shamu
Inactive
and if we were talking about sexual deviancy, that opinion might mean something. But staging isn't sexual deviancy.
(btw not that it matters here but "sexual deviancy" is not necessarily "evident;" ask the Van Dams)
Who do you think is guilty? I'm relatively new here and...
- Thread starter blueclouds
- Start date
New Posts
-
TRIAL OF CHAD DAYBELL CHARGED WITH MURDER OF JJ VALLOW, TYLEE RYAN AND TAMMY DAYBELL #3- Latest: Love Never Fails
(btw not that it matters here but "sexual deviancy" is not necessarily "evident;" ask the Van Dams)
Ivy
Inactive
sissi and ajt400, here is why_nutt's actual quote. Please note the phrase I highlighted in blue. As you will see, why_nutt did not say what you claim s/he did.
ajt, please explain to those of us who are skeptics what makes the "foreign DNA at the scene pretty strong evidence that someone else was there." I urge you to read MIBRO's thread, "Just for you, Ned and Ivy" on page 3 of the archived threads. There are other archived threads discussing the so-called "foreign" DNA too, if you want to take the time to search. Some DNA-related threads are on this very page, I believe.
The Ramseys weren't searched before they left the house on the 26th, and despite what Toth claims, Pam Paugh removed many items from the house that were not accounted for. The duct (not masking) tape roll and the remainder of the cord (if there was any) could have been taken by the Ramseys or by Paugh. Btw, can the purchase of every item you own or have ever owned be tracked?
John and Patsy's Plan A may have been to remove JonBenet's body from the house. Maybe they decided against doing so because when it came right down to it, they couldn't bear the thought of dumping the body of their precious daughter. There could have been a lot of different reasons why they changed their minds, including being afraid of being seen or heard driving away by the neighbors and of leaving tire tracks in the dusting of snow in the driveway. Also, what if the vehicle's engine was still warm when the police arrived after the 911 call, and the police felt the hood? It's also possible JonBenet's body wouldn't fit in a suitcase because rigor had begun to set in by the time the Ramseys finished the ransom note, and they didn't want to dump JonBenet's body without some kind of protection against dogs and other animals. Regardless, the Ramseys had to produce "evidence" of an intruder to show the police, and writing a phony ransom note was the only way they could do it. Whether they removed the body from the house or left it there, the note was a MUST to "prove" to law enforcement that an intruder had sneaked into the house and killed JonBenet.
John Douglas, who didn't know beans about the case, was hired by the Ramseys, and he spoke only with John, not Patsy. Some profiler.
Lou Smit lost his heart to the Ramseys upon learning that, like his wife, Patsy was fighting cancer. Lou, John and Patsy prayed together, which strengthened their bond. There is no way on God's green earth that Lou Smit will ever turn on them. He's obviously in a deep state of denial regarding their involvement. Speaking of Lou Smit, his intruder demonstration on TV was both pathetic and hilarious. I don't agree with Steve Thomas's PDI theory, but he's a heck of lot better detective than Smit. Not as hunky though...lol
ajt, I think it's you who's just scratching the surface.
ajt, please explain to those of us who are skeptics what makes the "foreign DNA at the scene pretty strong evidence that someone else was there." I urge you to read MIBRO's thread, "Just for you, Ned and Ivy" on page 3 of the archived threads. There are other archived threads discussing the so-called "foreign" DNA too, if you want to take the time to search. Some DNA-related threads are on this very page, I believe.
The Ramseys weren't searched before they left the house on the 26th, and despite what Toth claims, Pam Paugh removed many items from the house that were not accounted for. The duct (not masking) tape roll and the remainder of the cord (if there was any) could have been taken by the Ramseys or by Paugh. Btw, can the purchase of every item you own or have ever owned be tracked?
John and Patsy's Plan A may have been to remove JonBenet's body from the house. Maybe they decided against doing so because when it came right down to it, they couldn't bear the thought of dumping the body of their precious daughter. There could have been a lot of different reasons why they changed their minds, including being afraid of being seen or heard driving away by the neighbors and of leaving tire tracks in the dusting of snow in the driveway. Also, what if the vehicle's engine was still warm when the police arrived after the 911 call, and the police felt the hood? It's also possible JonBenet's body wouldn't fit in a suitcase because rigor had begun to set in by the time the Ramseys finished the ransom note, and they didn't want to dump JonBenet's body without some kind of protection against dogs and other animals. Regardless, the Ramseys had to produce "evidence" of an intruder to show the police, and writing a phony ransom note was the only way they could do it. Whether they removed the body from the house or left it there, the note was a MUST to "prove" to law enforcement that an intruder had sneaked into the house and killed JonBenet.
John Douglas, who didn't know beans about the case, was hired by the Ramseys, and he spoke only with John, not Patsy. Some profiler.
Lou Smit lost his heart to the Ramseys upon learning that, like his wife, Patsy was fighting cancer. Lou, John and Patsy prayed together, which strengthened their bond. There is no way on God's green earth that Lou Smit will ever turn on them. He's obviously in a deep state of denial regarding their involvement. Speaking of Lou Smit, his intruder demonstration on TV was both pathetic and hilarious. I don't agree with Steve Thomas's PDI theory, but he's a heck of lot better detective than Smit. Not as hunky though...lol
ajt, I think it's you who's just scratching the surface.
Toth
Inactive
when not found in her bed, and not left handed, and not having a name beginning with "J", ...
Drawing rather narrow strawmen.
Drawing rather narrow strawmen.
Jayelles
New Member
Intriguing.
lannie
New Member
ajt, welcome !! I was new at this once many years ago & typed myself into the middle of wedslethers & only two members took the time to welcome me ,Imon & Maxie ,so may I in websleuths tradition,say WELCOME and GLAD you are here, you thoughts seem to come from your heart ,typing here will cause you to think & grow & somethimes growing in Knowlage is painfull & anytime we dissagree please know that it is not OF you ,,just with some of the conclusions you have brought to the table , so stay with us ,continue to post on JB's behalf, in trying to keep this case (crime ) in the forfront of public opinion so that one day something will have to be done about the great disservice that has been done to little JonBenet.
Toth
Inactive
Was this because the cop so admired her he even helped carry some of those 'tons of stuff' out to the car for her?
Ivy
Inactive
Toth, please don't misquote me. I didn't spell "despite" "Tdespite." Are you trying to make me look like a bad spaler?
Anyway, good question. Who knows...maybe Pam got away with lots of extra stuff because Everett not only admired her but thought she was the prettiest little thing he'd ever laid eyes on.
From Steve Thomas's book, page 52
Everett kept only a general inventory of what was removed, and even that abbreviated listing was astonishing. Stuffed animals, tiaras, three dresses for JonBenet, pageant photo portfolios, toys and clothes for Burke, John Ramsey's Daytime, the desk Bible, and clothing. For Patsy, there were black pants, dress suits, boots, and the contents of the curio cabinet. Bills, credit cards, a black cashmere trench coat, jewelry that included her grandmother's ring and an emerald necklace, bathrobes, a cell phone, personal papers, bank records, Christmas stockings, her Nordstrom's credit card, and even their passports. The patrol car was loaded with zipped bags, boxes, sacks, and luggage, the true contents unknown.
Anyway, good question. Who knows...maybe Pam got away with lots of extra stuff because Everett not only admired her but thought she was the prettiest little thing he'd ever laid eyes on.
From Steve Thomas's book, page 52
Everett kept only a general inventory of what was removed, and even that abbreviated listing was astonishing. Stuffed animals, tiaras, three dresses for JonBenet, pageant photo portfolios, toys and clothes for Burke, John Ramsey's Daytime, the desk Bible, and clothing. For Patsy, there were black pants, dress suits, boots, and the contents of the curio cabinet. Bills, credit cards, a black cashmere trench coat, jewelry that included her grandmother's ring and an emerald necklace, bathrobes, a cell phone, personal papers, bank records, Christmas stockings, her Nordstrom's credit card, and even their passports. The patrol car was loaded with zipped bags, boxes, sacks, and luggage, the true contents unknown.
Britt
New Member
Exactamundo, shamu, and touché!
Ivy - great posts. Thank you for posting the Thomas excerpt and for your other countermeasures against misinformation (especially the measured kind, ifyouknowwhatImean).
lannie - you're right and good post. Where are my manners? Welcome to ajt.
Welcome also to blueclouds to the JBR forum. TLynn
New Member
Sissy, the neighbor said he saw JAR walking up to the house.
The NEXT DAY, John's detectives TOLD BARNHILL (the neighbor) it couldn't have been JAR as he was in Georgia - then, Barnhill changed his story.
The cord had excessive length on it (17"), revealing no purpose in the loose tying of the cords around her wrist - the cord was used up...there was no cord to take out of the house.
And the end of the cord? Isn't that what Shapiro found outside in the tree...nice touch, throwing it out the window.
Just where is the window in JonBenet's room to the tree? Could that be why her drapes were messed up behind her bedboard?
The NEXT DAY, John's detectives TOLD BARNHILL (the neighbor) it couldn't have been JAR as he was in Georgia - then, Barnhill changed his story.
The cord had excessive length on it (17"), revealing no purpose in the loose tying of the cords around her wrist - the cord was used up...there was no cord to take out of the house.
And the end of the cord? Isn't that what Shapiro found outside in the tree...nice touch, throwing it out the window.
Just where is the window in JonBenet's room to the tree? Could that be why her drapes were messed up behind her bedboard?
sissi
Former Member
TLinn quote:Sissy, the neighbor said he saw JAR walking up to the house.
YES! He did admit not being able to identify JAR,that does not take away from the fact he saw a person about the size and general appearance of JAR.
Shapiro found rope,it didn't match the garotte. I DO NOT KNOW what else he found,that which made him change his mind about Ramsey guilt.
IMO JMO
YES! He did admit not being able to identify JAR,that does not take away from the fact he saw a person about the size and general appearance of JAR.
Shapiro found rope,it didn't match the garotte. I DO NOT KNOW what else he found,that which made him change his mind about Ramsey guilt.
IMO JMO
A
ajt400
Guest
Hello everyone, thank you for welcoming me, despite my posts. I am and always have been intrigued by this crime. I wonder sometimes if they will ever prosecute anyone for this murder and it makes me angry! I used to believe the parents did it, now I am not so sure....it seems the BPD just followed a scent without looking in any other directions.
I know the evidence of foreign DNA on a body does not mean much, there have been cases where foreign DNA has been found and pointed detectives in the wrong direction. But doesn't anyone else here think it at least deserves a nod of recognition? Maybe they should check it out then they could say "Okay, this foreign DNA had nothing to do with this case?" I would feel better then, it wouldn't seem as if the BPD was just aimed at the Ramsey's despite evidence otherwise. In any other murder case DNA found on or around the body would warrant an investigation into where that DNA came from and why it was not connected to the crime.
My thing about sexual deviants and staging is I understand you don't have to be a sexual deviant to stage a crime scene, but where would that idea just enter someones head? Your child is killed accidentely and you stage her crime to look like 3 or 4 different crimes? How is that logical? (Maybe I am expecting too much from criminals)
Why go to such elaborate staging just to f*#& it up? Most people would stage the crime (i.e Diane Downs, Susan Smith, Darlie Routier, Liysa Northton) but they don't stage it to be a kidnapping-murder-everything else in the book.
Also, just curious, of all those child murders that occur in the US, how many FOUND THEIR OWN CHILDS BODY? Most want others to discover the body, not themselves. If anyone has an accurate average of this I would be very interested to read it.
My main concern is this:
I do want justice for JonBenet and others like her, BUT I do not think sending the wrong person-people to jail for her crime is justice.
I know the evidence of foreign DNA on a body does not mean much, there have been cases where foreign DNA has been found and pointed detectives in the wrong direction. But doesn't anyone else here think it at least deserves a nod of recognition? Maybe they should check it out then they could say "Okay, this foreign DNA had nothing to do with this case?" I would feel better then, it wouldn't seem as if the BPD was just aimed at the Ramsey's despite evidence otherwise. In any other murder case DNA found on or around the body would warrant an investigation into where that DNA came from and why it was not connected to the crime.
My thing about sexual deviants and staging is I understand you don't have to be a sexual deviant to stage a crime scene, but where would that idea just enter someones head? Your child is killed accidentely and you stage her crime to look like 3 or 4 different crimes? How is that logical? (Maybe I am expecting too much from criminals)
Why go to such elaborate staging just to f*#& it up? Most people would stage the crime (i.e Diane Downs, Susan Smith, Darlie Routier, Liysa Northton) but they don't stage it to be a kidnapping-murder-everything else in the book.
Also, just curious, of all those child murders that occur in the US, how many FOUND THEIR OWN CHILDS BODY? Most want others to discover the body, not themselves. If anyone has an accurate average of this I would be very interested to read it.
My main concern is this:
I do want justice for JonBenet and others like her, BUT I do not think sending the wrong person-people to jail for her crime is justice.
K777angel
Member
Sexual abuse is at the heart of this crime. Follow that scent and you will find your killer and the motivation behind wanting her dead. This is an age old story. Heinous and sad - but nothing new.
Her injuries were not just fresh - but "chronic." Meaning at least 48 hours old. This little girl was molested before the night of her murder.
We KNOW she was molested the night she died. And the forensic physical evidence does not lie. She was also molested during the week prior and possibly before.
There are some deep, dark secrets in that family.
It is probably "generational" as it usually is.
And the sad thing is that NO ONE talks.
Especially in a family where there is a LOT of money at stake.
These families are used to sweeping dirty secrets under the rug.
You don't talk about it - and it simply never happened.
You hide behind your status, money, big home, flashy cars, clothes, decorating, airplanes, boats, summer homes and vacations. You spend oodles of money on grooming your tiny daughter to be Miss America and glory in the spotlight you once had and can never recover. You are happy to stand in the beam of your daughter's spotlight. Because, as you always say, "Like Mother - Like Daugher." You even title a chapter in your book with this title. (Chapter 7)
Her injuries were not just fresh - but "chronic." Meaning at least 48 hours old. This little girl was molested before the night of her murder.
We KNOW she was molested the night she died. And the forensic physical evidence does not lie. She was also molested during the week prior and possibly before.
There are some deep, dark secrets in that family.
It is probably "generational" as it usually is.
And the sad thing is that NO ONE talks.
Especially in a family where there is a LOT of money at stake.
These families are used to sweeping dirty secrets under the rug.
You don't talk about it - and it simply never happened.
You hide behind your status, money, big home, flashy cars, clothes, decorating, airplanes, boats, summer homes and vacations. You spend oodles of money on grooming your tiny daughter to be Miss America and glory in the spotlight you once had and can never recover. You are happy to stand in the beam of your daughter's spotlight. Because, as you always say, "Like Mother - Like Daugher." You even title a chapter in your book with this title. (Chapter 7)
sissi
Former Member
Remember please,that there is no indication of chronic abuse!
Wecht was not the "expert" on the case,it is an opinion only.
Other's suggest the only chronic inflamation seen,could be caused by bubble bath or any other possible irritant.There were NO healing or healed injuries to suggest anything other than an acute injury caused by the person who killed her.
JMO
Wecht was not the "expert" on the case,it is an opinion only.
Other's suggest the only chronic inflamation seen,could be caused by bubble bath or any other possible irritant.There were NO healing or healed injuries to suggest anything other than an acute injury caused by the person who killed her.
JMO
Toth
Inactive
Wecht keeps telling us stuff like that, but he has never seen anything beyond the autopsy report that everyone else has, so how did he come up with such fanciful stuff?
A
ajt400
Guest
That's true, if people think that John Douglas has no place stating is opinion with the resources he had, then Cyril Wecht def. doesn't have any more info and shouldn't have any more credence here on this forum to relay his opinions.
A
ajt400
Guest
Also, is anyone looking into the question I asked earlier about parents who murder their children, "How many find the bodies?"
And, I don't believe in the America we are today and with the media we have now that a man, woman, or pair could sexually molest their daughter for years and NO ONE be able to find any concrete evidence of that AT ALL, even after 7 1/2 YEARS? Money or no money, you know the tabloids would be all over that in 2 seconds flat. That is alot of the reason that I don't think they killed her. I just don't believe this person could do this and conceal the inner being the way John Ramsey has (if it is him that you think is guilty). The same goes for Patsy.
I agree that this could be hidden BEFORE the fact, but after? I just think that if it could be found, it would have been by now.
And, I don't believe in the America we are today and with the media we have now that a man, woman, or pair could sexually molest their daughter for years and NO ONE be able to find any concrete evidence of that AT ALL, even after 7 1/2 YEARS? Money or no money, you know the tabloids would be all over that in 2 seconds flat. That is alot of the reason that I don't think they killed her. I just don't believe this person could do this and conceal the inner being the way John Ramsey has (if it is him that you think is guilty). The same goes for Patsy.
I agree that this could be hidden BEFORE the fact, but after? I just think that if it could be found, it would have been by now.
Britt
New Member
It HAS. Expert interpretation of the autopsy report tells us exactly that. JonBenét was sexually abused prior to the night she was killed.
Arguing about it is a waste of time. Serious truth seekers can do research and educate themselves. There's a whole lot more there than only Dr. Wecht's opinion.
But if you choose to ignore all that... then answer this: HOW would it be found out? If you don't believe what the child's dead body tells you, then how else could we, the public, ever expect to learn such a secret? It's not like the molester abused JB in front of witnesses. The only witness is dead! If there is a second witness, she is hiding behind lawyers and not talking.
Blazeboy3
Inactive
IT"S IN THE LATEST BOOK... AS OF NOW>>>READ/RE-READ IF YOU HAVE STRENGTH/COURAGE TO GO BEYOND NORMAL INFO/FYI?!
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1773&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
One of the threads asked about a new book on JonBenet Ramsey. I am the author of that book. It's an attempt to do some radically new things in order to shift attention back to what should have remained the focus of this case: the sexual abuse of children and the permanent psychological damage done when one sexualize a child in the way children are sexualized by Child Beauty Pageants. I also want, from the start, to indicate another thing that makes my book distinctive. I will not make a penny from it. I have established a Trust so that all money due me from the book and from productions of the play it contains will be devoted to Organizations who work on behalf of sexually abused children. That said, let me briefly describe the book.. An Evening With JonBenet Ramsey begins with a full-length play, Cowboy's Sweetheart, which imagines the life of a sexually abused and murdered child as it might have evolved had she lived. The play explores her psyche, her experience, and her struggle to deal with the traumatic memories that haunt her. (It tries, in effect, to give JonBenet the life that was taken from here.) The play is followed by two essays. They involve extensive research and consider the JonBenet Ramsey case from a number of perspectives. The discussion includes a critique of the media and of the two theories that have been developed to solve the crime. Again, my effort is to move the discussion to a new level. My name, by the way, is Walter A. Davis and I am a Professor Emeritus in the English Department at The Ohio State University. Like so many of you I first become involved in this story when I first saw a video of JonBenet "performing" and found myself in tears: "How could anyone do that to a child?" I asked. The book is a response to the pain of that question. Those who want the book can get it at a 15% discount on paperback and a 10% discount on hardcover from Xlibris: Call 888-795-4274, ext.276 or order online at www.xlibris.com. Or, of course, from Amazon.com.
I look forward to your responses and as a new member, to making a contribution to your discussions. Warm regards, Walter A. Davis
Blazeboy3
Inactive
:evil: ajt400 FWIW IMHO see it(the crime) for what it is...A SadStory of Trauma to JonBenet!
Blazeboy3
Inactive
OK HERE's A "CHALLENGE" FOR YOU TO ("READ)"Doubtful that you can read/understand/comprehend?!?!);READ THE FOLLOWING w/"UNDERSTANDING?!?!?"
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1773&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
AND COMPREHEND WHAT WAS STATED ... IN YOUR OWN WORDS
One of the threads asked about a new book on JonBenet Ramsey. I am the author of that book. It's an attempt to do some radically new things in order to shift attention back to what should have remained the focus of this case: the sexual abuse of children and the permanent psychological damage done when one sexualize a child in the way children are sexualized by Child Beauty Pageants. I also want, from the start, to indicate another thing that makes my book distinctive. I will not make a penny from it. I have established a Trust so that all money due me from the book and from productions of the play it contains will be devoted to Organizations who work on behalf of sexually abused children. That said, let me briefly describe the book.. An Evening With JonBenet Ramsey begins with a full-length play, Cowboy's Sweetheart, which imagines the life of a sexually abused and murdered child as it might have evolved had she lived. The play explores her psyche, her experience, and her struggle to deal with the traumatic memories that haunt her. (It tries, in effect, to give JonBenet the life that was taken from here.) The play is followed by two essays. They involve extensive research and consider the JonBenet Ramsey case from a number of perspectives. The discussion includes a critique of the media and of the two theories that have been developed to solve the crime. Again, my effort is to move the discussion to a new level. My name, by the way, is Walter A. Davis and I am a Professor Emeritus in the English Department at The Ohio State University. Like so many of you I first become involved in this story when I first saw a video of JonBenet "performing" and found myself in tears: "How could anyone do that to a child?" I asked. The book is a response to the pain of that question. Those who want the book can get it at a 15% discount on paperback and a 10% discount on hardcover from Xlibris: Call 888-795-4274, ext.276 or order online at www.xlibris.com. Or, of course, from Amazon.com.
I look forward to your responses and as a new member, to making a contribution to your discussions. Warm regards, Walter A. Davis
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1773&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1773&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
AND COMPREHEND WHAT WAS STATED ... IN YOUR OWN WORDS
One of the threads asked about a new book on JonBenet Ramsey. I am the author of that book. It's an attempt to do some radically new things in order to shift attention back to what should have remained the focus of this case: the sexual abuse of children and the permanent psychological damage done when one sexualize a child in the way children are sexualized by Child Beauty Pageants. I also want, from the start, to indicate another thing that makes my book distinctive. I will not make a penny from it. I have established a Trust so that all money due me from the book and from productions of the play it contains will be devoted to Organizations who work on behalf of sexually abused children. That said, let me briefly describe the book.. An Evening With JonBenet Ramsey begins with a full-length play, Cowboy's Sweetheart, which imagines the life of a sexually abused and murdered child as it might have evolved had she lived. The play explores her psyche, her experience, and her struggle to deal with the traumatic memories that haunt her. (It tries, in effect, to give JonBenet the life that was taken from here.) The play is followed by two essays. They involve extensive research and consider the JonBenet Ramsey case from a number of perspectives. The discussion includes a critique of the media and of the two theories that have been developed to solve the crime. Again, my effort is to move the discussion to a new level. My name, by the way, is Walter A. Davis and I am a Professor Emeritus in the English Department at The Ohio State University. Like so many of you I first become involved in this story when I first saw a video of JonBenet "performing" and found myself in tears: "How could anyone do that to a child?" I asked. The book is a response to the pain of that question. Those who want the book can get it at a 15% discount on paperback and a 10% discount on hardcover from Xlibris: Call 888-795-4274, ext.276 or order online at www.xlibris.com. Or, of course, from Amazon.com.
I look forward to your responses and as a new member, to making a contribution to your discussions. Warm regards, Walter A. Davis
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1773&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
DNASolves
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 222
- Guests online
- 4,138
- Total visitors
- 4,360