderer to kill their victim and then leave a ransom note and leave the body in the house.

Why would an intruder do this?

2. The ransom note specifically stated that they should NOT contact the police "otherwise their daughter would be beheaded". What did the Ramseys immediately do? They contacted the police. Plus phoned four friends and their lawyers.

3. Am I right in thinking that you believe an 'intruder' lurked for hours in the Ramsey home on that freezing Christmas night, just hoping for a chance to murder JB and leave a ransom note?

4. You honestly believe that this 'intruder' sat down at the kitchen counter and leisurely wrote a few attempts at a kidnap note, before settling on a rambling three page epic which managed to squeeze in praise for John's business acumen and "good southern common sense"?

He had NO idea how long before the Ramseys would be back.

5. Why would an intruder/kidnapper not take the body with him? Even when dead a body is collateral for a kidnapper because the parents will assume their child is still alive.

6. Why would he stop to close the basement window and replace the grating on the basement area?

7. Once JB's body was removed for autopsy neither John nor Patsy asked the police what the cause of death had been. If your child had been murdered would you not be asking the police this question?

8. John stated, just a few days after JB was murdered, that he was "not angry" with his daughter's killer. Most people would find that strange, don't you think?

9. Why would the Ramseys wish to fly hundreds of miles away to Atlanta while the body of their murdered little girl was still in the house in Boulder, being guarded by a single police officer?

10. Why would the Ramseys refuse to talk to the police?

11. Why did they 'lawyer up' on the same day their daughter was found murdered? (instead of talking to the police)

12. Why did the Ramseys name (as a murder suspect) just about every person they knew, apart from their own family members? There is no way their best friends would have done this so why were they accusing them? Plus their house-keeper, her husband, the man who was santa at their party, even the kindly old arthritic neighbours across the street who kindly took their dog when they got fed up with it wetting in the house?


13. The Ramseys did a very good job of trying to turn everyone they knew against the police department, saying they were being 'harassed'. Anyone would think, to read the load of lies that they later wrote in the fiction that passed as their book about the case, that it was Police vs. Ramseys. That was far from true.

The police had no reason to want to pin it on the Ramseys, just the opposite in fact, but they could not ignore the amount of circumstantial evidence.

14. Why did the Ramseys name (as a murder suspect) just about every person they knew, apart from their own family members? There is no way their best friends would have done this so why were they accusing them? Plus their house-keeper, her husband, the man who was santa at their party, even the kindly old arthritic neighbours across the street who kindly took their dog when they got fed up with it wetting in the house?


When the police went to talk to their pastor, I think his name was Hoverstock?, they came up against another strange thing. They wanted to ask him a few friendly routine questions but he immediately stated he was not going to talk to them and said he would ring his lawyers before being questioned. Was that not more strange behaviour? The Ramseys and their people had instilled in anyone around them that the police were out to 'get them'.

Have you ever wondered WHY they were so against talking to the police and why every tiny thing they uttered was re-written by their lawyers?

Presumably you are going to say it was normal behaviour? If you think any of the above was 'normal behaviour' then I have to presume you yourself have some strange thought waves.

You obviously believe all this (well the Ramseys said it happened that way so it must have!) but it takes some explaining away for the rest of us.

You state it was the fault of the police that this was not investigated properly and I agree, but they DID try - most of them anyway - and came up against a brick wall.

PCDunn - yes eventually the Ramseys agreed to be interviewed but every question had to be submitted to their lawyers in advance.

[louisa]

And a few other oddities....

JB had been put to bed wearing a red turtle neck sweater yet when she was found she was wearing her white long sleeved top with silver stars (the top she had been wearing during the Christmas party the day before). The red turtle neck sweater was found damp and bundled up on the side of the basin in JB's bedroom.

Patsy's mother told police that somebody would need to be extremely familiar with the house in order (even) to find the door to the basement because there were about 15 doors that could have been basement doors. The light switch to the basement was not in a place where one would expect a basement light to be (at the top of the stairwell) but was outside the basement, on a wall in the main room, around a corner.

The room where the body was found was down a maze of hallways that few people knew was there. The 'intruder' stopped to latch the door on his way out (the latch being very stiff and hard to turn, according to police and Fleet White).

The sexual assault is another bizarre occurrence. If we are to believe the intruder theory then presumably sex was the motive for the killing?

What kind of sex maniac is content to insert part of a THIN artist's paintbrush handle into the vagina, and leave it at that? No semen or any other bodily fluids were found on the body or surrounding areas.

I have my own theories, most of which make sense if you take the notion that the Ramseys were responsible.

[Abby Normal]

Wickerman -Here are some questions for you. If you can answer them I would be obliged.

1. As you yourself have stated, it would be absurd for a murderer to kill their victim and then leave a ransom note and leave the body in the house.

Why would an intruder do this?

2. The ransom note specifically stated that they should NOT contact the police "otherwise their daughter would be beheaded". What did the Ramseys immediately do? They contacted the police. Plus phoned four friends and their lawyers.

3. Am I right in thinking that you believe an 'intruder' lurked for hours in the Ramsey home on that freezing Christmas night, just hoping for a chance to murder JB and leave a ransom note?

4. You honestly believe that this 'intruder' sat down at the kitchen counter and leisurely wrote a few attempts at a kidnap note, before settling on a rambling three page epic which managed to squeeze in praise for John's business acumen and "good southern common sense"?

He had NO idea how long before the Ramseys would be back.

5. Why would an intruder/kidnapper not take the body with him? Even when dead a body is collateral for a kidnapper because the parents will assume their child is still alive.

6. Why would he stop to close the basement window and replace the grating on the basement area?

7. Once JB's body was removed for autopsy neither John nor Patsy asked the police what the cause of death had been. If your child had been murdered would you not be asking the police this question?

8. John stated, just a few days after JB was murdered, that he was "not angry" with his daughter's killer. Most people would find that strange, don't you think?

9. Why would the Ramseys wish to fly hundreds of miles away to Atlanta while the body of their murdered little girl was still in the house in Boulder, being guarded by a single police officer?

10. Why would the Ramseys refuse to talk to the police?

11. Why did they 'lawyer up' on the same day their daughter was found murdered? (instead of talking to the police)

12. Why did the Ramseys name (as a murder suspect) just about every person they knew, apart from their own family members? There is no way their best friends would have done this so why were they accusing them? Plus their house-keeper, her husband, the man who was santa at their party, even the kindly old arthritic neighbours across the street who kindly took their dog when they got fed up with it wetting in the house?


13. The Ramseys did a very good job of trying to turn everyone they knew against the police department, saying they were being 'harassed'. Anyone would think, to read the load of lies that they later wrote in the fiction that passed as their book about the case, that it was Police vs. Ramseys. That was far from true.

The police had no reason to want to pin it on the Ramseys, just the opposite in fact, but they could not ignore the amount of circumstantial evidence.

14. Why did the Ramseys name (as a murder suspect) just about every person they knew, apart from their own family members? There is no way their best friends would have done this so why were they accusing them? Plus their house-keeper, her husband, the man who was santa at their party, even the kindly old arthritic neighbours across the street who kindly took their dog when they got fed up with it wetting in the house?


When the police went to talk to their pastor, I think his name was Hoverstock?, they came up against another strange thing. They wanted to ask him a few friendly routine questions but he immediately stated he was not going to talk to them and said he would ring his lawyers before being questioned. Was that not more strange behaviour? The Ramseys and their people had instilled in anyone around them that the police were out to 'get them'.

Have you ever wondered WHY they were so against talking to the police and why every tiny thing they uttered was re-written by their lawyers?

Presumably you are going to say it was normal behaviour? If you think any of the above was 'normal behaviour' then I have to presume you yourself have some strange thought waves.

You obviously believe all this (well the Ramseys said it happened that way so it must have!) but it takes some explaining away for the rest of us.

You state it was the fault of the police that this was not investigated properly and I agree, but they DID try - most of them anyway - and came up against a brick wall.

PCDunn - yes eventually the Ramseys agreed to be interviewed but every question had to be submitted to their lawyers in advance.

A lot of what you write reiterates a main problem for me with the Ramsey's-if they had spent half of the energy they did fighting the police and related attention whoring, they probably would have found the killer. If innocent of course. And if guilty, well there behavior makes perfect sense.