JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[louisa]

Yep.
.

[Wickerman]

Wicksy - When I began posting on this thread you were constantly asking me to substantiate what I was saying, even calling me a liar when I posted facts on the case; facts that you hadn't heard of before.

If you recall, I always came up with those links to the facts and quotes that I had posted.

I feel your latest attack is childish and inaccurate. However, as always, I will politely answer your latest queries.

I certainly have not 'misunderstood' procedure or 'meaning of terms or sequence of events'. In fact you are the one who keeps asking me where I got my information. I have to keep pointing you to the relevant internet site or book references. In fact you seem not to know some of the facts because you keep stating that JonBenet was raped, when anyone interested in this case can tell you that she was NOT.

At no point have I ever said JB was raped, this is you making assumptions again.
The issue concerned a known rapist who lived in the area who was known to molest girls in the same way as JB was molested.
You immediately threw the argument out there that JB was not raped, and I quite correctly produced legal definitions of what constitutes rape, which you still seem to be having trouble understanding.

The most interesting thing about the other websites on this case is nobody is seriously talking about an intruder. They've been there, done that and found it to be ludicrous. In fact on some of the websites you would get laughed off if you mentioned it.

These are the opinions you think everyone should follow?
If they are professional investigators with first-hand knowledge of the evidence, the equals of Smit, Ainsworth, DeMuth, Carnes, etc. then maybe you have a point, but somehow I doubt they are so well informed.

The Ramseys remain "under an umbrella of suspicion" in this murder. DNA which was previously thought to exonerate the family has been proven to be erroneous. It's on the internet if you wish to research this.

There you go with this "proven" claim again.
It seems like every time you have doubts, or read of someone else who expressed doubts, you seem to think this constitutes "proof" of something.

Your last paragraph is, frankly, ridiculous. There is PLENTY of circumstantial evidence pointing to the Ramseys and NONE pointing to an intruder.

See, here's your problem.
Judge Judith Carnes expressed the true situation from the legal perspective, which I suggest you take heed of. She knows, as well as Steve Thomas knows, that all the B.P.D. have is theories. There is nothing (zero) evidence to implicate Patsy Ramsey, even less Burke.
Yet actual physical evidence does exist that points to an intruder, not exclusively, but inclusively.
There is no physical evidence that points anywhere else.

I have written pages of it over the last couple of weeks, especially over the last few days. I presume you haven't been reading my posts because if you had then you wouldn't be making uninformed comments.

I have not seen your reply to my question about those two pairs of abrasions on JB's body. What caused them?

If the Ramseys had gone to trial (as they rightly should have) then I am certain they would have been convicted.

Your last post regarding the police 'holding JB's body as hostage' was thrown out years ago as being untrue. It is a phrase coined by a lawyer connected to the DA and the Ramseys, and the myth has perpetrated ever since.

You have not done your homework.

on December 29th 1996 (just four days after her body was discovered) the family had a memorial service in Boulder and then had the funeral in Atlanta and JB was buried in Georgia.

Yes, I know.
How does that change anything?

[louisa]

.

Here we go again.

Wicksy - why are you doing this to yourself?


22 October 2016 - Post # 749........

The sexual act committed on the body of JonBenet falls under the category of rape.

Your initial objection that led you down this path was to argue that a local rapist was not responsible - because, in your opinion, she was not raped.

The sexual acts which fall under the legal category of Rape include what was done to JonBenet."

Yesterday November 10th 2016.....

At no point have I ever said JB was raped, this is you making assumptions again.

You immediately threw the argument out there that JB was not raped, and I quite correctly produced legal definitions of what constitutes rape, which you still seem to be having trouble understanding.

.
.

[louisa]

.For Wicksy......


RAPE DEFINITIONS LINKS

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

Main articles: Rape and Laws regarding rape

"Rape is a statutory offence in England and Wales. According to the law, a rape can only be committed by a male as the penetration can only be done with his penis. If a victim is forcefully penetrated with an object, this is classed as "Sexual Assault by Penetration".
The offence is created by section 1[1] of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:"

-------------------------------------------------

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

------------------------------------------------------
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...statutory+rape
--------------------------------------------------------

http://content.met.police.uk/Article.../1400008450549

----------------------------------------------------------

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/rape/

---------------------------------------------------------

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...rape-laws.htm#

"Sexual assault occurs when there is penetration (however slight) with an object or body part between a minor who is 14 or younger and a defendant who is at least four years older than the minor. It also includes penetration between a 15 or 16 year old minor and a defendant who is at least ten years older than the minor. This offense is a class one misdemeanor, which incurs a fine of at least $500 (and up to $5,000), at least six months in jail (and up to two years in prison), or both".
.
.

[Pcdunn]

This link offers definitions of rape, statutory rape, sexual assault, and unlawful sexual contact under Colorado law. Statutory rape is connected with participants under the legal age of consent, (usually 18, but varies).

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/colorado-law/colorado-rape-and-sexual-assault-laws.html

JonBenet was under the age of consent, so her death could have been said to have involved Sexual Assault and Statutory Rape (unclear, as we don't know the age of her attacker, so probably would not be invoked.)

[louisa]

This link offers definitions of rape, statutory rape, sexual assault, and unlawful sexual contact under Colorado law. Statutory rape is connected with participants under the legal age of consent, (usually 18, but varies).

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/colorado-law/colorado-rape-and-sexual-assault-laws.html

JonBenet was under the age of consent, so her death could have been said to have involved Sexual Assault and Statutory Rape (unclear, as we don't know the age of her attacker, so probably would not be invoked.)

Hi Pat

Your link seems to be concerned with sexual assault and not rape.


One of my links seems to be broken. I'm re-posting it...this should clarify it.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/colorado-statutory-rape-laws.htm#

"Sexual assault occurs when there is penetration (however slight) with an object or body part between a minor who is 14 or younger and a defendant who is at least four years older than the minor. It also includes penetration between a 15 or 16 year old minor and a defendant who is at least ten years older than the minor. This offense is a class one misdemeanor, which incurs a fine of at least $500 (and up to $5,000), at least six months in jail (and up to two years in prison), or both".


I would like somebody who thinks JBR was raped to find me a link to any legitimate internet website that states that she was.

.
.

[louisa]

For anyone with a bit of time to spare, this is an interesting website.....

http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/index.html

.
.

[Abby Normal]

For anyone with a bit of time to spare, this is an interesting website.....

http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/index.html

.
.

Thanks for posting. Very interesting. Iwas especially taken by the ransome note section. very powerful argument for Patsy writing it.

[louisa]

Thanks for posting. Very interesting. Iwas especially taken by the ransome note section. very powerful argument for Patsy writing it.

Yes, I thought so too. I also found the window section interesting. The way Lou Smit (when attempting to show how his 'intruder' had gained access to the train room) had positioned the suitcase in a completely different angle to the way it was shown in the crime scene photo.

Which in itself is rather strange because, in his police interview, John states (to Lou Smit) that he had to move a chair from in front of the train room door before he could gain access to the room to check for JBR.

All I can think is Lou Smit had a very poor memory.

And of course the stun gun theory....
.
.

[louisa]

If they are professional investigators with first-hand knowledge of the evidence, the equals of Smit, Ainsworth, DeMuth, Carnes, etc.

Don't make me laugh! All of those people were in the pockets of Ramseys. Lou Smit was on some kind of ego trip, altering facts to fit his theories (a bit like yourself Wicksy!). Even your hero Alex Hunter lost faith in him and only allowed a small part of Smit's testimony (the more rational part) to be heard by the Grand Jury.

Judge Carnes based her judgement on erroneous facts that she was given. Relevant facts were not mentioned so she was not given the full picture.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?4708-THE-TRUTH-About-Judge-Carnes-Decision-A-Documented-Rebuttal

STEVE AINSWORTH

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/15llett1.html

TRIP DEMUTH

DeMuth had no respect from anyone.

After working nearly 20 years in the Boulder Prosecutors office, was so unpopular with his colleagues that when he ran for District Attorney, not a single co-worker, peer or other lawyer in the office voted for him, they ALL voted for Mary Keenan (Lacy) who turned out to be equally as incompetent.

DeMuth was removed from the case and replaced by Michael Kane because of his lack of objectivity and general incompetence.

DeMuth works (or did, anyway) for the Haddon law firm. The same one used by the Ramseys.

DeMuth, like all the other members of the DA's office, wanted the killer to be Bill McReynolds.

Demuth - Before any evidence had come in, DECIDED that a parent couldn't kill their kids, so there was no need to investigate the Ramseys. That kind of thinking has NO PLACE in law!

DeMuth, one week before the Karr arrest, said that just because a ten-month-old had 28 broken bones, it doesn't prove murder. (!)

I have not seen your reply to my question about those two pairs of abrasions on JB's body. What caused them?

Why are you asking me? You keep telling me that I know nothing.

I suppose I should help you out then. It wasn't a stun gun so maybe the marks could have been caused by Burke prodding JBR with the ends of his toy train tracks to either hurt her or to see if he could get some response, after he had walloped and/or garrotted her.

http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/stungun.html

Glad to be of assistance.
.
.

[Pcdunn]

Hi Pat

Your link seems to be concerned with sexual assault and not rape.

I would like somebody who thinks JBR was raped to find me a link to any legitimate internet website that states that she was.

.
.

I have no argument with you about whether it was sexual assault or rape, as I agree with the sexual assault classification. I was just trying to supply Colorado Law about the differences, because you had quoted English law, which could be different from ours.

[louisa]

I have no argument with you about whether it was sexual assault or rape, as I agree with the sexual assault classification. I was just trying to supply Colorado Law about the differences, because you had quoted English law, which could be different from ours.

That's fine Pat, I never thought for a minute that you were arguing, just trying to clarify things.

Wicksy likes to argue, doesn't he? If he and I were on a desert island we'd be arguing about the coconuts.


.
.

[Wickerman]

.

Here we go again.

Wicksy - why are you doing this to yourself?


22 October 2016 - Post # 749........




Yesterday November 10th 2016.....




.
.

Exactly, I repeat, I have never said, "JonBenet was raped", the reason is this.
Clearly, if JB was dead when she was violated in that way then she couldn't have been raped.

However, your response was to the effect that, "nobody on the case ever said JB was raped", so I must be wrong. but I never said she was.

What I have said is, the acts committed on her body fall under the category of rape, and I posted several links, legitimate links, which confirm my argument.

Happily, you have managed to confirm what I have said, so please desist with claiming that I said, "JB was raped".

The distinction between the two is whether those acts were committed on the body while alive, or dead. We cannot be sure and neither could the police which is possibly why the issue never came up.
Also, and this is just a guess, the predominant belief of the B.P.D. was that the family was responsible in some way.
Either John Ramsey was 'playing' with his daughter, in which case it would be rape, or Patsy created these acts on a dead body as a diversion, in that case it wouldn't be rape. Unless I've misunderstood the interpretation of the legal definition, ie; can a dead body be raped? - I think not.

[Wickerman]

Concerning this attempt by John Eller to hold the body until the Ramsey's give an interview.

Kolar writes that he had always been under the impression the Ramsey's had not obtained legal advise, "until after Lt. Eller had attempted to withhold the body of jonBenet in exchange for a family interview." (p.318).

"Investigative files revealed that Eller had not even considered this option until Saturday, December 28th, around the time that non-testimonial evidence was being collected from the immediate family. Even then, it was reported that his thoughts of holding on to the body of JonBenet was not for the intention of holding her for "ransom" in exchange for a family interview, but to determine if there were any other forensic examinations that could have been conducted that would help shed light on the mechanics of her murder." (p.319).


The complication with that reasoning is that five other people were involved in this exchange with John Eller. And, John Meyer, the Boulder County Coroner had declared that his office had no further cause to maintain custody of the body. So he refused to entertain the idea.

Boulder D.A.'s Chief of Felony Division, Pete Hofstrom said to Eller, "You didn't get your statements in the first three days? - You may not use this method to get your statements now. It's just not legal to withhold the body."

Sgt. Larry Mason said, "John, you can't do that. You're violating their rights", to which Eller responded, "I don't give a goddamn, you either get on board or get out".

Bob Keatley, the B.P.D. legal advisor agreed with Hofstrom, and Mike Bynum (Ramsey legal advisor) who heard of this threat decided not to inform the Ramsey's just yet.

"Hofstrom would never say it publicly, but he had now lost all confidence in John Eller."
Source: Perfect Murder/Perfect Town, p.50.

Too many concerned officials for this 'holding the body' to have been an accepted procedure, as was apparently recorded in the police files.
It appears John Eller attempted to cover his tracks by entering a false reason in the police files as he must have realised his suggestion (to ransom the body in exchange for an interview) could have had serious consequences for his career.

[Wickerman]

Don't make me laugh! All of those people were in the pockets of Ramseys.

You're getting too repetitive, making the same assertions without anything so crude as evidence. It's what happens with a failing theory.

Why are you asking me? You keep telling me that I know nothing.

I suppose I should help you out then. It wasn't a stun gun so maybe the marks could have been caused by Burke prodding JBR with the ends of his toy train tracks to either hurt her or to see if he could get some response, after he had walloped and/or garrotted her.

So the police theory that Patsy hit JB over bedwetting was all wrong then.
And your earlier scenario that Patsy caused the head injury by accident (trip/fall?) is also wrong.

You can't have it both ways.

The only way you can include a piece of track as a weapon is to have Burke involved, so Patsy didn't cause any injury by accident or otherwise.

If the abrasions were caused by JB being hit with a piece of track then Burke was the culprit, which makes it difficult to attribute the blow to the head to anyone else but Burke also.

So now, you have Patsy finding JB unconscious and instead of calling an ambulance, as any normal parent would do, you have her fabricating a garrote to kill her daughter, and then fabricate a crime scene that can be attributed to a sexual predator?
So why on earth does she then create a kidnapping note?
[It's not like we've haven't pointed out these problems before, but you prefer to ignore them]

Do you see the slippery slope?
Once you head down that path beginning with the train track as a weapon, you end up struggling to justify the rest of the physical evidence.

All those who know what 'O' gauge train tracks look like know that there are three sharp points not two.
In order to make the track fit the wound it must be argued that the middle pin fell out, but the other two didn't?

If you make the weapon fit the wound then surprise, surprise, the weapon ends up fitting the wound - imagine that!

I won't even mention that an abrasion is not a puncture wound which two sharp points would create - just another minor wrinkle in your scenario.