JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Wickerman]

People keep asking "why leave a ransom note if the child is already dead?"
"Why leave a ransom note and leave the body in the house?"

My theory answers all those questions.

I understand you have compiled a theory to explain some points of contention, though if we take the ransom note apart there are lines within that note that are unlikely to have come from Patsy.
I mean like the amount - $118,000, why on earth would she limit the amount to his bonus?
When anyone knows a typical ransom is for millions. And she knows that everybody in town knew John Ramsey was worth many millions.
They'd just published that billion dollar sales.
Picking a paltry sum like $118,000 is too close to home, not many people knew the amount of his bonus.

Plus, the reference to John and his "good southern common sense", but John was not a southerner - he was a northerner.
The writer didn't seem to know that.

I think it's convenient to attribute the ransom note to Patsy, but as has been pointed out before, there were five others who equally could not be ruled out as the writer.

From day one I was uneasy with the idea of Patsy using the garotte on JBR but it all makes perfect sense if we presume that it was Burke who committed the crime and his parents covered up for him.

Making, and applying this garrotte, more than once, is not the same as the momentarily aggressive swipe he may have taken at JB with the flashlight.
One can be taken as accidental, but the other is clearly calculated and an action well above his years. It's sadistic and more in line with the act of an adult than a nine year old child.

If you read between the lines of the True Bill handed down to PR and JR then you will see that the Grand Jury are saying the R's rendered assistance to a third party in the commission of a crime, i.e. covered up for somebody. Who else could that 'somebody' be except Burke? There were only 3 people in the house.

I think you are reading something into it that is not there.
Both charges are worded the same just in case the other parent was the murderer, that's all.

On 25th or 26th December 1996 John & PR knowingly allowed JBR to be in dangerous situation and she died as a result.

Can you explain that?, how can a parent who puts their child to bed be placing this same child in a dangerous situation?

Even if there was an allusion to Burke, how can the parents be responsible for placing JB in danger because Burke was in the same house?

The person they helped in the commission of the crime (covered up for them) had to be a child under 10 years old - otherwise the Grand Jury would have sought an indictment for someone for first degree murder.

Not without any evidence.
No evidence was submitted to the GJ to implicate Burke, so the GJ cannot indict Burke for anything.
Remember, the GJ are only discussion the evidence provided to them.
They are not there to speculate on what might have happened.

[Wickerman]

A real BIG red flag for me is that, after they noticed shes missing, they don't tear the house apart looking for her!?!

are you kidding me?

Didn't John say he went running all around the house?

[Wickerman]

And how do we know that "not one interviewer believed that BR knew anything about his sister's death?" Just because they didn't come out and say it? They knew they would have been sued, that's why. Lin Wood would have been straight on their case.

They wouldn't have been sued, this is a murder investigation for goodness sakes.

The members of the Grand Jury obviously thought BR did it. FIRST DEGREE MURDER they said in their True Bill. Unfortunately he was too young to take the consequences.

Lucky for them, or they might have been sued too

And Abby's correct in saying that parents kill their kids all the time. I could give you a list, and that would be just the ones that I know about.

You can't give a list of parents who killed their child, where there are no previous indication of neglect, or abuse, unless the death was accidental.

We hear of children been run over by cars on driveways, or tractors on farms, all the time - every year.
Abby was not saying Patsy killed JB by accident. He said she's a nut job so no accident.
You suggested Patsy might have done it by accident (the head wound), but then you have the problem of them not calling for an ambulance.

[Wickerman]

Everyone reacts differently?

This idea that the parents shouldn't be suspected because of their behaviour, because everyone acts "differently" is just that - baloney.

You're a psychology major now are you?
Actually, it's perfectly true - people DO grieve in different ways, and some withhold their grief while other go to pieces.
Any Psychology 101 will tell you that, it's pretty basic.

I didn't respond to anything else in this post, it's all too off-the-wall.

[Abby Normal]

double

[Abby Normal]

It's the "getting over" bit that I can't get over.

When a parent kills a child there is usually a history of either neglect or abuse. These kids were spoiled, both parents doted on them. They had the best of everything.
Thats why an intentional killing is just out of the question, and if there had been an accident causing the head wound then one of the parents would have been on the phone immediately for an ambulance

who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men and or women?

http://thoughtcatalog.com/molly-mcal...ed-their-kids/

[louisa]

Didn't John say he went running all around the house?

What John says is irrelevant because he's as much of a liar as his wife. If we've learned anything from this case, it's that.

[louisa]

I mean like the amount - $118,000, why on earth would she limit the amount to his bonus?
When anyone knows a typical ransom is for millions. And she knows that everybody in town knew John Ramsey was worth many millions.
They'd just published that billion dollar sales.
Picking a paltry sum like $118,000 is too close to home, not many people knew the amount of his bonus.

It could equally be asked why would an 'intruder' ask for that sum?

PR had to pluck a sum of money from somewhere. The amount was in her head already, somewhere near the surface. The note was designed to cast suspicion on a disgruntled worker at Access Graphics. PR probably thought that $118,000 would seem like a fortune to one of these people whom she regarded as 'peasants'.

Plus, the reference to John and his "good southern common sense", but John was not a southerner - he was a northerner.
The writer didn't seem to know that.

You didn't notice any sarcasm in that remark then?

I think it's convenient to attribute the ransom note to Patsy, but as has been pointed out before, there were five others who equally could not be ruled out as the writer.

Five others? Out of how many hundreds of other handwriting samples that were analysed?

It isn't 'convenient' to think PR was the author of the note - it's more than obvious.

And you don't think it's a coincidence that the handwriting of the murdered girl's mother matched that of the author of the note? I can put the comparison samples on again if you wish.

Making, and applying this garrotte, more than once, is not the same as the momentarily aggressive swipe he may have taken at JB with the flashlight.
One can be taken as accidental, but the other is clearly calculated and an action well above his years. It's sadistic and more in line with the act of an adult than a nine year old child.

Not at all. He was almost TEN and quite capable of making such a thing. He had probably practised already. Some kids are like that; a morbid interest in weird and cruel things; especially boys. We don't know the kinds of books and mags he read.

And some children are sadistic. I could give examples of children who kill other children sadistically. Mary Bell comes to mind.

It has already been established that a child of his age could strike a death blow to a skull with a flashlight.

On 25th or 26th December John and PR knowingly allowed JRB to be in a dangerous situation and she died as a result.

Can you explain that?, how can a parent who puts their child to bed be placing this same child in a dangerous situation?

Even if there was an allusion to Burke, how can the parents be responsible for placing JB in danger because Burke was in the same house?

The Grand Jury convened and deliberated for THIRTEEN MONTHS. In that time they found out a whole lot more than we can ever know abut this case.

If the Grand Jury had thought that Patsy or John were the killers then there would have been no reference to another person. The pair of them would have been indicted for FIRST DEGREE MURDER.

"had committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.
As to Count VII, Accessory to a Crime:"

Not without any evidence.
No evidence was submitted to the GJ to implicate Burke, so the GJ cannot indict Burke for anything.
Remember, the GJ are only discussion the evidence provided to them.
They are not there to speculate on what might have happened.

Wrong. They ARE there to speculate on what happened. Why do you suppose a jury retires to discuss the evidence?

The reason the jury were unable to indict for Burke for anything because he was TOO YOUNG, not because there was a lack of evidence.

They obviously had plenty of evidence. The police had a mountain of it. Against Burke as well. They would have heard that he was awake and downstairs when the parents stated he was in bed. They would have heard the 911 call to the police, plus other evidence that has not yet been made public. It could be a revelation to us when it is eventually released.

And to word the True Bill as they did it definitely suggests they thought Burke was responsible, (but he was too young to be named or prosecuted).

.

[louisa]

You're a psychology major now are you?
Actually, it's perfectly true - people DO grieve in different ways, and some withhold their grief while other go to pieces.
Any Psychology 101 will tell you that, it's pretty basic.

I didn't respond to anything else in this post, it's all too off-the-wall.

Because you couldn't.

There was nothing remotely "off the wall" in the list that I posted, and you know it.
.

[louisa]

They wouldn't have been sued, this is a murder investigation for goodness sakes.

Lin Wood and the Ramseys have sued plenty of people. I'll find the list and post it later.

You can't give a list of parents who killed their child, where there are no previous indication of neglect, or abuse, unless the death was accidental.

You suggested Patsy might have done it by accident (the head wound), but then you have the problem of them not calling for an ambulance.

You shouldn't put out a challenge like that because you know I will always come up with a weblink. I'll post one later.

As for your last paragraph - I have answered that a hundred times already!

I gave you my theory a couple of days ago. My theory is that BR was the culprit and Patsy found JBR lying on the floor garrotted. (She may not have known about the head trauma at that time). She would have seen that JBR was already dead and beyond help so calling 911 would be academic. That could be done later.

The pressing problem was 'what were people going to think?' Friends family and church - and most of all the Police? Her six year old child found garrotted inside her own locked home on Christmas night, when only the family were present? The couple didn't want Burke to be taken from them.

They HAD to invent an intruder. It was the only way to save themselves.




No doubt you'll be asking the same question again though. Probably in another couple of days.

.
.

[louisa]

You can't give a list of parents who killed their child, where there are no previous indication of neglect, or abuse, unless the death was accidental.

Googled this and have found these at the top of the list. There are hundreds more links.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580/

https://news.brown.edu/articles/2014/02/filicide

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2922347/

http://www.breakingthescience.org/SimplifiedDataFromDHHS.php

They wouldn't have been sued, this is a murder investigation for goodness sakes.

Really? You'd better take a look at this...

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-...awsuit-w443801

Several defamation lawsuits have ensued since JonBenét's murder. L. Lin Wood[10][11][12] was the attorney for the Ramsey family, filing defamation claims on their behalf against St. Martin's Press, Time, Inc., The Fox News Channel, American Media, Inc., Star, The Globe, Court TV, and The New York Post.
.
.

[Abby Normal]

Didn't John say he went running all around the house?

it dosnt matter what he said. any normal parent would have torn that house apart looking for her. would have searched the yard, ran into the street.

and its not like she was hidden in some crawl space or closet or something.

If they did it, it was probably why they invited all their friends over, so one of them could find her. Classic guilty behavior.

and what parent wouldn't get the other child up out of bed and had them help search, or at least ask them extensively-did you hear anything, did you see anything? etc. etc.

As the morning went on the Ramseys were probably thinking-why the hell cant one of these stupid police or friends find her already?

oh and once he does find her, he dosnt rip that goddam cord from around her neck? neither of them do?? yeah right, even if you realize shes dead, you would take it off for psychological reasons alone.

[Wickerman]

who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men and or women?

I agree with the point you are making Abby, I'd just like to see an argument we can take to court.

[Wickerman]

What John says is irrelevant because he's as much of a liar as his wife. If we've learned anything from this case, it's that.

Isn't that's your view about anyone who speaks for the Ramsey's?
Aren't they all liars or idiots?

You only accept one side of the argument, much like the B.P.D. I guess.

[louisa]

I agree with the point you are making Abby, I'd just like to see an argument we can take to court.

You would never take anyone to court because you are able to ignore mountains of evidence (pointing to the main suspect) and go chasing after a bogeyman instead.

Ted Bundy would have lived to murder another 20 people if you had been in charge of that investigation.


If somebody was to come up with a valid reason and some kind of real evidence that an intruder killed JBR then I would listen to it. So far nobody has.

.