JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Wickerman]

You are making a number of assumptions. Patsy is the 'one in pieces'. Were you there?

Those who were present have described her as such, to which you may likely reply by saying she was only acting.
Overall, I detect that you have already decided the Ramsey's are guilty regardless of the conflicting evidence.

Not too many people today will so readily dismiss DNA evidence, and several medical specialists involved in the case have concluded that this is now primarily a DNA case. Yet you dismiss the experience and knowledge of these professionals.

No-one, and I mean absolutely no-one in this case, unless they worked for the Boulder Police, has ever concluded they did a proper investigation. They had no experience in cases like this and their conduct was deplorable, unprofessional, haphazard, careless, and they were under threat of being sued for the equivalent of malpractice.
No matter what your view is on this case, anyone who's theory relies on the belief's of the Boulder Police Dept. is flogging a dead horse.
They were absolutely hopeless.

The note, according to friends of the Ramseys had all the hallmarks of Patsy's hand.

Well, her own handwriting samples for police only got her a 4.5 out of 5, where 5 was unlikely, so much for the opinion of her "friends".

Personally I think John would have left the writing to Patsy. Although he was a businessman I think that it was Patsy who wore the trousers in that household. He was under her thumb.

Interestingly, when they are both being interviewed Patsy is the weak and emotional voice whereas John is the dominant voice, even to the point of him interrupting her reply to the interviewer, where she stops dead while he takes over.
No, Patsy is the follower, John is the leader.

I have an idea that it was Patsy who was the one who made the decision to cover up the death of JonBenet by making it look as though a kidnapper had been in the house. John, the mild mannered man that he was, may have wanted to call the emergency services immediately but Patsy talked him out of it. And he went along with her scheme. She wanted to write the note and he let her, just reading it through afterwards, maybe.

What I see is you are writing a script in your own mind as to how the Ramsey's could have done this. You are not addressing the evidence in order to determine whether they could have, or if someone else was responsible.
You appear to be committed to one view at the expense of anything that speaks to the contrary.

I don't know if this is true or not but am I right in thinking that John, now free from the shackles of Patsy, is currently living the high life with a cocktail waitress in Vegas?

Saying, "free from the shackles" suggests you are extremely bias, and no John was not responsible for Patsy's cancer - he didn't want to get rid of her.
However, he is dating again, they were shown together on one of the programs.

[louisa]

I am basing my opinions on the books about the case, plus the demeanour of the parents when interviewed.

Where in the world did you get the idea that I think John Ramsey was responsible for Patsy's cancer? And we have no way of knowing exactly what he genuinely thought about his wife, whether or not he felt free after she died, or not.

I have stated all along that I am convinced that either Patsy or Burke was responsible for JonBenet's head injury, which was probably accidental.

Sometimes the obvious solution to a puzzle is the one closest to the truth.

People say that the parents couldn't possibly have killed their beloved child. Well I don't think it was done on purpose.

What I find unforgiveable is the way these two tried to pin everything on every single person they knew, even their closest friends who had supported them in the beginning, instead of having the guts to stand up and say "We did it but it was an accident"

Unfortunately they never stood up and said anything because they were shielded by their lawyers from day one.

Which brings me to the main reason I find them guilty. If they had nothing to hide they would have co-operated with the police and the investigators in every way possible in order to bring the perpetrator of this horrendous crime to justice.

The only times they were happy to talk about the murder of JonBenet was on chat shows where all the questions they were asked had been previously submitted in writing and agreed by their lawyers.

And I find it sickening that rich people can grease the palms of justice and buy their way out of a murder wrap and end up getting away scot free.

[Abby Normal]

If John & Patsy decided to fabricate an intruder, it is bizarre that they would create an entry via a broken window, and then tell police John broke that himself some time ago.
Anyone in their position is going to say nothing about that and just let the police believe the intruder broke the window, it fits in with their deception.

Well if anyone else knew about John breaking the window they obviously had to tell the truth about it.

But either way another strange circumstance in a very starnge case.

[Abby Normal]

I am basing my opinions on the books about the case, plus the demeanour of the parents when interviewed.

Where in the world did you get the idea that I think John Ramsey was responsible for Patsy's cancer? And we have no way of knowing exactly what he genuinely thought about his wife, whether or not he felt free after she died, or not.

I have stated all along that I am convinced that either Patsy or Burke was responsible for JonBenet's head injury, which was probably accidental.

Sometimes the obvious solution to a puzzle is the one closest to the truth.

People say that the parents couldn't possibly have killed their beloved child. Well I don't think it was done on purpose.

What I find unforgiveable is the way these two tried to pin everything on every single person they knew, even their closest friends who had supported them in the beginning, instead of having the guts to stand up and say "We did it but it was an accident"

Unfortunately they never stood up and said anything because they were shielded by their lawyers from day one.

Which brings me to the main reason I find them guilty. If they had nothing to hide they would have co-operated with the police and the investigators in every way possible in order to bring the perpetrator of this horrendous crime to justice.

The only times they were happy to talk about the murder of JonBenet was on chat shows where all the questions they were asked had been previously submitted in writing and agreed by their lawyers.

And I find it sickening that rich people can grease the palms of justice and buy their way out of a murder wrap and end up getting away scot free.

Eventhough I'm 50/50 on guilt I still agree with everything you say.
The Ramsey's are dooshbags either way.

[Billiou]

Burke's interviews are very interesting. Some weeks after the finding of the body, he was interviewed by a child psychologist (at the insistence of his parents). Asked if he had any secrets, he responded, "No... Well, I probably do, but I wouldn't tell YOU!"
Also during that interview, he drew a picture of his family and left JBR out. Asked why, he said something along the lines of well, she's gone.

His first interview with the police was eighteen months later, when he was 11 years old. By then, he had probably been told repeatedly by his parents to keep mum about that night, and mostly did so.

Yes, the interviews I saw with Burke by the authorities are interesting and probably the nearest to anything like the truth we are ever going to get.

If you notice when they show him a picture of the breakfast table with the glass of tea and the bowl of pineapple and he is asked just a straightforward, simple question (something like) "what do you see on the table?" He avoids completely saying anything about the bowl. He gives silence, ums and ahs, does point out the glass of tea, but absolutely consciencely could not bring himself to say "a bowl of pineapple". I will leave it to the experts to point out the psychology, but to me it points to something WRONG.

[Wickerman]

I am basing my opinions on the books about the case, plus the demeanour of the parents when interviewed.

You appear to be over influenced by Steve Thomas, a narcotics cop with no homicide experience. He was a member of the force that botched the investigation and clearly has an axe to grind.

Sometimes the obvious solution to a puzzle is the one closest to the truth.

I think you allude to Occams Razor, that the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
Occams Razor is wholly dependent on accepting the known evidence. It is not applied to speculation. Once you have all the known evidence in front of you only then can you apply Occams Razor, and usually the simplest interpretation of how the evidence fits together, is the correct interpretation.

In a previous post, #336, you made this claim:
"There was no sexual assault. This was part of the staging to look like a sexual assault had taken place. A half hearted attempt by people who didn't really want to do it but felt it was necessary to cast suspicion away from themselves. Hence blood in her pants."

This claim is not supported by the autopsy report which devotes an entire paragraph to internal injuries in the genital area.
Rejecting the autopsy findings is rejecting the evidence.

Unfortunately they never stood up and said anything because they were shielded by their lawyers from day one.

Much has been said about the Ramsey's, and how they "Lawyerd up", but most do not know the sequence of events.
John Ramsey, like any successful businessman, had an attorney - Lin Wood, and many successful attorney's have connections throughout law enforcement. Lin Wood had a contact within the Boulder Police Dept., the day after the murder Lin Wood received a tip from within the Boulder Police that the police are targeting the Ramsey's. Not just investigating, but "targeting", it was Lin Wood who contacted John Ramsey and strongly advised him and Patsy to get lawyers. It was not John Ramsey's idea, but a reaction forced upon him by the vindictive approach of the Boulder Police.

Which brings me to the main reason I find them guilty. If they had nothing to hide they would have co-operated with the police and the investigators in every way possible in order to bring the perpetrator of this horrendous crime to justice.

They did talk with police, but they also knew they couldn't trust the police, and we today know that to be a point of fact. The D.A. told Lin Wood that the FBI and the local police had contrived to release 'false' statements to the press disguised as 'facts' - many of which are still believed today, in an attempt to trick or pressure them into turning against each other, or confessing.
Everything released to the press was false.
John Ramsey did not trust the Boulder Police, for good reason.

[Wickerman]

If you notice when they show him a picture of the breakfast table with the glass of tea and the bowl of pineapple and he is asked just a straightforward, simple question (something like) "what do you see on the table?" He avoids completely saying anything about the bowl. He gives silence, ums and ahs, does point out the glass of tea, but absolutely consciencely could not bring himself to say "a bowl of pineapple". I will leave it to the experts to point out the psychology, but to me it points to something WRONG.

That scene also struck me too, Burke's body posture changed from a fidgety somewhat distracted posture, to what can only be described as a near fetal position, with his legs folded under him and leaning over the photograph seemingly lost for words. Clearly it was a bowl of pineapple in milk, but he couldn't bring himself to say it.
I don't know what the significance is, but both his fingerprints and Patsy's were found on the bowl. At the very least Patsy must have served Burke some Pineapple in milk before he went up to bed, though this was never clarified by the Ramsey's.

[Abby Normal]

You appear to be over influenced by Steve Thomas, a narcotics cop with no homicide experience. He was a member of the force that botched the investigation and clearly has an axe to grind.




I think you allude to Occams Razor, that the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
Occams Razor is wholly dependent on accepting the known evidence. It is not applied to speculation. Once you have all the known evidence in front of you only then can you apply Occams Razor, and usually the simplest interpretation of how the evidence fits together, is the correct interpretation.

In a previous post, #336, you made this claim:
"There was no sexual assault. This was part of the staging to look like a sexual assault had taken place. A half hearted attempt by people who didn't really want to do it but felt it was necessary to cast suspicion away from themselves. Hence blood in her pants."

This claim is not supported by the autopsy report which devotes an entire paragraph to internal injuries in the genital area.
Rejecting the autopsy findings is rejecting the evidence.




Much has been said about the Ramsey's, and how they "Lawyerd up", but most do not know the sequence of events.
John Ramsey, like any successful businessman, had an attorney - Lin Wood, and many successful attorney's have connections throughout law enforcement. Lin Wood had a contact within the Boulder Police Dept., the day after the murder Lin Wood received a tip from within the Boulder Police that the police are targeting the Ramsey's. Not just investigating, but "targeting", it was Lin Wood who contacted John Ramsey and strongly advised him and Patsy to get lawyers. It was not John Ramsey's idea, but a reaction forced upon him by the vindictive approach of the Boulder Police.




They did talk with police, but they also knew they couldn't trust the police, and we today know that to be a point of fact. The D.A. told Lin Wood that the FBI and the local police had contrived to release 'false' statements to the press disguised as 'facts' - many of which are still believed today, in an attempt to trick or pressure them into turning against each other, or confessing.
Everything released to the press was false.
John Ramsey did not trust the Boulder Police, for good reason.

What Do you mean it wasnt John Ramsey's idea to lawyer up and not cooperate with police? I've heard this excuse before even from Ramsey himself in an interview. What a crock of ****. What he can't think for himself?
If someone told me not to cooperate with police after my child had been murdered, even if they or I thought I was under suspicion, I'd tell them to go to hell. I'd want clear myself as soon as possible and help the police as soon as possible.

Any idiot with half a brain knows defacto that anyone in the family, close to and with the victim at the time of death is a suspect. He should have manned up, faced the fire and cooperated with the police immediately.
**** him.

Whether he had anything to do with it,knew who did or was completely innocent he's a total coward.

Typical rich, powerful cold son of a bitch who uses his power and standing to slide through life. Just slide through man, letting other people take the heat and fight for him. Oh, and those "friends " who advised him to lawyer up...ramsey wasted no time pointing the finger at them. Great friend.

Oh and by the way, same goes for the coward DA Alex hunter. Both of them cut out of the same cloth. Master politicians. Machiavelli would have been impressed. To hell with both of them.

[louisa]

You appear to be over influenced by Steve Thomas, a narcotics cop with no homicide experience. He was a member of the force that botched the investigation and clearly has an axe to grind.

In a previous post, #336, you made this claim:
"There was no sexual assault. This was part of the staging to look like a sexual assault had taken place. A half hearted attempt by people who didn't really want to do it but felt it was necessary to cast suspicion away from themselves. Hence blood in her pants."

This claim is not supported by the autopsy report which devotes an entire paragraph to internal injuries in the genital area.
Rejecting the autopsy findings is rejecting the evidence.

They did talk with police, but they also knew they couldn't trust the police, and we today know that to be a point of fact. The D.A. told Lin Wood that the FBI and the local police had contrived to release 'false' statements to the press disguised as 'facts' - many of which are still believed today, in an attempt to trick or pressure them into turning against each other, or confessing.
Everything released to the press was false.
John Ramsey did not trust the Boulder Police, for good reason.

I'm simply going to answer your points without all the copying and pasting of my individual sentences that you seem so fond of doing.

I had already formed an opinion before I read Steve Thomas's book. I had some missing facts which the Thomas book filled, and it all started to make perfect sense. You could sense his frustration at not being able to interview the Ramseys and being blocked by the top man in his own police department.

All he ever wanted to do was simply talk to the Ramseys. Why should that be too much to ask? He didn't need to be a top homicide investigator. He was simply somebody with a list of questions.

If the Boulder police were so inexperienced and incompetent then why didn't John Ramsey just submit to their questions? He had no good reason not to trust them. As far as I can see they did not knowingly release erroneous facts.

If the Ramseys were innocent then no amount of "tricks" (don't know what you mean by this) could "pressure them into turning against each other, or confessing".

The police knew the Ramseys did it and they also knew that Patsy would crack under minimal pressure and we'd get to the truth at last. John Ramsey also knew this, hence the shielding from questioning.

Why on earth would that be a bad thing? Confession is good for the soul and it would have solved this murder mystery.


Regarding your comment on the possible "sexual interference"..........

"This claim is not supported by the autopsy report which devotes an entire paragraph to internal injuries in the genital area.
Rejecting the autopsy findings is rejecting the evidence"

I have not rejected any evidence. The handle of a small artist's paintbrush had been inserted into the child's vagina, which, yes, caused internal injuries to the genital area and I assume caused the slight bleeding. There was no semen found on her or on her underwear.

This is why I would add this part of JonBenet's injuries to the 'staging' of the scene. Patsy had to make it look as though the reason for her daughter's murder was a sexual one. A small paintbrush inserted into the vagina may have been all Patsy could stomach doing to her daughter in the way of sexual interference.

[Wickerman]

What Do you mean it wasnt John Ramsey's idea to lawyer up and not cooperate with police? I've heard this excuse before even from Ramsey himself in an interview. What a crock of ****. What he can't think for himself?

Thinking for himself has nothing to do with it.
When both Lin Wood and John Ramsey relate the same sequence of events, what is there to contest what they say?

How you feel about John Ramsey doesn't come into it.
If you dislike John R. because he's a rich controlling fat cat who can buy anything he wants then you likely dislike a lot of Americans - so his status in life makes him guilty does it?
Wonderful....and I though you were trying to stick to the evidence too.

[Wickerman]

If the Boulder police were so inexperienced and incompetent then why didn't John Ramsey just submit to their questions? He had no good reason not to trust them. As far as I can see they did not knowingly release erroneous facts.

He had every reason not to trust them, from the start they were not conducting an objective investigation - they had one aim, to find out how and why the Ramsey's did this so they could be charged.
It is a statistical fact when a child is murdered in a house, the family members are among the first suspects - of course. "Among the first suspects" is the important point, not "the only suspects".

When the Boulder Police received the DNA evidence exonerating the family two weeks after the murder, but did not even advise the D. A., and kept it a secret, their bias is proven, and as it happens, John Ramsey's caution towards the police is vindicated.

If the Ramseys were innocent then no amount of "tricks" (don't know what you mean by this) could "pressure them into turning against each other, or confessing".

Those were not "my" words, impartial investigators came to the same conclusion - neither the FBI nor the Boulder Police have, to my knowledge, ever explained why they released so many false "facts" which just happen to implicate the Ramsey's.

The police knew the Ramseys did it and they also knew that Patsy would crack under minimal pressure and we'd get to the truth at last. John Ramsey also knew this, hence the shielding from questioning.

'Knew"? - what do you mean "the police knew they did it"?, that comment alone justifies the Ramsey's avoidance of the police - they couldn't possibly "know" anything of the sort.
What the did "know" was the DNA evidence exonerated them.
Every single independent Lab who have tested the DNA samples arrived at the SAME conclusion, and you choose to believe an inexperienced cop from a disorganized local police force???

Regarding your comment on the possible "sexual interference"..........

"This claim is not supported by the autopsy report which devotes an entire paragraph to internal injuries in the genital area.
Rejecting the autopsy findings is rejecting the evidence"

I have not rejected any evidence. The handle of a small artist's paintbrush had been inserted into the child's vagina, which, yes, caused internal injuries to the genital area and I assume caused the slight bleeding. There was no semen found on her or on her underwear.

There doesn't have to be semen, a violent act aimed at the genital area IS sexual assault - which you say never happened.
It strikes me you do not know what "sexual assault" is. Thankfully, the Pathologist does, eh?

[Abby Normal]

Thinking for himself has nothing to do with it.
When both Lin Wood and John Ramsey relate the same sequence of events, what is there to contest what they say?

How you feel about John Ramsey doesn't come into it.
If you dislike John R. because he's a rich controlling fat cat who can buy anything he wants then you likely dislike a lot of Americans - so his status in life makes him guilty does it?
Wonderful....and I though you were trying to stick to the evidence too.

Thinking for himself has everything to do with it. Trying to claim he had no choice helps to try and alleviate the guilty association one has when they lawyer up. What has nothing to do with it is as you say they corroborated on the sequence of events about lawyering up-I wasn't arguing that.

How I feel about Ramsey does come into because of what I just said about above said guilty conscience and how people lawyer up immediately when guilty.

I didnt want to get into all the politics but prefer to stick to the debate about specifically the circumstances of the case and who did it, but I just felt I had to get it off my chest about Ramsey, and hunter.
I'm going to refrain from this aspect of the case moving forward. Ok with you?

[Abby Normal]

He had every reason not to trust them, from the start they were not conducting an objective investigation - they had one aim, to find out how and why the Ramsey's did this so they could be charged.
It is a statistical fact when a child is murdered in a house, the family members are among the first suspects - of course. "Among the first suspects" is the important point, not "the only suspects".

When the Boulder Police received the DNA evidence exonerating the family two weeks after the murder, but did not even advise the D. A., and kept it a secret, their bias is proven, and as it happens, John Ramsey's caution towards the police is vindicated.



Those were not "my" words, impartial investigators came to the same conclusion - neither the FBI nor the Boulder Police have, to my knowledge, ever explained why they released so many false "facts" which just happen to implicate the Ramsey's.




'Knew"? - what do you mean "the police knew they did it"?, that comment alone justifies the Ramsey's avoidance of the police - they couldn't possibly "know" anything of the sort.
What the did "know" was the DNA evidence exonerated them.
Every single independent Lab who have tested the DNA samples arrived at the SAME conclusion, and you choose to believe an inexperienced cop from a disorganized local police force???



There doesn't have to be semen, a violent act aimed at the genital area IS sexual assault - which you say never happened.
It strikes me you do not know what "sexual assault" is. Thankfully, the Pathologist does, eh?

Hi wick.
I would be remiss if I didn't say I agree with you that the police bungled the case. They did big time, especially in the beginning.

And I also agree with you about the sexual assault. The evidence points to it, staged or not. But IMHO leaning more towards an outside intruder. I do think in all liklihood she was assaulted with The paintbrush handle to the genital area. Hence the unknown DNA on panties and leggings, blood spots and possible inflammation to the area caused by it.

[Wickerman]

Thinking for himself has everything to do with it. Trying to claim he had no choice helps to try and alleviate the guilty association one has when they lawyer up. What has nothing to do with it is as you say they corroborated on the sequence of events about lawyering up-I wasn't arguing that.

How I feel about Ramsey does come into because of what I just said about above said guilty conscience and how people lawyer up immediately when guilty.

I didnt want to get into all the politics but prefer to stick to the debate about specifically the circumstances of the case and who did it, but I just felt I had to get it off my chest about Ramsey, and hunter.
I'm going to refrain from this aspect of the case moving forward. Ok with you?

Hi Abby.
Ok, the circumstances are the most important, glad you got it off your chest though so yes, lets move on - we were doing so well.

[louisa]

If you dislike John R. because he's a rich controlling fat cat who can buy anything he wants then you likely dislike a lot of Americans - so his status in life makes him guilty does it?
Wonderful....and I though you were trying to stick to the evidence too.

I can see that you are struggling to justify your theories because now you have stooped to making personal attacks.

I couldn't give a rat's behind how rich people are. As for the 'fat cats' of this world I only wish that I was one of them!

If you had read my comment you would see that I said I was sickened to think that rich people can buy their way out of a murder wrap. (And that goes whether they are American, English, Mongolian, Eskimos, or whatever)

I think most people would agree with my last paragraph.

"Those were not "my" words, impartial investigators came to the same conclusion - neither the FBI nor the Boulder Police have, to my knowledge, ever explained why they released so many false "facts" which just happen to implicate the Ramsey's."

Yes those are your words Wickerman.

What false facts did they release to the police?


'Knew"? - what do you mean "the police knew they did it"?,

They knew. Only one meaning of that isn't there? The atmosphere in the house, the lack of a phone call from the 'kidnapper', the demeanour of the parents. If I were to write a list of why I believe the Ramseys are guilty of this crime it would be longer than the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Your reasons why you think an intruder killed JonBenet would be like a grain of sand on one side of a pair of scales compared with a ton of lead on the other side giving reasons why the Ramseys are guilty.