JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[louisa]

Yes, we did go over this before, the question remains to be addressed.

And the last time, if I remember correctly, you said you wanted to drop the matter.

On the other hand, an intruder writes the ransom note first, while he waits.
Then while everyone's asleep he tries to get her out of the house, whether JB started to make a fuss or noise, she wouldn't comply, that's when the assault takes place.

It's easier to associate a murder in a kidnapping gone bad, with an intruder, than it is to associate a ransom note with a staged murder.

No, Wickerman, it is NOT easy to associate this murder with a kidnapping gone bad, for the following reasons…

If the 'intruder' intended to remove JB's body from the house and IF she made a noise and he decided to kill her then he would have found it easy because she was already comatose.

The skull trauma came first, remember?

At this point he was trying to get her body out of the house - right?

He would not have needed to make a garrotte and kill her that way, he could have just placed his hands round her throat and throttled her. He would not have needed to then remove her clothes, place the handle of that tiny paintbrush in her vagina, re-dress her, put tape over her mouth (because she was already dead by this point, proven by forensics) and tie her hands loosely, very loosely, fifteen inches apart. (all signs of 'staging' to those in the know about these things.)
.
.
.

[louisa]

Why must the letter have been written by Patsy as the killer? Couldn't John and Patsy collaborated on the letter in an effort to protect their youngest son? Think of the shame and loss if the truth came out-- even if Burke was too young to be charged in JonBenet's death, surely they'd have to send him away somewhere for treatment, and the secret would be out, ruining their social reputation.

I like the Burke scenario... BUT, there IS evidence of an intruder which doesn't fit in with the rest, and I'm not sure if it was all the result of staging. What about the salvia, which didn't match that of either parent or Burke? What about the DNA which was found, yet not presented to the Grand Jury? The stuff stowed under the bed in a guest room? The suitcase and the flashlight, and so forth.

Remember, when Burke was first questioned, it was by a child psychologist, several weeks after the death of his sister. The Ramseys held off on letting him talk to the police until he was nearly eleven, by then old enough to watch what he said. Even at nine, Burke said he supposed he had secrets, but wouldn't tell the questioner.
I was taken by how he imitated a blow with his fist when asked what he thought had happened to his sister. Also, how he said he'd mostly passed the time playing his video games.

Just saying the author doesn't have to be the killer, that's all.

The killer did write the note.

Even if Burke struck the blow that causes JB's head trauma, he did not kill her. The person who tied the garrotte killed JonBenet.

Pat - you are incorrect when you say there was evidence of an intruder. There wasn't.
.
.
.

[Abby Normal]

Yet, we both know about the intruder who was discovered in another house in the neighbourhood, who sexually abused a young girl asleep in her bedroom.
The mother caught him fleeing the house - it's a related incident, and he was never caught either.
Rare or not, it happened.

Neither John or Patsy Ramsey had a history of child abuse, either before they married or after.
Child abusers leave a pattern - that is well understood.

A second incident in the same neighbourhood is potential evidence of a pattern, by someone.

Hi wick
yes absolutely agree. I know we discussed this issue before of an intruder doing this in the neighborhood-I think there was an incident before and after JonBenet also?

However I just finished a book and the author notes recent breakins but they were all garden variety burglaries.

Can you do me a solid and give the details again of the recent neighborhood sexual assaults?

[Abby Normal]

Faeces were found on JB's bed, and on a box of chocolates JB received for xmas.

whaaat? Ive never heard this one before. are you absolutely sure?

was it found the morning of her murder? wouldn't this be huge evidence? cant you get dna from it to compare to like say burke and or the dna found on her panties??

[louisa]

Don't get excited Abby. That behaviour was in the past. Burke was having counselling for it, I believe.

In what way do you mean "they were not normal"?

Here's a list….just off the top of my head.

The first detective to arrive was greeted "cordially" at the door by John Ramsey.

The Ramseys sat in separate rooms during the entire morning. Looking like that they disliked, or hated each other (according to the police).

Most normal couples would cling to each other at a time like that. Their daughter had been taken, who knows where? Removed from their safe, warm house, from right under their noses. Where could she be? Normal parents would be distraught and waiting anxiously for the telephone call to let them know their daughter was safe.

The ransom note had stated that they were NOT to contact the police or talk to anyone else ("not even a stray dog") or their daughter would be beheaded. What did this 'normal' couple do? They got straight onto the police and then phoned four of their best friends and asked them to come over!

John sat in his study reading his mail, seemingly quite relaxed. He had already made a cursory search of the house. Not a very thorough search, as it turned out, was it?

Most normal parents would have been through the house and especially the basement.

Soon after JonBenet's body was found John Ramsey got on the phone and asked his pilot to have the plane ready because the family would be flying to Atlanta later in the afternoon. Normal behaviour? The flight was later cancelled by Fleet White.

The couple would not talk to the police except under controlled conditions, dictated by their lawyers. Normal? Surely normal parents would wish to give the police ALL the help they could in order to find their daughter AND to eliminate themselves from suspicion as quickly as possible so that the police could concentrate on finding the real culprit.

And of course when no phonecall was received from the 'kidnapper' the couple didn't seem overly bothered.

[louisa]

"A second incident in the same neighbourhood is potential evidence of a pattern, by someone"

Hi wick
yes absolutely agree.

Abby -It would only be evidence of a pattern if the modus operandii were the same. If all the other incidents included the strangeness of the JB killing, or even part of it.


A killer always leaves something of himself behind. This one left nothing. It all points to one conclusion.

[Abby Normal]

Don't get excited Abby. That behaviour was in the past. Burke was having counselling for it, I believe.






Here's a list….just off the top of my head.

The first detective to arrive was greeted "cordially" at the door by John Ramsey.

The Ramseys sat in separate rooms during the entire morning. Looking like that they disliked, or hated each other (according to the police).

Most normal couples would cling to each other at a time like that. Their daughter had been taken, who knows where? Removed from their safe, warm house, from right under their noses. Where could she be? Normal parents would be distraught and waiting anxiously for the telephone call to let them know their daughter was safe.

The ransom note had stated that they were NOT to contact the police or talk to anyone else ("not even a stray dog") or their daughter would be beheaded. What did this 'normal' couple do? They got straight onto the police and then phoned four of their best friends and asked them to come over!

John sat in his study reading his mail, seemingly quite relaxed. He had already made a cursory search of the house. Not a very thorough search, as it turned out, was it?

Most normal parents would have been through the house and especially the basement.

Soon after JonBenet's body was found John Ramsey got on the phone and asked his pilot to have the plane ready because the family would be flying to Atlanta later in the afternoon. Normal behaviour? The flight was later cancelled by Fleet White.

The couple would not talk to the police except under controlled conditions, dictated by their lawyers. Normal? Surely normal parents would wish to give the police ALL the help they could in order to find their daughter AND to eliminate themselves from suspicion as quickly as possible so that the police could concentrate on finding the real culprit.

And of course when no phonecall was received from the 'kidnapper' the couple didn't seem overly bothered.

agree.
that family was anything but normal, before during and after the murder.

what parents pimps out there daughter in those disgusting pagents?
what parent wouldn't have ripped that house apart looking for her?
what parents calls there friends over at a time like that?
what parent wouldn't have ripped that god dam garrotte off her neck?
what parent tries to get the hell outta dodge the same day their daughters found killed?
what parent goes on national TV for a big interview, the day after the funeral?
what parent starts assembling a legal/PR team the very day of their childs murder?
What Parents point the finger at their closest "friends"?
What parents don't cling to each other and console each other when their daughter is missing/murdered?
What parents don't cooperate with the police?
What parents don't shed a single tear in the numerous TV appearances their in?
What parents spend 90 percent of their energy proudly proclaiming there innocence, on TV, interviews, books ad nauseum?

theyre ****ed, whether they did it or not.

[louisa]

agree.
what parent tries to get the hell outta dodge the same day their daughters found killed?

You would have thought that 'normal' parents would want to be on hand to answer as many questions as they possibly could in order to help the police find their daughter.

But we know why John wanted Patsy out of there. At that time he knew she would crack under even modest questioning.

[louisa]

There's some interesting reading in this article......

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09161997vanityfair.htm

"Most stunning, according to some experts, was the revelation that the child had evidently been "re-dressed" after her murder. JonBenet's parents told investigators that she was wearing a red turtleneck pajama top when they put her to bed. She was found in a white one; a red turtleneck was in her bathroom sink"

[Harry D]

With all due respect, Louisa, I find your version of events to be highly improbable and illogical. You claim that Patsy struck JonBenet on the head accidentally and feared the repercussions, therefore she strangled her daughter to death and concocted an elaborate kidnapping hoax. Even though the slightest oversight could've resulted in her being charged with murder and perverting the course of justice, and despite the overwhelming panic, Patsy was cold and calculated enough to leave no smoking gun behind. I cannot think of a single case where a parent accidentally or deliberately kills one of their own children and tries to stage such an elaborate cover up. Usually, the child is the victim of systematic abuse, and murder occurs because their abuser(s) have finally gone too far. They will then try to cover it up by pretending that the child had an accident, for instance drowning in the bath or tripping on the stairs. They won't go to the extreme lengths that you charge to the Ramseys. What you're proposing doesn't have a ring of plausibility to it, which means it probably isn't true.

If what we know about Michael Helgoth is credible, he must be considered a genuine suspect. Helgoth wasn't a match for the DNA found in JonBenet's underwear, but let's not make the mistake of assuming that this was left by the killer, or that the killer didn't have an accomplice.

[Abby Normal]

With all due respect, Louisa, I find your version of events to be highly improbable and illogical. You claim that Patsy struck JonBenet on the head accidentally and feared the repercussions, therefore she strangled her daughter to death and concocted an elaborate kidnapping hoax. Even though the slightest oversight could've resulted in her being charged with murder and perverting the course of justice, and despite the overwhelming panic, Patsy was cold and calculated enough to leave no smoking gun behind. I cannot think of a single case where a parent accidentally or deliberately kills one of their own children and tries to stage such an elaborate cover up. Usually, the child is the victim of systematic abuse, and murder occurs because their abuser(s) have finally gone too far. They will then try to cover it up by pretending that the child had an accident, for instance drowning in the bath or tripping on the stairs. They won't go to the extreme lengths that you charge to the Ramseys. What you're proposing doesn't have a ring of plausibility to it, which means it probably isn't true.

If what we know about Michael Helgoth is credible, he must be considered a genuine suspect. Helgoth wasn't a match for the DNA found in JonBenet's underwear, but let's not make the mistake of assuming that this was left by the killer, or that the killer didn't have an accomplice.

hi harry
the problem is that ALL scenarios, including an intruder who leaves a ransome note, only to sexually assault and murder a child IN THE HOME when the parents are THERE, are highly implausible.

and another note-how did they not hear ANYTHING? tasers are noisy, the blow that crushed her head would have been extremely loud and disturbing, the neighbors even heard screams for christs sake.

and please see my previous posts on the ramsey family. This was not a normal family they were seriously ****ed, including Patsy.
I think she was borderline psycho and NOTHING she did would shock me.

[Abby Normal]

Ive got a crazy idea.

what do you think of this scenario?

The ramseys discover Jon Benet murdered. They think the police wont believe she was murdered by an intruder, eventhough she was, so Patsy writes the note.
In this scenario, theyre only culpable for writing the note. well and not calling police/911/ambulance immediately.

too implausible?

[Harry D]

hi harry
the problem is that ALL scenarios, including an intruder who leaves a ransome note, only to sexually assault and murder a child IN THE HOME when the parents are THERE, are highly implausible.

and another note-how did they not hear ANYTHING? tasers are noisy, the blow that crushed her head would have been extremely loud and disturbing, the neighbors even heard screams for christs sake.

and please see my previous posts on the ramsey family. This was not a normal family they were seriously ****ed, including Patsy.
I think she was borderline psycho and NOTHING she did would shock me.

Abby, there's no motive or any sort of history to indicate that John, Patsy or Burke were capable of murdering JonBenet and staging this elaborate hoax.

As for the acoustics of the house, "Experiments have demonstrated that the vent from the basement may have amplified the scream so that it could have been heard outside the house, but not three stories up, in defendants' bedroom." Source. There are also some other discrepancies listed there with regard to the reported scream that might interest you.

[louisa]

Even though the slightest oversight could've resulted in her being charged with murder and perverting the course of justice, and despite the overwhelming panic, Patsy was cold and calculated enough to leave no smoking gun behind.

She did leave clues behind - a true smoking gun in the form of that ransom note, but she was never going to be charged with murder because Team Ramsey made sure of that.

[Harry D]

She did leave clues behind - a true smoking gun in the form of that ransom note, but she was never going to be charged with murder because Team Ramsey made sure of that.

I'm not sure you understand what a smoking gun is.