JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[louisa]

That's why they allowed Burke back to school unsupervised not along after the murder?

How could he have been supervised? He went to the best private school in Atlanta and would have been cossetted there by everyone.

Also intensively coached NOT to say anything about the murder, which he didn't. Not until recently, and we already knew the bottom line of what he was going to say.

2016 - Burke has had a full 20 years of his parents and their lawyers telling him what to say and what not to say.

[Harry D]

How could he have been supervised? He went to the best private school in Atlanta and would have been cossetted there by everyone.

Also intensively coached NOT to say anything about the murder, which he didn't. Not until recently.

Home school him?

You can coach a kid all you want, but trusting a nine-year old boy to keep schtum about a murder was a unnecessary risk to take. The more reasonable explanation is that Burke was allowed back to school soon after the murder because he had nothing to do with it. Then again, you've got it into your head that the Ramseys did this, so I know I'm wasting my time appealing to reason.

[louisa]

Harry - They had no choice but send him to school. Home schooling would have looked very suspicious.

I haven't "got it into my head that the Ramseys did this". I am certain of it. I have looked at all the facts and disregarded the ones that just don't make sense. It's the only way that any murder can be solved. The evidence is all there if you are able to see it.

I have demolished all the theories regarding this bogus 'intruder' because none of them make sense, whichever way you look at it. And if something doesn't make sense then, nine times out of ten, it is not true.

"No evidence of an intruder" is the bottom line. 'He' left nothing of himself at the scene. How was that possible? Was this so-called 'intruder' some kind of mastermind criminal?

Or does a bold-faced lie just become all the more powerful when there's an ingrained class system and a hefty sack of funds at the ready to back it up?

You don't think that the Ramseys could possibly be responsible do you - even though they were the only ones in a locked house that Christmas night - and NO SIGN on an intruder? You seem to think they're such lovely people.

These lovely people, the Ramseys, did all they could to shift the blame onto others, even their best friends (who they KNEW had not done this crime) got thrown under the bus. Don't tell me that Patsy and John honestly thought Fleet and Priscilla could have been responsible - it's ludicrous! yet John and Patsy put their names forward, amongst hundreds, to the police, to keep the investigation away from themselves.

They even named the Barnhills, the nice old couple across the street who were good enough to take the Ramseys dog when Patsy could no longer stand it wetting in the house. It was proved this old couple were too old and arthritic to have done the crime, but the Ramseys chucked their names into the mix anyway and they had to give hair samples and blood, plus fingerprints to the police.

And have another look at that 'ransom note' - post # 518.

[Wickerman]

It is an established fact that JonBenet had her head trauma BEFORE she was strangled.

Whichever way you look at it there is NO WAY that your scenario would work.

Even if this unknown person was someone who got his thrills from this strangulation method - he is hardly likely to be doing it on the premises when he could have easily taken the child away to his own home, or somewhere safe where he knew he would not be disturbed. He could have taken his time with her.

And then there's the matter of NO physical evidence of this unknown person who committed these vile sex acts - NO SEMEN, nothing!

There is always a transference of DNA between victim and attacker. It would be a highly unusual thing if there wasn't, possibly unheard of.

And you are asking people to believe this theory?!

Fact 1, - Pathologists are divided on when the head wound was committed.
Fact 2, - Semen is not always left at a scene of an intruder rape/molestation.
Fact 3, - Rape/molestation does occur in the home of the victim while family members are asleep.
Fact 4, - Ramsey crime scene did contain unidentified human hair on blanket, brown fibers, animal hairs, footprints in basement, items and objects not owned by the Ramsey's.

Like it, or not.

[Harry D]

Harry - They had no choice but send him to school. Home schooling would have looked very suspicious.

Given a choice between arousing suspicion and trusting a nine year-old boy not to blow the lid off everything, it's a no-brainer. You said they did all this to protect Burke, right? Well they were jeopardizing his future by allowing him back to school so soon. Furthermore, I would dispute this point, because homeschooling a child after a traumatic, high-profile incident like this would sound perfectly understandable given the circumstances.

Also, wasn't Burke Ramsey sent off to a friend's house after the murder? Another 'smart' move on the Ramsey's part to keep their son from blabbing the truth.

[Wickerman]

Rapists/molesters often leave next to NO trace at a crime scene. In the case I posted on earlier (Amy/Lucy), one single solitary hair was found, but with no follicle or root. So at the time of this incident DNA could not be performed on this hair.

Anyone who believes molesters/rapists always leave sufficient physical evidence of their presence really has not done their homework.

[louisa]

Fact 1, - Pathologists are divided on when the head wound was committed.
Fact 2, - Semen is not always left at a scene of an intruder rape/molestation.
Fact 3, - Rape/molestation does occur in the home of the victim while family members are asleep.
Fact 4, - Ramsey crime scene did contain unidentified human hair on blanket, brown fibers, animal hairs, footprints in basement, items and objects not owned by the Ramsey's.

Like it, or not.

You're really grasping at straws now Wicksy.

All of those "could haves"

I think you'll find that on most websites regarding this crime they will tell you that it is the common belief that the head trauma came first. But if it fits your intruder theory then just go ahead and bend the facts.

If semen is not present than some other type of DNA will be present in a murder case, especially one where the victim has been sexually interferred with.

As for rape/molestation - YES of course it occurs, even when family members are asleep. Who would not agree with that?

But tell me another case where the person who molests (he did not rape JonBenet) a child is also a murderer and a kidnapper?

As for the hair on the blanket I think you'll find it was never conclusive where it came from.

I mentioned in a previous post that the housekeeper used to have her family members occasionally sleep in JB's bedroom when the family were away. Hairs can get on things when they are all in the tumble drier together, and that blanket had come from the tumble drier because it still had JB's dolls' nightdress statically clinging to it. The housekeeper said the blanket had been in the tumble drier the night before.

[louisa]

Also, wasn't Burke Ramsey sent off to a friend's house after the murder? Another 'smart' move on the Ramsey's part to keep their son from blabbing the truth.

Was he? I don't know enough about Burke to be au fait with those kind of details. I just put forward my theory, that's all.

If it wasn't Patsy then it would have had to have been Burke because, sure to hell, there was no intruder.

If Burke was sent off to stay with friends after the murder then that would have been the sensible thing for the Ramseys to do. Get him out of the way where, yes, I agree, he can be kept from 'blabbing'.

[louisa]

Rapists/molesters often leave next to NO trace at a crime scene. In the case I posted on earlier (Amy/Lucy), one single solitary hair was found, but with no follicle or root. So at the time of this incident DNA could not be performed on this hair.

Anyone who believes molesters/rapists always leave sufficient physical evidence of their presence really has not done their homework.

And neither have you old man.

You keep banging on about rapists/molesters.

The killer of JonBenet was NOT a rapist, but he was rather MORE than a molester, if your intruder theory is to be believed. He was also a murderer and a kidnapper. Trying putting those other two extremely important words into the mix next time you refer to this person.

And you haven't answered my question as to why this sexual deviant did not simply take JonBenet's body back to his place first, and take his time with her, before he started this unusual and bizarre sexual assault, where he could have been disturbed at ANY time?

[Wickerman]

A 101 on what constitutes Rape & Sexual Assault.

Just save your time Louisa, and read up on the legal definitions of Rape and Sexual Assault.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920

These codes do not distinguish between the attacker using hand, mouth or sex organ.

Trying to narrow the focus to suit your personal theory does not work.

[louisa]

Just save your time Louisa, and read up on the legal definitions of Rape and Sexual Assault.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920

These codes do not distinguish between the attacker using hand, mouth or sex organ.

Trying to narrow the focus to suit your personal theory does not work.

Trying to narrow the focus? How did I manage to do that then? Explain.

Rape is rape, old man. You know exactly what that means so don't pretend you don't.

Or are you going to tell me that JonBenet was raped? You should know by now that she wasn't.


If you are still not sure then here is the true definition....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

[Wickerman]

If you are still not sure then here is the true definition....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

Ha!
Enough said....Louisa prefers Wikipedia to the Cornell University Law School.

When are you gonna come down
When are you going to land
I should have stayed on the farm
I should have listened to my old man...

[Wickerman]

And you haven't answered my question as to why this sexual deviant did not simply take JonBenet's body back to his place first, and take his time with her, before he started this unusual and bizarre sexual assault, where he could have been disturbed at ANY time?

Door & window alarms were installed throughout the house, even signs posted inside the house reminded anyone of this.
The fact was, John R. had not turned the system on but the intruder may not have known this.
If, the intent was to remove JonBenet via the one window that he/they knew was not alarmed, and apparently that failed, then the plan changed.

However, it is also true to state that there is no reason to believe any intruder intended to kidnap her when he first broke in.
This may have occurred to him while he was familiarizing himself with the house and contents. The paperwork announcing John's bonus was in his study and the intruder may have been influenced by reading it.
Which means the kidnapping was an afterthought by a sexual molester/rapist, not the original intent.

[louisa]

Ha!
Enough said....Louisa prefers Wikipedia to the Cornell University Law School.

When are you gonna come down
When are you going to land
I should have stayed on the farm
I should have listened to my old man...

Earth to Planet Wickerman - Can I give you some friendly advice? Maybe you should start taking more water with it?


Rape means rape and there can't be many people in this world who would not know the meaning of the word, without needing to look it up, as you had to (and still got it wrong!)

[louisa]

Door & window alarms were installed throughout the house, even signs posted inside the house reminded anyone of this.
The fact was, John R. had not turned the system on but the intruder may not have known this.

John told the police that he had been round the house the night before and made certain everything was secure.

If, the intent was to remove JonBenet via the one window that he/they knew was not alarmed, and apparently that failed, then the plan changed.

Forgive if I am incorrect but didn't you say, in a previous post, that the outside door to the butler's pantry was open?

He could have taken her out that way and back to his own place and done whatever evil he had on his mind without fear of being interrupted.

And why would his plan have failed to remove JB through that window if he gained entry to the premises through that same window? Surely if he got through it then the body of a child would easily get through it?

However, it is also true to state that there is no reason to believe any intruder intended to kidnap her when he first broke in.

This may have occurred to him while he was familiarizing himself with the house and contents. The paperwork announcing John's bonus was in his study and the intruder may have been influenced by reading it.
Which means the kidnapping was an afterthought by a sexual molester/rapist, not the original intent.

So what exactly was his intention then - this sexual molester/kidnapper/murderer (WHO WAS NOT A RAPIST) - Do I need to keep reminding you? JonBenet was NOT raped! Are you saying his intention was to club her over the head, undress her and then insert a thin little broken end of a paintbrush into her vagina, redress her, garotte her and leave a ransom note?

And he got away without leaving a trace of himself behind.

Anyhow Wicksy - Whichever way you look at it, all those "ifs, buts and maybes" add up to diddly-squat.

I don't understand why you want to embrace all these convoluted madcap theories, which seem to change with the wind, when the bare faced facts are right in front of you, unpalatable as they may be.