JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[louisa]

Hi Louisa

There were no large unknown pants on Jon benet. She was wearing the same long John bottoms that patsy had put on her when she was being put to bed.

Hi Abby, Thanks for reading my contributions.

The large pants were underneath the longjohns.

The autopsy report states: "Beneath the long underwear and white panties printed with rose buds and the word "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band."

You can read the autopsy report online (PDF format) plus see the autopsy photos (not for the faint hearted though).

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, Thanks for reading my contributions.

The large pants were underneath the longjohns.

The autopsy report states: "Beneath the long underwear and white panties printed with rose buds and the word "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band."

You can read the autopsy report online (PDF format) plus see the autopsy photos (not for the faint hearted though).

Hi Louisa
Ive read the autopsy report-there is no mention of any other pants other than her panties and long underwear.

[louisa]

Yes, I agree, the autopsy report doesn't say the pants were oversized but I've read somewhere that they were. The only reason I can think of that JB would have worn oversized pants is because she normally wore a pads during the night as she used to wet and soil herself frequently. That in itself could be one of the symptoms of anxiety.

[Wickerman]

FBI Linguisitics expert Chet Ubowski, who had made the early discovery that Patsy’s handwriting was consistent with the ransom note on twenty-four of the twenty-six alphabet letters, had recently told one detective, “I believe she wrote it."

Are you saying this quote below is wrong?

Colorado Bureau of Investigation handwriting expert Chet Ubowski in early 1997 determined that neither John Ramsey nor JonBenét's then-10-year-old brother, Burke, wrote the note.

There were "indications" that Patsy Ramsey was the writer, according to the affidavit. But, Ubowski concluded, "the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion."

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/19handwr.html

Either you have him changing his mind, or someone is exaggerating what he truly said?


Referring back to that black tape you said was on the back of a picture.

This sample of tape is referred in a report by the District Attorneys office, it was released on May 8th 1997 (or 1998? - I can double check the year), but I have been trying to find it on-line.
All I have is a close-up shot of the page which mentions the discovery of this piece of evidence. The line says the tape was different, which is what I was saying to you before.

I knew this but you tried to offer an argument that the tape was the same, so I am left to wonder if it was your source that was inaccurate (as you didn't give one), or you simply didn't know that the tape was different?

[Wickerman]

Yes, I agree, the autopsy report doesn't say the pants were oversized but I've read somewhere that they were. The only reason I can think of that JB would have worn oversized pants is because she normally wore a pads during the night as she used to wet and soil herself frequently. That in itself could be one of the symptoms of anxiety.

Or maybe she didn't.
Or, maybe all these little bits & pieces you insert in to otherwise legitimate evidence are just fabrications to bend the evidence towards supporting your theory?

[Wickerman]

This link can be useful, if anyone follows the month links at the top/bottom of the page you will be able to follow the chronology of events from Dec 25th 1996, through to 1998.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/chronology/index.html

[Pcdunn]

Yes, the Daily Camera is the Boulder city newspaper, and a fair amount of it is archived. I would probably also recommend looking for articles published in the Denver Post or the Rocky Mountain News.

John Ramsey, asked who might have written the ransom demand, answered "They say it was written by a woman, so maybe Priscilla." He meant the wife of Fleet White, a friend. It's not clear why he suggested the Whites might be involved, but I've seen articles talking about how long the couple had to cope with being under a cloud of suspicion because of it.

I doubt Alex Hunter was buddies with John, fellow Masons or otherwise. This veers into the terrain of the wilder conspiracy theories that cropped up, along with ritual abuse of children, etc.

If anything, the Boulder police did seem to zero in on the Ramsey family from the beginning. Whether they completely overlooked the evidence of an intruder until Smits came in, I don't know, but I do know they weren't used to high-profile cases like this, and that they refused the help of other, larger police departments. Many mistakes were made.

[louisa]

Are you saying this quote below is wrong?

Colorado Bureau of Investigation handwriting expert Chet Ubowski in early 1997 determined that neither John Ramsey nor JonBenét's then-10-year-old brother, Burke, wrote the note.

There were "indications" that Patsy Ramsey was the writer, according to the affidavit. But, Ubowski concluded, "the evidence falls short of that necessary to support a definite conclusion."

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/19handwr.html

Either you have him changing his mind, or someone is exaggerating what he truly said?

He did indeed, later change his mind.

Referring back to that black tape you said was on the back of a picture.

This sample of tape is referred in a report by the District Attorneys office, it was released on May 8th 1997 (or 1998? - I can double check the year), but I have been trying to find it on-line.
All I have is a close-up shot of the page which mentions the discovery of this piece of evidence. The line says the tape was different, which is what I was saying to you before.

I knew this but you tried to offer an argument that the tape was the same, so I am left to wonder if it was your source that was inaccurate (as you didn't give one), or you simply didn't know that the tape was different?

All I said was that black duct tape was found criss crossed on the back of a picture of JB. I thought it was a match. Whether it was forensically different - who knows? I've never seen anything more about it.

[louisa]

Or maybe she didn't.
Or, maybe all these little bits & pieces you insert in to otherwise legitimate evidence are just fabrications to bend the evidence towards supporting your theory?

You're stooping a bit low now, Wickerman, in calling me a liar, aren't you?

Just because you yourself have not heard of some of the case details, you think they cannot be true.

Presumably you have run out of viable clues to support that idiotic 'intruder' theory?

I can honestly say that I would not post a single thing on this forum that I had not obtained from other sources on the internet or from the many books on this case that I have in my collection.


Here's a re-cap of the information you're saying I 'fabricated'......

"Upon viewing the body, Patsy exclaimed that she had never before seen the underwear on her daughter’s corpse. Detectives later found out that Patsy had recently purchased that pair of underwear at Bloomingdale's in New York for her 12-year-old niece, but that JonBenet begged to have it kept for her, so Patsy kept it for her. Prior to the murder, even friends of the family knew of this underwear story. If Patsy did recognize the distinctive underwear, and was lying, then she was trying to point the police to the exculpatory evidence, which she knew had been planted".

I took this from the following website. You can find the above paragraph under the photo near the bottom of the page, along with several other interesting facts that you will, no doubt, discount.

I have to say there is no mention the pants were oversized, I read that elsewhere (and no I didn't make it up). Maybe the assumption that the pants were bought for an older girl made people think they were probably oversized; who knows?

http://kgov.com/jonbenet-ramsey-murder-case-solved

[louisa]

John Ramsey, asked who might have written the ransom demand, answered "They say it was written by a woman, so maybe Priscilla." He meant the wife of Fleet White, a friend. It's not clear why he suggested the Whites might be involved, but I've seen articles talking about how long the couple had to cope with being under a cloud of suspicion because of it.

Because John accused ALL his friends and acquaintances of being the murderer. No-one was safe - just himself and Patsy who put themselves above the law.

If anything, the Boulder police did seem to zero in on the Ramsey family from the beginning. Whether they completely overlooked the evidence of an intruder until Smits came in, I don't know, but I do know they weren't used to high-profile cases like this, and that they refused the help of other, larger police departments. Many mistakes were made.

The Boulder police initiially viewed the Ramseys as the prime suspects, which is normal in these type of killings. Also the fact the house was locked down and there was no sign of forced entry would lead them to believe it was an inside job.

The police explored every single angle on the intruder theory before coming back, time and again, to the Ramseys.

They interviewed hundreds of people, names given to them by the Ramseys.

Lou Smit was employed by Alex Hunter who wanted the case against the Ramseys thrown out, probably not because he believed they were innocent but because a huge trial would bankrupt the city. Although there was a huge amount of circumstantial evidence against the Ramseys he could not risk a jury acquitting them. He would lose his job.

If Lou Smit had been on the other side, that is, employed by the police to find evidence against the Ramseys you can be certain that he would have. When he was on a case he worked like a terrier and "could indict a ham sandwich"

One of Smit's favourite quotes is "Murders are usually what they seem" but unfortunately in this case Smit he ignored his own advice because he was employed by the DA's office to send the police on a wild goose chase.

The Boulder police and everyone connected with this sad story would have loved for the culprit to be an intruder and not the parents. Nobody likes to think of parents killing their children, but the evidence was overwhelming.

Do you honestly think the Police Chief told his officers "Let's not bother finding the real child killer.... but instead....let's nail the (innocent) parents!"

[Wickerman]

The Boulder police and everyone connected with this sad story would have loved for the culprit to be an intruder and not the parents. Nobody likes to think of parents killing their children, but the evidence was overwhelming.

Do you honestly think the Police Chief told his officers "Let's not bother finding the real child killer.... but instead....let's nail the (innocent) parents!"

There's a political game here that you are not acknowledging.

When the Ramsey's went on CNN and told everyone that an intruder was responsible, the Mayor of Boulder reacted by saying the residents of Boulder have nothing to worry about, there is no prowler in Boulder hunting children.

The Boulder Police were of the same opinion, why create a sense of panic when you can blame the parents so everyone in Boulder can rest easy.

There's a video on YouTube about this case where it is pointed out that the 'blinkered' approach of the police is not at all rare, in fact it is becoming more common nation wide - to blame the easiest suspect, and look no further.
Time & time again police forces across the nation are adopting a group mentality where the officer in charge of an investigation will state something to the effect, "I know who the killer is, lets go get him", regardless of evidence to the contrary. The police adopt a group mentality to fall in line with what the boss wants, and make it stick.

Sadly, it's happening all too often.

The Boulder Police, and very likely the Mayor too, just wanted this case over and done - it's an embarrassment for the city.

Lets just lynch the Ramsey's and we can all go back to playing happy families.

[louisa]

When the Ramsey's went on CNN and told everyone that an intruder was responsible, the Mayor of Boulder reacted by saying the residents of Boulder have nothing to worry about, there is no prowler in Boulder hunting children.

The Boulder Police were of the same opinion, why create a sense of panic when you can blame the parents so everyone in Boulder can rest easy.

Probably because he knew the parents killed her.

There's a video on YouTube about this case where it is pointed out that the 'blinkered' approach of the police is not at all rare, in fact it is becoming more common nation wide - to blame the easiest suspect, and look no further.
Time & time again police forces across the nation are adopting a group mentality where the officer in charge of an investigation will state something to the effect, "I know who the killer is, lets go get him", regardless of evidence to the contrary. The police adopt a group mentality to fall in line with what the boss wants, and make it stick.

Sadly, it's happening all too often.

The Boulder Police, and very likely the Mayor too, just wanted this case over and done - it's an embarrassment for the city.

Lets just lynch the Ramsey's and we can all go back to playing happy families.

I don't honestly think you believe any of what you have just written.

The police had a burden of finding this bogus intruder. They worked tirelessly. You haven't read the Steve Thomas book about the case (and I think he was one of the people best placed) to give all the details about the police files and what they had and what exactly they were doing.

Regardless of what you think (and I can't believe you genuinely believe this)It ISN't easy to pin a murder charge on parents, especially people like the Ramseys. The public will be against you from the start. Look at the McCanns. I think the police should be congratulated for sticking to their guns. The easy option would have been just to shrug and say an intruder did it.

They certain tried to find this bogus intruder, and you know this as well as I do but they kept being given more and more names by the Ramseys, all of which they had to investigate.

As it was, the Ramseys hid behind their lawyers and were never brought to book and JonBenet was never given the justice she deserved.

The Ramseys owe the Boulder police department a debt of gratitude for being incompetent. The department was overstretched and the investigation kept stalling because the Ramseys kept refusing to be interviewed.

The Ramseys are still considered to be 'Persons of Interest' in this case (even though Patsy died a few years ago). They were never cleared and I live in hope that the truth will come out.

[louisa]

The Staged Murder Scene

The Duct Tape

JonBenet was found with duct tape across her mouth. If JB had been conscious whilst the tape was placed on her mouth there would have been signs of resistance. None was found. Why? Because the scene was 'staged'. A kidnapper would have had NO reason to spend valuable time staging an elaborate murder scene.

Forensics have proven that although the imprint of a child's lips were visible on the tape there was no mucous, or marks consistent with a tongue touching the tape which show that the tape was placed over the mouth AFTER the child was unconscious. Why would an Intruder/kidnapper spend time staging a murder scene?

The White Cord

JB was found with white cord looped around both wrists, 15" apart. The loops were easily removed by the pathologist without having to cut them, showing that the 'bondage' was not seriously used to restrain the victim. Another example of staging. Why would an Intruder/kidnapper spend time staging a murder scene?

The Sexual Interference

This 'sex fiend' had interfered sexually with JB by gently inserting a THIN section of an artist's paintbrush into her vagina. What kind of thrill would he have gained from that, we ask ourselves? Especially when he (at last) had the child all to himself, in a basement. He had (according to the theory) waited in the house for HOURS for a chance to do his evil work.

No semen was found on JB. This suggests that it was the work of someone trying to stage a scene to make it look as thought a man had abducted and killed JB.

The Garrote

This for me, was the nastiest part of the entire sordid story and it is something that I find unforgivable.

The same type of cord that was tied loosely around JB's wrist was found twisted savagely around her neck using a piece of the same thin artist's paintbrush as a garotte.

Here's the problem……the child was already unconscious when the garotte was applied, ruling out those ideas (that some have put forward) that it was some kind of sex game that went wrong. The person who did this may have thought that JB was already dead. In fact it was the garotte that finished her off.

So why apply the garotte? As part of the 'staging', to make it look like a sex game that had gone wrong. As the garotte was applied after the blow to the head it can be for no other purpose other than for mis-direction. Why would an Intruder/kidnapper bother to take the time to do this?

The dilemma is the same - why would a kidnapper write a ransom note AND kill the child (by two separate means that would both result in fatalality)?

My question: If there had been an intruder, or genuine kidnapper WHY would he wish to spend time staging a murder scene?

The 'Ransom Note'

The 'intruder' sat down, opened Paty's own pad, opened it in the middle and started writing. Discarded the first two efforts then went on to write almost three pages of rambling nonsense. The ransom amount seemed to be an afterthought and the Intruder chose the exact amount of John's work bonus that year. He then replaced the pen neatly in it's container underneath the kitchen counter.

He stated he would call between 8 and 10am the following morning. He must have had a lapse of memory because it obviously slipped his mind and the call never came. Not that anyone seemed to notice.

Handwriting

If we find the writer of this note then we have the killer of JonBenet

Literally hundreds of handwriting samples were submitted for examination, all were discounted EXCEPT for Patsy's. Patsy was known to be ambidextrous and could write and paint pictures using her left hand just as easily as her right.

After the murder of JonBenet her style of writing changed considerably and she no longer wrote certain characters in the same way as she had beforehand.

Many many forensic linguists, including the top people in the USA, (too many to name here) have analysed the writing samples and declared that Patsy COULD have been the author of the ransom note because 34 characteristics were the same as hers. They have not said this about any other person who submitted a writing sample. Everyone else was eliminated as being the author of the note.

Here's another question: What would be the chances of an intruder in the Ramsey home that Christmas night, to have the same writing characteristics as the woman sleeping upstairs?

For those who cannot imagine a loving mother being capable of doing such things to her beloved child, think again, because the truth can be stranger than fiction.

For Patsy Ramsey appearances were what mattered. I believe the blow to JB's head was an accident and instead of phoning 911 (as most mothers would) in her wild confusion she went about staging a bogus kidnapping scene including the vile garrotting, which I think was despicable, but that is precisely what she did, to save herself and John and their millionaire lifestyles. If she lost that, she would have nothing.

She made some mistakes though (people interested in this crime can spot those), and so did the Boulder police force, which was to the Ramsey's great benefit, because the Ramseys literally got away with murder.

[Abby Normal]

There's a political game here that you are not acknowledging.

When the Ramsey's went on CNN and told everyone that an intruder was responsible, the Mayor of Boulder reacted by saying the residents of Boulder have nothing to worry about, there is no prowler in Boulder hunting children.

The Boulder Police were of the same opinion, why create a sense of panic when you can blame the parents so everyone in Boulder can rest easy.

There's a video on YouTube about this case where it is pointed out that the 'blinkered' approach of the police is not at all rare, in fact it is becoming more common nation wide - to blame the easiest suspect, and look no further.
Time & time again police forces across the nation are adopting a group mentality where the officer in charge of an investigation will state something to the effect, "I know who the killer is, lets go get him", regardless of evidence to the contrary. The police adopt a group mentality to fall in line with what the boss wants, and make it stick.

Sadly, it's happening all too often.

The Boulder Police, and very likely the Mayor too, just wanted this case over and done - it's an embarrassment for the city.

Lets just lynch the Ramsey's and we can all go back to playing happy families.

Hi wickerman
Yes many in the police thought the ramseys did it. yes the mayor probably thought so too. But to suggest that the police only focused on the ramseys is ridiculous. They followed up on all possible theories, leads and suspects. they interviewed hundreds of witnesses, persons of interest and suspects. they took DNA from dozens of people, including suspects like helgoth, olivera and the santa guy. They eliminated suspects based on evidence, whether they were in the area etc.

I would suggest that the police only focused on the ramsey idea is one helped being perpetrated by the ramseys themselves , there circle of friends, and the ramsey legal defense team.

[louisa]

I would suggest that the police only focused on the ramsey idea is one helped being perpetrated by the ramseys themselves , there circle of friends, and the ramsey legal defense team.

You've got it, Abby!