JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[louisa]

I'm all for exposing lies regardless who is responsible for them, but on the subject of John Ramsey lying. In an earlier post I mentioned that JonBenet had been found lying on a blanket with it wrapped up around her legs, I supposed rather like a hammock.

Quote:
"John advised that he observed JonBenet lying on the blanket and it was "kind of folded around her legs".

Which you took issue with arguing that John found her on the floor?, with the blanket wrapped over her body?

As John Ramsey appears to be the only witness to the discovery (Fleet White being in the Train Room at that moment), I wondered if you have John describing the placement of the blanket as you described, and why you appear to believe what he said?

It has been suggested that only someone who cared for JonBenet would cover her body with the blanket, as if this lends credence to the suggestion that Patsy covered her body.

However, this argument depends on whether the blanket was indeed placed over her as you describe. Or, as described by James Kolar, that John said she was laid on the blanket, which would negate the argument that the placement of the blanket indicated a caring person placed it there.

So First, do you have John saying the blanket was placed over her?
Second, are you now accepting you believe John Ramsey, sometimes?
Third, was your actual source for that statement, Fleet White?

What in the world does all this stuff about blankets have to do with John Ramsey's blatant lie concerning his wife's handwriting?


Is this what you mean?......My post # 834 (I had to go back in time to find it). My one and only comment on this thread regarding the blanket:


"She had the blanket over her, and tucked in 'like a papoose'


Does that sound as though I was arguing with you? It's how I understand John Ramsey described finding his daughter.

Whether she was lying on the blanket or it was over her - does it matter?


You obviously do not have anything relevant to say about my last post regarding John Ramsey's blatant lie.
.
.
.

[louisa]

How many fathers, upon finding the body of their child, horribly murdered, in their own home, would describe it as "a relief?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t-JdO_aqlM

.
.
.

[Harry D]

There's so much conflicting evidence in this case that points in different directions that you don't know which way to look. I would've been on-board with the insider theory if it weren't for the garrote and the ransom letter. Parents and family members accidentally murder young relatives. It happens. But the garrote isn't something that someone constructs in a cover-up, it's simply not. It's something used for personal, psychosexual gratification. And I still see no good reason to write a phony ransom letter when you're trying to stage a murder and not a kidnapping. Oh, and handing over the notepad with your practice letters on it, instead of disposing of them, is a stroke of genius. I also believe that Burke would've cracked if he was part of a cover-up. Burke was questioned by police and the grand jury, and he was back to school not long after the murders. I can't imagine a nine year-old boy being involved in a traumatic event like that without blabbing to someone or without exhibiting that kind of behaviour again.

On the other hand, an intruder breaking into the house and practicing ransom letters while the family's out doesn't sound likely either. What if the Ramseys came home early? What if one of them ventured into the basement? I know that home invaders aren't strangers to risk but the idea of someone hiding out inside the home all that time must be treated with scrutiny. And if this was some kind of sexual predator, why was the molestation so tentative?

So, what am I trying to say? I'm not too sure, myself. But could there be a third explanation?

[Harry D]

How many fathers, upon finding the body of their child, horribly murdered, in their own home, would describe it as "a relief?"

"...and a horror at the same time."

At least provide the full quote.

[louisa]

"...and a horror at the same time."

At least provide the full quote.

But my point is that the words he used were "it was a relief"

Yes no doubt it was a horror at the same time. But a "relief"?

Would you think it was 'a relief' if you found your child murdered, with a garrote around her neck?

[louisa]

There's so much conflicting evidence in this case that points in different directions that you don't know which way to look. I would've been on-board with the insider theory if it weren't for the garrote and the ransom letter. Parents and family members accidentally murder young relatives. It happens. But the garrote isn't something that someone constructs in a cover-up, it's simply not. It's something used for personal, psychosexual gratification. And I still see no good reason to write a phony ransom letter when you're trying to stage a murder and not a kidnapping. Oh, and handing over the notepad with your practice letters on it, instead of disposing of them, is a stroke of genius. I also believe that Burke would've cracked if he was part of a cover-up. Burke was questioned by police and the grand jury, and he was back to school not long after the murders. I can't imagine a nine year-old boy being involved in a traumatic event like that without blabbing to someone or without exhibiting that kind of behaviour again.

On the other hand, an intruder breaking into the house and practicing ransom letters while the family's out doesn't sound likely either. What if the Ramseys came home early? What if one of them ventured into the basement? I know that home invaders aren't strangers to risk but the idea of someone hiding out inside the home all that time must be treated with scrutiny. And if this was some kind of sexual predator, why was the molestation so tentative?

So, what am I trying to say? I'm not too sure, myself. But could there be a third explanation?

Some good points there, Harry.

I truly believe that Burke would have been told, in no uncertain terms, by both his parents and their lawyers to say NOTHING to anyone. I suspect old Patsy could be quite intimidating when she wanted to be.

I also think (but I don't know for sure) that Burke went to the kind of school where he was supervised. I doubt if he went to the same kind of schools that you and I went to, Harry.

If, indeed he killed his sister his parents would have wanted him supervised around other kids.


Regarding Burke....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-QYhlFIefY

.
.
.

[Wickerman]

What in the world does all this stuff about blankets have to do with John Ramsey's blatant lie concerning his wife's handwriting?


Is this what you mean?......My post # 834 (I had to go back in time to find it). My one and only comment on this thread regarding the blanket:


"She had the blanket over her, and tucked in 'like a papoose'


Does that sound as though I was arguing with you? It's how I understand John Ramsey described finding his daughter.

Whether she was lying on the blanket or it was over her - does it matter?


You obviously do not have anything relevant to say about my last post regarding John Ramsey's blatant lie.
.
.
.

I already explained why it seems to matter to anyone who thinks Patsy was responsible. But, "like a papoose" doesn't really answer the question. Kolar, later in his book uses the same term, but nowhere are John's actual words quoted.

I was interested in what statements you believe from John, as opposed to what you don't.

The problem as I see it, from the last contact with the outside world in dropping off presents to friends on the way home from the White's, until Patsy calls 911 about 5:52 the next morning, everything that we are told happened in the intervening 8-9 hours, could be a lie.

As actual evidence is lacking for what may have occurred inside the house that night (assuming this was a family incident), then in order to re-create a scenario I would think you have to believe 'something' of what John & Patsy say.

[louisa]

I already explained why it seems to matter to anyone who thinks Patsy was responsible. But, "like a papoose" doesn't really answer the question. Kolar, later in his book uses the same term, but nowhere are John's actual words quoted.

I was interested in what statements you believe from John, as opposed to what you don't.

The problem as I see it, from the last contact with the outside world in dropping off presents to friends on the way home from the White's, until Patsy calls 911 about 5:52 the next morning, everything that we are told happened in the intervening 8-9 hours, could be a lie.

As actual evidence is lacking for what may have occurred inside the house that night (assuming this was a family incident), then in order to re-create a scenario I would think you have to believe 'something' of what John & Patsy say.

The facts were undeniable. JB's body had been found, so had the ransom note. What the police, the investigators, the Fernies and the Whites observed and the events of the rest of that morning were recorded for posterity.

The rest is conjecture.


As for the Ramseys - if their mouths are moving then they're probably lying.

They wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit them.
.
.
.

[louisa]

I already explained why it seems to matter to anyone who thinks Patsy was responsible. But, "like a papoose" doesn't really answer the question. Kolar, later in his book uses the same term, but nowhere are John's actual words quoted.

For info...(not that it's important)

MIKE KANE: All right. Okay. Now, when you
9 went inside to that room, you described the
10 blanket. And you said it was folded like -- I'm
11 just trying to get a mental picture of it. Was it
12 like --
13 JOHN RAMSEY: It was like an Indian papoose.
14 MIKE KANE: Okay.
15 JOHN RAMSEY: You know, the blanket was under
16 her completely. It was brought up and folded over
17 like
18 that.
19 MIKE KANE: Folded over, okay.
20 JOHN RAMSEY: It looked like, at that time
.
.
.

[Wickerman]

But the garrote isn't something that someone constructs in a cover-up, it's simply not.

No, it's not.
And what was the significance of breaking the ends off the paintbrush, or more to the point perhaps, how did the ends become broken off?
If you are using a paintbrush as a handle, why should it matter to break the ends off? - in reality it doesn't, you are holding the paintbrush in the middle anyway, so why do it?
Or, were the ends broken off in some other incident that night?

- If Patsy caused the head trauma by some accident(?) as has been suggested, then why did she then hit JonBenet twice with a piece of 'O' gauge train track?

Oh, and handing over the notepad with your practice letters on it, instead of disposing of them, is a stroke of genius.

Not forgetting the clothes John & Patsy were wearing that night, they held on to them for almost a year until finally handing them over to police.
Wouldn't a guilty couple have destroyed them?

I also believe that Burke would've cracked if he was part of a cover-up. Burke was questioned by police and the grand jury, and he was back to school not long after the murders. I can't imagine a nine year-old boy being involved in a traumatic event like that without blabbing to someone or without exhibiting that kind of behaviour again.

Absolutely, not even letting any detail slip.
Not long after the murder, Burke was once seen explaining to a child friend what he thinks happened to his sister. That she was hit with a hammer, stabbed, and manually strangled, in neither case was correct, so it seems he had confused something he had heard or been told.
It is reasonable to expect if he had been involved he would at least related something accurately.

[Wickerman]

For info...(not that it's important)

MIKE KANE: All right. Okay. Now, when you
9 went inside to that room, you described the
10 blanket. And you said it was folded like -- I'm
11 just trying to get a mental picture of it. Was it
12 like --
13 JOHN RAMSEY: It was like an Indian papoose.
14 MIKE KANE: Okay.
15 JOHN RAMSEY: You know, the blanket was under
16 her completely. It was brought up and folded over
17 like
18 that.
19 MIKE KANE: Folded over, okay.
20 JOHN RAMSEY: It looked like, at that time
.
.
.

Thankyou, so it was "under her", like I said.

The relevance of this detail is linked to the urine stain outside the Wine Cellar door indicating the spot where she died.
If she was laid on the blanket, as Kolar described, then this is consistent with that blanket being used to drag her body into the Wine Cellar, then the sides of the blanket just being cast over her legs as John said.

If there was no urine stain on the blanket (indicating the blanket was not under her when she died), then someone lifted, or rolled her onto that blanket, probably to move her - but why?
Did someone intend to carry her body out of the house?

Where did that blanket come from, did someone run back upstairs to look for a blanket to wrap her body in, or had that blanket been in the suitcase among her other possessions?
And for what reason were some of JonBenet's possessions found inside that suitcase under the window?
Where was she going, and with whom?

There's an answer to all these loose ends that nobody seemed to address.

[louisa]

The relevance of this detail is linked to the urine stain outside the Wine Cellar door indicating the spot where she died.

Can you show me a link to this 'urine stain'? JB was hardly likely to have been murdered OUTSIDE of the room where she was found.

If she was laid on the blanket, as Kolar described, then this is consistent with that blanket being used to drag her body into the Wine Cellar, then the sides of the blanket just being cast over her legs as John said.

If there was no urine stain on the blanket (indicating the blanket was not under her when she died), then someone lifted, or rolled her onto that blanket, probably to move her - but why?
Did someone intend to carry her body out of the house?

Where did that blanket come from, did someone run back upstairs to look for a blanket to wrap her body in, or had that blanket been in the suitcase among her other possessions?
And for what reason were some of JonBenet's possessions found inside that suitcase under the window?
Where was she going, and with whom?

There's an answer to all these loose ends that nobody seemed to address.

Well I will address them for you......(I've done so before but I will do so again)

The blanket had been in the tumble drier outside JB's bedroom up on the first floor (according to the housekeeper) and the Barbie nightgown was probably clinging to it due to static. We now have to assume this person removed it from the drier in order to cover JB's body so lovingly.

Yes, she (Patsy) probably ran upstairs to get it from the drier.

JB's body was wrapped like a papoose. Somebody cared enough so that she would not be cold, even in death.

The cellar room was cool, she was laid on top of the blanket that was then wrapped around her. There was lots of evidence the killer took care with preparing and laying out her body in that room. This is a common sign of a loved one who still wants the victim to be comfortable.

If a kidnapper was going to "carry her out of the house" He would have done so before killing her. (We've been through all this before)


The suitcase is just a red herring. It contained old toys and junk that Patsy intended to give to the thrift store. When interviewed she seemed uncertain as to what the case contained (she had probably forgotten) and shrugged when told it contained those old toys and things, saying she couldn't remember.
.
.
.

[louisa]

CASKU (Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit of the FBI). Their findings:

1. Of the more than 1700 murdered children studied since the 1960s, there was only one case in which a female child had been murdered in her home by strangulation, with (apparent*) sexual assault and a ransom note present and that was JonBenet Ramsey.

2. They had never seen anything like the ransom note. Kidnapping demands are usually terse, such as “We have your kid. A million dollars. Will call you.” From a kidnapper’s point of view, the fewer words, the less police have to go on.

3. The note was written in the home, after the murder, and indicated panic. Ransom notes are normally written prior to the crime, usually proofread, and not written by hand, in order to disguise the authorship.

4. The crime was criminally unsophisticated: The child was left on the premises, $118,000 was a ridiculously small amount in relation to the Ramsey’s wealth, the description of the accomplices as “gentlemen,” and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be “scanned for electronic devices.” Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for ransom delivery, not a face-to-face meeting.

5. An absence of strong language and anger, and JonBenet was never referred to by name, thus depersonalizing her to the offender. The intelligent wording suggested an educated writer who had some exposure to the South, as shown by the reference to “southern common sense.”

6. The crime was an incredibly risky one for an outsider to undertake, and was committed by someone who had a high degree of comfort inside the home. The note was created to misdirect law enforcement and focus attention elsewhere and was a cathartic act that allowed the offender to “undo” the murder in one’s own mind.

7. Placing JonBenet in the basement was consistent with a parent not wanting to put the body outside in the winter elements.

8. The ligatures indicated staging rather than control, and the garrote was used from behind so the killer could avoid eye contact, typical of someone who cares for the victim. They had the gut feeling that no one intended to kill this child.

9. Conclusion: The staging, evidence, and totality of the case pointed in one direction --this was not the act of an intruder. There had never been a kidnapping attempt.
.
.
.

[louisa]

If Patsy caused the head trauma by some accident(?) as has been suggested, then why did she then hit JonBenet twice with a piece of 'O' gauge train track?

JB was not hit with a piece of train track.

Not forgetting the clothes John & Patsy were wearing that night, they held on to them for almost a year until finally handing them over to police.
Wouldn't a guilty couple have destroyed them?

The Ramseys walked out of the house the day after the murder wearing the same clothes they had been wearing at the party the day before. In itself very strange, when they said they had been asleep in bed all night.

The police kept asking for the clothes so they could be forensically analysed but when they eventually received them they found the clothes had been laundered.

The Ramseys would have known that destroying the clothes they had been wearing the night of the murder would have been a rather obvious sign of guilt. Best just to launder them before handing them over.

(Fibres that had been found on the sticky part of the duct tape were found to come from the red and black jacket that Patsy had been wearing the night before).

The police also had to get a search warrant and subpoena in order to search the house and collect clothing. Nothing was made easy for them.
.
.
.

[Pcdunn]

Look at the TV doc for mention of the urine stain outside the room

Can you show me a link to this 'urine stain'? JB was hardly likely to have been murdered OUTSIDE of the room where she was found..[/COLOR]

Louisa, I have discussed this urine stain earlier in this thread. It, as well the panel's thoughts on the faked ransom note, the evidence of the pineapple in JBR's stomach and the timing that would indicate as to her death, and the suggestion that the marks on JBR'skin were not caused by a Taser, but more likely by a piece of toy train track with the pins that connect sections together are ALL in the recent TV doc called "The Case of JonBenet Ramsey."

I appreciate that you may not have seen this, but some of have, and want to discuss the case with this information.