JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Wickerman]

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!)

The Cornell University Law School doesn't know the meaning of rape?, ok, then maybe I should advise them to contact you to set them straight.
I'm sure they'll appreciate that.

[Wickerman]

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

Kolar worded it more cautiously, Ramsey believed everything was secure.
I have not looked for Ramsey's own statement yet.

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?

Two photographs of the exterior of the house are referred to. In one photo the butler door is open, in the other it is closed. It is not known what time each of these photo's was taken.

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.

That has been suggested due to the baseball bat being left almost beside that door. Whether that bat has anything to do with the crime is unknown.

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?

The window well was only about 16 inch deep outside that window. The window is small, only about 25" x 20". So not easy when the window itself is 4-5 ft high off the floor.
Remember too, the window did not swing open fully because of a fixture, ductwork?, or some permanent obstruction running across the back of those windows.

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!

There are many cases of intruders molesting and sexually interfering with their victims, all being classed as 'rape'. I find it difficult to believe you are not aware of this. The line between sexual assault & rape is very grey, but rape does not always require intercourse to take place.
That much is clear.
I do understand your reluctance to admit this because your case against Patsy falls flat if we acknowledge the killer may have used oral sex on her (suggestion of saliva in her panties?), and that would be rape.

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

That is not unusual. The boot prints in the basement were not identified, the human hair on her blanket, animal hairs and other peculiarities are still to be resolved.
Therefore it is incorrect to assert that an intruder left no trace behind.

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.

On the subject of "changing with the wind", how are you going with your recent inclination towards Burke being the culprit?

[GUT]

Rape is actually sexual penetration without consent, (well in every jurisdiction I've ever looked at (however the penetration need not be by the penis, nor in the vagina, nor of any depth) thus placing the tongue, or finger or any other part of the body, is placed against the vaginal area, without consent, it is near certain that it consititues rape.

Given Jon Bennetts age it would almost certainly constitute statutory rape if anything did occur.

[Wickerman]

Thankyou GUT.

Essentially, that is how the Cornell Univ. website describes "rape".

Quote:
Rape.—Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by....

Then further down it defines "sexual act".
Given in full here for anyone to brush up on - especially (B).

Sexual act.—The term “sexual act” means—

(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or

(B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

[Wickerman]

The question that astonishes me is the suggestion that a mother would go to that extreme with her own daughter (insert object into vagina) to fabricate a crime scene. Not only was it totally unnecessary but it beggars belief.

[Abby Normal]

The question that astonishes me is the suggestion that a mother would go to that extreme with her own daughter (insert object into vagina) to fabricate a crime scene. Not only was it totally unnecessary but it beggars belief.

I agree for the most part. I could see Either of the two males in the house doing it though.

But then again it was Patsy's paintbrush and she was a total nut job.

But I agree, the penetration/sexual assault points to an intruder IMHO.

[GUT]

Thankyou GUT.

Essentially, that is how the Cornell Univ. website describes "rape".

Quote:
Rape.—Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by....

Then further down it defines "sexual act".
Given in full here for anyone to brush up on - especially (B).

Sexual act.—The term “sexual act” means—

(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or

(B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

Sounds right, of course the ultimate answer would be found in the legislation, that applies to the State, I am pretty sure criminal legislation relating to issues is a State responsibility in the USA, but every common law jurisdiction I've looked at has it very similar anyway.

[louisa]

Thankyou GUT.

Essentially, that is how the Cornell Univ. website describes "rape".

Quote:
Rape.—Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by....

Then further down it defines "sexual act".
Given in full here for anyone to brush up on - especially (B).

Sexual act.—The term “sexual act” means—

(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or

(B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

The Cornell University Law School doesn't know the meaning of rape?, ok, then maybe I should advise them to contact you to set them straight.
I'm sure they'll appreciate that.

No, Wicksy - it's YOU who doesn't understand.

JONBENET WAS NOT RAPED!!!!

That is the issue here. You keep saying that she was!

All I am asking is that you show me one website where it is claimed she was raped.

[louisa]

The question that astonishes me is the suggestion that a mother would go to that extreme with her own daughter (insert object into vagina) to fabricate a crime scene. Not only was it totally unnecessary but it beggars belief.

You already know the reasons why that was done. I've explained it over and over to you already. One word - STAGING.

If Burke did it then it was not staging but sexual curiosity. As explained in my earlier post.

What actually beggars belief is that reasonably intelligent people still buy into this 'intruder' theory.

There are many cases of intruders molesting and sexually interfering with their victims, all being classed as 'rape'. I find it difficult to believe you are not aware of this.

Show me one.


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?

The window well was only about 16 inch deep outside that window. The window is small, only about 25" x 20". So not easy when the window itself is 4-5 ft high off the floor.
Remember too, the window did not swing open fully because of a fixture, ductwork?, or some permanent obstruction running across the back of those windows.

Well your hero Lou Smit managed (on video) to get through it with no problem.

Wicksy - You're hilarious! When it suits you you are saying that an intruder could easily get through the window, yet when I ask why he could not have taken JonBenet's body out the same way you change your opinion and say the window was too small and difficult to manoevre.

Priceless!


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

That is not unusual. The boot prints in the basement were not identified, the human hair on her blanket, animal hairs and other peculiarities are still to be resolved.

Incorrect. It IS unusual and you know it.

I have already explained about all this fluff and hairs tripe that you keep churning out like it's some kind of mantra.......that blanket had been in the tumble drier where other items had been. Static makes fluff cling to blankets and JonBenet's bedroom had been slept in by many other people, as the housekeeper knows.
Therefore it is incorrect to assert that an intruder left no trace behind.

The official line is that the INTRUDER LEFT NOTHING OF HIMSELF BEHIND.

I know you hate this fact but it happens to be the truth.

What 'other peculiarities' are you talking about?

You refer to 'boot prints' there was only one print found and it has been established that it could have belonged to any of the 2,000 invited guests who tramped through the house a week or so before during the Ramsey's 'open house' Christmas party. The same goes for a palm print that was found on a basement door.

[louisa]

how are you going with your recent inclination towards Burke being the culprit?

I gave my entire theory yesterday, in detail.

It makes a huge amount more sense than your convoluted 'bogus intruder' theory.

[Abby Normal]

You already know the reasons why that was done. I've explained it over and over to you already. One word - STAGING.

If Burke did it then it was not staging but sexual curiosity. As explained in my earlier post.

What actually beggars belief is that reasonably intelligent people still buy into this 'intruder' theory.



Show me one.


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?



Well your hero Lou Smit managed (on video) to get through it with no problem.

Wicksy - You're hilarious! When it suits you you are saying that an intruder could easily get through the window, yet when I ask why he could not have taken JonBenet's body out the same way you change your opinion and say the window was too small and difficult to manoevre.

Priceless!


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



Incorrect. It IS unusual and you know it.

I have already explained about all this fluff and hairs tripe that you keep churning out like it's some kind of mantra.......that blanket had been in the tumble drier where other items had been. Static makes fluff cling to blankets and JonBenet's bedroom had been slept in by many other people, as the housekeeper knows.
Therefore it is incorrect to assert that an intruder left no trace behind.

The official line is that the INTRUDER LEFT NOTHING OF HIMSELF BEHIND.

I know you hate this fact but it happens to be the truth.

What 'other peculiarities' are you talking about?

You refer to 'boot prints' there was only one print found and it has been established that it could have belonged to any of the 2,000 invited guests who tramped through the house a week or so before during the Ramsey's 'open house' Christmas party. The same goes for a palm print that was found on a basement door.

they had also had workers through the house on recent work they had done so the boot print(s) and palm print could have come from one of them.

in all fairness though-if the un identified dna found on Jonbenet was from an intruder than he did leave traces behind. There is also the flashlight and bag with rope and the cord used to tie her hands/ garrotte. If it was an intruder he was probably wearing gloves which would account for the lack of fingerprints on any of these items.

[louisa]

I agree for the most part. I could see Either of the two males in the house doing it though.

But then again it was Patsy's paintbrush and she was a total nut job.

So is the son. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Grinning inanely at all questions put to him. People can try and brush this away saying that he was nervous, but it seems very strange behaviour for one who is being reminded of a traumatic event.

As far as I know he has never had a job either. His father fudges the issue by referring vaguely to his son having some job in a "Hi Tech industry" but there's no record it him working anywhere. He's probably doing the same as his father is doing these days - living off the money they get from law suits.

[Abby Normal]

all
I think a huge point is the amount of the ransome in the letter and the apparent statement by Jon that he left paperwork that stated this amount where an intruder (while they were out) could have found it.

I have not been able to locate this statement of his in any "official" account though. I recently read the woodward book where she says he said this, but no official citation was given and her book is ridiculously biased in favor of the ramseys so I take it with a grain of salt.

can anyone locate any official police record where he is said this and/or follow up from the police to locate said paperwork?


if he lied about leaving the bonus amount lying around-huge red flag obviously.

[louisa]

they had also had workers through the house on recent work they had done so the boot print(s) and palm print could have come from one of them.

in all fairness though-if the un identified dna found on Jonbenet was from an intruder than he did leave traces behind. There is also the flashlight and bag with rope and the cord used to tie her hands/ garrotte. If it was an intruder he was probably wearing gloves which would account for the lack of fingerprints on any of these items.

Exactly.

The DNA found on JB was never proved to have come from an intruder.

A person sexually molesting somebody would not wear gloves.

The flashlight was found to have been wiped clean and the batteries had also been removed and wiped.

A rope was found but in a spare bedroom with a lot of other junk that people tend to store in spare bedrooms. It had no significance, other than to people like Lou Smit.

The remnants of cord or duct tape, etc., could easily have been put into John's golf bag (the one he specifically asked Pam to get him the day after the murder) or else Patsy could have walked out the same day when she left the house, with all the evidence in her purse. She wasn't an official suspect and knew she would not be searched.

In crime scene photos John's golf bag is pictured directly outside the basement room where JonBenet's body was found.

[Abby Normal]

So is the son. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Grinning inanely at all questions put to him. People can try and brush this away saying that he was nervous, but it seems very strange behaviour for one who is being reminded of a traumatic event.

As far as I know he has never had a job either. His father fudges the issue by referring vaguely to his son having some job in a "Hi Tech industry" but there's no record it him working anywhere. He's probably doing the same as his father is doing these days - living off the money they get from law suits.

well if the stories of him spreading his feces around on her stuff are true and hitting her with a golf club then I definitely could see some insane jealousy and sexual frustration playing a part.