JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Wickerman]

as I keep saying motive is confusing in this case, even if it was an intruder, so just go with the evidence. which IMHO points to someone in the house.

If we only look at the family, and I know you're not going to agree with this but John is the only one who comes across to me as genuine.
I could go into to all the reason's why I see this but for now I will only say that Patsy is untrustworthy and Burke seemed too distant.

I think Burke had Attention Deficit Disorder, I recognise the symptoms due to my grandson being diagnosed with this condition. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this in official sources.

So all that said, I had to wonder (purely being devils advocate here), if Burke was responsible in some way as an instigator, Patsy discovered the tragedy, and it was Patsy who convinced John that there must have been an intruder. He genuinely thinks there was an intruder.

If there really was no intruder then Patsy co-ordinated the whole deception, fooling John along with everyone else. There are obvious holes in this scenario too, but then no scenario yet offered is without criticism.

[Wickerman]

Burke wouldn't have done it, got away with it, and not reoffended. If he had accidentally struck his sister on the head, sure, but not garroting her to death. And the notion that John & Patsy strangled her to stage an intruder is equally absurd.

Agreed, on all points.

[Abby Normal]

If we only look at the family, and I know you're not going to agree with this but John is the only one who comes across to me as genuine.
I could go into to all the reason's why I see this but for now I will only say that Patsy is untrustworthy and Burke seemed too distant.

I think Burke had Attention Deficit Disorder, I recognise the symptoms due to my grandson being diagnosed with this condition. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this in official sources.

So all that said, I had to wonder (purely being devils advocate here), if Burke was responsible in some way as an instigator, Patsy discovered the tragedy, and it was Patsy who convinced John that there must have been an intruder. He genuinely thinks there was an intruder.

If there really was no intruder then Patsy co-ordinated the whole deception, fooling John along with everyone else. There are obvious holes in this scenario too, but then no scenario yet offered is without criticism.

Interesting.

But I think the simplest and most likely scenario is that patsy abused, killed and covered up the murder. She wrote the note. Burke and Jon may or may not have known or had anything to do with it.
If I was in the grand jury I would have returned an indictment for Patsy for murder and John the same one he got.

[Wickerman]

There was recent interview shown, I think on CNN, where John was asked about why he phoned his pilot shortly after the discovery of JB's body.

He said because they had nowhere to live. The police had taken possession of the house as a crime scene meaning the family had to move out.
As they had nowhere to go they thought they should just move home. They apparently still viewed Atlanta as their real home.

John also said that he and Patsy had been making preparations for the result of the Grand Jury decision being an indictment.

John had signed custodial papers for Burke to be taken by John's brother, and (this is the funny bit), Patsy was in a fluster, she said she was even packing a suitcase just in case they had to go to prison - "I mean, what do you pack to wear in a prison"?, she said. Lol!
Talk about being out of touch.

[Wickerman]

But I think the simplest and most likely scenario is that patsy abused, killed and covered up the murder. She wrote the note. Burke and Jon may or may not have known or had anything to do with it.

It just seems beyond belief to me that a mother who really did adore her daughter (no question there), could make & apply that garrotte - even if the head wound was the result of an accident.
The mothers first instinct is to call 911 for help, after all, JB would have just collapsed on the floor. There was no outward indication of the severity of that head wound. So, equally no reason at all to make that ligature and then strangle her daughter.
An intruder could just as easily have hit her daughter over the head, so why make that garrotte?

Then there's the two abrasions on her face & back.
If they are not burn marks from a tazer, then they are supposed to be marks from being hit by a piece of train track.
Are we supposed to think Patsy hit her with a piece of track?

I think this piece of track argument, points directly to Burke.
I think the garrotte points to an intruder.
And, I think the 'note' points to Patsy (among others).
John was duped, his only crime was to protect his family.

This is the main problem for me, certain critical pieces of evidence point in different directions.

[Wickerman]

but who really knows what evil lurks in the heart of men (or women for that matter, or a boy)? I know I don't and there are some really twisted people out there. Just look at the case of Karla Homolka, who with her husband raped, tortured and murdered her own younger sister. Karla had no priors and they did this on Xmass eve no less!
There are also scores of parents who physically/sexually abused and ended up killing their children with no known priors.

I do agree with this, what I think is different though is, the familial relationship is nothing like the same.
To make an honest comparison we need prior cases where a mother worshiped her child, but for whatever reason killed the child.

There are no shortage of cases where the parents were responsible but the child was an inconvenience. JonBenet was not regarded as an inconvenience by either parent, quite the opposite, they spoiled the girl.

[Abby Normal]

It just seems beyond belief to me that a mother who really did adore her daughter (no question there), could make & apply that garrotte - even if the head wound was the result of an accident.
The mothers first instinct is to call 911 for help, after all, JB would have just collapsed on the floor. There was no outward indication of the severity of that head wound. So, equally no reason at all to make that ligature and then strangle her daughter.
An intruder could just as easily have hit her daughter over the head, so why make that garrotte?

Then there's the two abrasions on her face & back.
If they are not burn marks from a tazer, then they are supposed to be marks from being hit by a piece of train track.
Are we supposed to think Patsy hit her with a piece of track?

I think this piece of track argument, points directly to Burke.
I think the garrotte points to an intruder.
And, I think the 'note' points to Patsy (among others).
John was duped, his only crime was to protect his family.

This is the main problem for me, certain critical pieces of evidence point in different directions.

Hi wick. Agree. But they point in less different directions if you can accept the possibility that patsy did it. And it wasnt an accident. She killed her while she was sexually abusing her and tried to cover it up. This pretty much answers most of you questions above except perhaps that you cant Beleive that a mother could do that to her daughter.

[Abby Normal]

I do agree with this, what I think is different though is, the familial relationship is nothing like the same.
To make an honest comparison we need prior cases where a mother worshiped her child, but for whatever reason killed the child.

There are no shortage of cases where the parents were responsible but the child was an inconvenience. JonBenet was not regarded as an inconvenience by either parent, quite the opposite, they spoiled the girl.

Well first of all it is a very honest comparison. The sister wasn't an inconvenience either, the other sister was just a sick **** and wanted to do it to her. And it's close enough anyway...

It has nothing to do with JonBenet being an inconvenience.

[louisa]

Well you already know what I think - probably the same thing as most people who know all the details about this case.

There was NO intruder. The idea is ridiculous in the extreme.

The head injury was an accident - most probably and the strangulation was done for kicks by the son.

The kids went down to the kitchen, ate some pineapple then went down to the basement.

BR hit JBR with the flashlight and panicked when she went down like a ton of bricks. He dragged her by her shirt collar over to the cellar room intending to hide her body (the way a kid would think) but eventually strangled her, for reasons of his own.

PR came down to find out what had happened, and when she saw her daughter's body she screamed and ran up to fetch John.

They HAD to invent an intruder. They would have seen it as the only way of saving their son from being institutionalised.

The couple then staged the scene which included putting the paintbrush handle into the tape to maike it look like a garrote - thinking the police would be more likely to think a non-family member had done the deed.

The couple probably thought that once the 'kidnapper's' telephone call didn't come then the police would vacate the premises and leave them alone. The Ramseys wouldn't have thought the police would search the house. Their child had been 'taken' after all.

Once the police went then the Ramseys could 'discover' JBR's body in the basement room - the kidnapper had killed her and returned her body to them because they had gone against instructions and called the police.

Except there was one problem....the police showed no sign of leaving.

John had to 'discover' the body himself.



Anyone who still seriously thinks there was an intruder needs their bumps felt.

[Wickerman]

This is predominantly a DNA case, as has been made clear by several officials.
What has been established with certainty is, that none of the DNA evidence points to anyone in the Ramsey family.

Yet....
Police officials are STILL pursuing DNA evidence - as has been recently reported on by the new District Attorney.
If the intruder theory was so "ridiculous in the extreme", the police wouldn't be doing this.

There is clearly an expectation that the DNA holds a clue towards a suspect outside the family.

[Pcdunn]

I'm not sure what I think just now. Watched a TV documentary tonight called "Overkill: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey" which has left me mulling over several nuggets of information. It was produced by Lawrence Schiller, author of the book "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town", and presented several questions, most without a clear answer, related to the case and the politics and players in the investigation.

Steve Thomas and Lou Smit are both talked about and appear in footage, as does Alex Hunter. We also cover the muddle made by the release of JBR's Toddler Beauty Pageant photos to the press, as well as leaks from both side of the investigation. Steve Thomas even admitted in 2001 that he leaked information to journalists like Schiller, not all it true.

Lou Smit believed in the Intruder Theory until the day he died, apparently because he saw no sense in a doting mother killing her daughter and staging it in such a way. Steve Thomas, on the other hand, believed in Patsy's guilt completely, and even laid out his "scenario" in a public speech.

Alex Hunter, knowing he couldn't press the case against the Ramseys and win with the evidence they had, despite the True Bills returned by the Grand Jury, chose to simply not indict anyone.

It aired on the cable channel Reelz if anyone is interested in seeing if it is available on demand.

[louisa]

This is NOT "a DNA case".

Alex Hunter was unable to prosecute EVEN THOUGH the Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramseys. His hands were tied because the culprit was under 10 years of age. Everyone connected with this case knew the true reasons why the case had to be swept under the carpet.

The Ramseys could not be prosecuted for assisting a First Degree Murder (which is exactly what the True Bills stated) because the couple would have to stand trial and the jury would obviously need to know exactly WHO they were assisting.

As for Lou Smit - the DA would not allow most of his oddball theories (all of which were proved to be erroneous and containing factual errors) to be presented in court.

Quote from Lou Smit on LKL 05-28-2001:

"I believe that perhaps they should get in fresh minds and fresh eyes, experienced people that can take a look at this case with an unbiased view point. That means getting rid of perhaps even the detectives that are working on it now. Getting rid of Lou Smit. Let somebody else in there that can objectively take a look at that case."

Even Lou Smit admits he is biased and suggest sombody else should be looking at the case objectively. Yet his biased "hypothisis" was allowed to be accepted by Judge Carnes as "fact."


Question: In 1999, Alex Hunter prohibited by court order the testimony of Lou Smit. Smit had the order overturned. Since they both promoted the intruder theory, why would Hunter not want Smit to testify?

Beckner :I'm guessing is that it is because Lou Smit had taken the case public and was misrepresenting some of the evidence.


On the other forums dedicated to JonBenet - Lou Smit's name is hardly ever mentioned these days, And the 'intruder theory' has been analysed over and over and found to be the sham is always was.

On Websleuths it is the rule not to waste the forum's time with any more 'intruder' theories. The website has hundreds of dedicated threads as does Topix.

If anyone wants information, and lively discussions, regarding this case they should look on those websites.

[louisa]

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey/ci_30666467/jonbenet-ramsey-grand-juror-interview

[Abby Normal]

This is NOT "a DNA case".

Alex Hunter was unable to prosecute EVEN THOUGH the Grand Jury voted to indict the Ramseys. His hands were tied because the culprit was under 10 years of age. Everyone connected with this case knew the true reasons why the case had to be swept under the carpet.

The Ramseys could not be prosecuted for assisting a First Degree Murder (which is exactly what the True Bills stated) because the couple would have to stand trial and the jury would obviously need to know exactly WHO they were assisting.

As for Lou Smit - the DA would not allow most of his oddball theories (all of which were proved to be erroneous and containing factual errors) to be presented in court.

Quote from Lou Smit on LKL 05-28-2001:

"I believe that perhaps they should get in fresh minds and fresh eyes, experienced people that can take a look at this case with an unbiased view point. That means getting rid of perhaps even the detectives that are working on it now. Getting rid of Lou Smit. Let somebody else in there that can objectively take a look at that case."

Even Lou Smit admits he is biased and suggest sombody else should be looking at the case objectively. Yet his biased "hypothisis" was allowed to be accepted by Judge Carnes as "fact."


Question: In 1999, Alex Hunter prohibited by court order the testimony of Lou Smit. Smit had the order overturned. Since they both promoted the intruder theory, why would Hunter not want Smit to testify?

Beckner :I'm guessing is that it is because Lou Smit had taken the case public and was misrepresenting some of the evidence.


On the other forums dedicated to JonBenet - Lou Smit's name is hardly ever mentioned these days, And the 'intruder theory' has been analysed over and over and found to be the sham is always was.

On Websleuths it is the rule not to waste the forum's time with any more 'intruder' theories. The website has hundreds of dedicated threads as does Topix.

If anyone wants information, and lively discussions, regarding this case they should look on those websites.

Agree. Unless this new round of testing comes up with a clean accurate reading, the DNA evidence is dead. If its not already.

[louisa]

Agree. Unless this new round of testing comes up with a clean accurate reading, the DNA evidence is dead. If its not already.

Hi Abby,

I think for as long as we live there will always be something 'new' in this case. New DNA or new suspects or whatever. We have to expect it.

It's still interesting to see what they come up with.

The owner of the website Websleuths has a radio show and she has Lawrence Schiller, the author of Perfect Murder Perfect Town, on there later tonight. I wish we could get that show over here.

She'll probably print a transcription of the show on Websleuths though.