JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[louisa]

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.

But Harry, there doesn't have to be a history to indicate that somebody is capable of committing murder. There are thousands of prisoners doing time for murder and they have only committed the one murder.

As for staging this elaborate 'hoax' - desperate situations call for desperate means. We cannot get into the mind of crazy people and know what they are thinking and I happen to think Patsy's mind was very mixed up.

Her house was immaculate on the ground floor - the 'public' area rooms, not a thing was allowed to be out of place, but upstairs told a different story - total chaos. I believe Patsy's mind to have been the same. A neurotic drama queen at best. I believe it would have been easy for her to snap, especially on that particular night when so much was going on, getting ready for the busy next day etc.

No intruder theory holds water, however you look at it. This bogus person left no trace and that just could not happen. It was an inside job and as to all the details of that night, well we'll never know but these are the certainties:


The person caused the injury to JB's head, rendering her unconscious and dying.

The person removed JB's clothing, inserted a tiny paintbrush and re-dressed her.

The person sat down and wrote a long ransom note, making a couple of tries first before discarding them. The notepad and pen were family items.

The handwriting was uncannily like Patsy's (see my post # 518).

The person garrotted the child from behind.

The person placed duct tape over JB's mouth after she was unconscious.

The person loosely tied soft cotton tape around JB's wrists, 25" apart. the loops big enough for a child to get her hands through if she had tried. Her hands had to have been tied in front otherwise she would not have been found with her arms above her head. This was also done whilst the child was unconscious because it would not have restrained a live child.

The child was found murdered in her own home, locked down for the night. No evidence of an intruder was EVER found.

These are the facts whether we like them or not.

It makes no sense for an intruder have done any of it, especially the 'staging', but makes some sense when you think the Ramseys panicked and had to find a way out of it.

Yes, it would have been the best option to call the police but this lady did not think like other people. If she had thought like other people then she would not have put her child into a paedophile's dream circus by dressing her up like a hooker, covering her in make up, coaching her into looking seductive, and parading her on a stage.

[Wickerman]

But you are saying the 'intruder' did exactly that!

???
No, I didn't.

[Wickerman]

What happened to JB was not part of a 'pattern' - it was a one-off.

I already offered the repeat incident, an intruder molesting a little girl in her bedroom while the family were in the house.

The so-called 'intruder' who killed JB had a specific modus operandii - he did some weird things didn't he? Staging it to look like a kidnapping etc., then undressing and dressing the body - the garrotting, the paintbrush business, etc.

The supposed intruder wasn't staging anything.
The theory goes that he? wrote the ransom note, then took her from the bedroom, but given the bruising she must have resisted at some point and he? struck her, then strangled her.

What are you saying was staged?

I don't believe the Ramseys were child abusers. Not unless you call dressing your 6 year old daughter up like a hooker and making her saunter alluringly on a stage can be called abuse?

As despicable as it is, thousands of mothers do this, without murdering their child.

And...tampering with your child's body, even if you think she is already dead, must surely be classed as abuse of a child?

Yes, and what in Patsy's life, perhaps stories by family or friends?, can you point to in order to justify accusing her of this crime?

[Wickerman]

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.

Kidnap a dead body?
How much would she be worth dead?

The skull trauma came first, remember?

The lack of bleeding in the cranium argues against that conclusion.
When the brain is injured the heart still carry's on beating, so the cranium should have been loaded with escaping blood, apparently it wasn't, which suggests the (repeated?) strangling came first.

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.)

A garrote is a tool devised for torture, more effective than the hands, and less effort. It's the tool of a sexual pervert. The user of the garrote does not intend to kill straight away. The garrote is used as a method of taking the victim to the edge of death, then releasing, then re-applying, repeatedly.

[Wickerman]

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

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.

The intruder in the second incident was obviously interrupted, the girl's scream woke the mother. Until that point the M.O. was the same.

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

What do you mean - like the flashlight, garrote, duct tape?

[Wickerman]

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.

All sober points.
Helgoth was said to have had a roommate who mysteriously disappeared at the time Helgoth was found dead.
I read somewhere that Helgoth was right-handed. Yet the head shot that killed him was from his left side. There was a pillow found next to him (photo exists) with a gunshot through it and powder burns around the hole.

Suicide????

[Wickerman]

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.

The parents bedroom was on the third floor, two floors separated the basement from the parents room.

For what it's worth, I suspect the tazer was applied in the basement, when she was dead, or near-death.
The abrasions from the tazer were dark and small as if the tazer had been pushed hard into her skin, and held there.
A killer's attempt to revive her?

I don't believe the piece of train track caused the marks on her body because the two points on the track were electrodes, typical for a DC power supply (+ -).
The electrodes were pointed, yet the skin was not punctured in any way. So nothing pointed caused those marks.

[Wickerman]

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?

It sounds like you're trying to negotiate a settlement..

[Abby Normal]

It sounds like you're trying to negotiate a settlement..

Lol!!

[Harry D]

There were better ways to stage a murder/kidnapping than what the Ramseys allegedly resorted to. Why not leave JonBenet's body in the basement with the basement window open? Why write a ransom letter in the first place if they weren't going to dispose of the body? Why hand over the notepad with the rough drafts of the ransom letter? Why not dispose of the notepad, along with the drafts and the pen used to write it? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Of course, the RDI camp will argue that Patsy got sloppy, but she seems to flip-flop between hardened criminal and panicking mother to suit the narrative.

I'm going with intruder. They entered the home while the Ramseys were at the Christmas dinner, which is probably when they drafted the ransom letter. They hid in the basement when the Ramseys returned and waited until they had gone to sleep before nabbing JonBenet. As for whether the murder was planned or it was a botched kidnapping, I couldn't say. It's possible that this was someone known to the Ramseys. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they were relatively young at the time, perhaps early 20s. It could've been a friend of the family's son, or a babysitter's boyfriend, someone who had been to the Ramsey's house before. High-functioning and well educated but definitely on the spectrum, hence the verbosity and flowery language used in the ransom letter. He probably thought using words like "attache case" made his foreign faction sound more official and businesslike. When writing the letter, I can just imagine the perceived power he thought it gave him over a wealthy tycoon like John Ramsey.

[louisa]

Kidnap a dead body?
How much would she be worth dead?

Just as much as she was worth alive if the parents THOUGHT she was still alive.

The Lindberg kidnapping - it was proven that the baby was dead almost as soon as it was taken from the house, it could have been dropped from the ladder, but the kidnapper still took the child and the parents continued to think he was alive, even paying the ransom money.

Louisa:
The skull trauma came first, remember?

The lack of bleeding in the cranium argues against that conclusion.

Well it happens to be one of the facts of this case - the skull was crushed BEFORE the garrotting (which took place around one hour afterwards)

Kidnap a dead body?
A garrote is a tool devised for torture, more effective than the hands, and less effort. It's the tool of a sexual pervert. The user of the garrote does not intend to kill straight away. The garrote is used as a method of taking the victim to the edge of death, then releasing, then re-applying, repeatedly.

Like we don't already know that?

In this case there would have been NO POINT in any of that because the child was already unconscious and was almost dead.

[louisa]

What are you saying was staged?

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.

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. We have to ask ourselves this: 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 undressing her (he re-dressed her afterwards) and 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 FBI referred to it as a "staging within a staging".

The Garotte

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?

Whether the killer was Patsy or an Intruder, 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.

Patsy's handwriting was extraordinary similar to that of the author of the ransom note (See post #518 for examples)

[louisa]

Louisa:-

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

What do you mean - like the flashlight, garrote, duct tape?

No, that's not what I meant.

In any murder or rape there is always a transference of DNA of some kind, however miniscule. I was referring to skin cells, DNA, fingerprints, fibres etc.

In this case the only DNA found in this house was that of the Ramseys. When the duct tape was forensically analysed it was shown to bear fibres that came from the red and black jacket Patsy had been wearing the previous night.

[louisa]

The abrasions from the tazer were dark and small as if the tazer had been pushed hard into her skin, and held there.
A killer's attempt to revive her?

The tazer theory was ruled out.

In any case you don't know much about tazers if you think anybody would assume a tazer would revive somebody. It's more likely to kill them if they're already vulnerable.

Bruising on the child could have happened at any time during that Christmas holiday. Children get bruised due to playing.

As to the scream that (could) have been heard from that rather dotty neighbour - a lady who later couldn't make up her mind whether or not the scream had been heard "in her mind" -

If indeed there was a scream then it would have been from Patsy who saw her child fall from the blow that almost killed her.

If JonBenet had screamed and it had woken a neighbour (whose house was some distance away from the Ramseys) it would have woken the entire household.

If you are saying she screamed after receiving that crushing blow? - No, it couldn't have happened because once that blow had struck, she would have been rendered unconscious immediately. Severe head trauma does that.


It always seemed curious to me that people were prepared to blame an intruder, the neighbors or John’s friends without a shred of evidence, yet unwilling to accept the predominance of proof pointing to the parents.

[Pcdunn]

The parents bedroom was on the third floor, two floors separated the basement from the parents room.

For what it's worth, I suspect the tazer was applied in the basement, when she was dead, or near-death.
The abrasions from the tazer were dark and small as if the tazer had been pushed hard into her skin, and held there.
A killer's attempt to revive her?

I don't believe the piece of train track caused the marks on her body because the two points on the track were electrodes, typical for a DC power supply (+ -).
The electrodes were pointed, yet the skin was not punctured in any way. So nothing pointed caused those marks.

Hi, Jon--
The Burke theory panelists suggested the marks came from model train tracks rather than a taser due to no bleeding -- supposedly suggesting she was dead when they were applied. They also claimed the marks were not sized properly for
being from a taser, but that the track sections do fit.

Hello, Louisa--
I think you are wrong about the lack of evidence, so I guess we will need to agree to disagree.