JonBenet: A Closer Look

[narlacat]

You are assumming that, as you put it, the Ramsey's are lying their heads off. That premise of yours is speculative, not factual


Wudge
How can you say the Ramsey's arent lying...have you not read any of Patsy and Johns interviews ?? They constantly contradict themselves in between not remembering anything.
They lied right from the start. Here's just a couple of their lies-
They said Burke was not awake that morning.
They said Burke did not own Hi-Tec boots.

 

[Wudge]

You are assumming that, as you put it, the Ramsey's are lying their heads off. That premise of yours is speculative, not factual


Wudge
How can you say the Ramsey's arent lying...have you not read any of Patsy and Johns interviews ?? They constantly contradict themselves in between not remembering anything.
They lied right from the start. Here's just a couple of their lies-
They said Burke was not awake that morning.
They said Burke did not own Hi-Tec boots.

Is this your opinion or fact?

Note, before you answer, do not try to represent media reporting or alleged backroom statements from LE as being either true or reliable.

Given that well-honed truth, please post your irrefutable source for the Ramsey's alleged lies, then post the unimpeachable proof that what they were irrefutably proven to have said were, indeed, lies.

After that, please define "lying your head off".

 

[narlacat]

Are you saying that John Ramsey's cell phone call transcript for December 1996 was "lost"??!?!??!!??!?!

I didn't know about this. Are you sure? If so, that really does point to a cover up doesn't it?

Guru
John Ramsey is on record saying that the police used his cell phone the morning of the 26th. But there are no calls listed for the entire month of December on John's cell phone records.
A cover up of this magnitude makes me think that BC's theory is right on target.

 

[Wudge]

Are you saying that John Ramsey's cell phone call transcript for December 1996 was "lost"??!?!??!!??!?!

I didn't know about this. Are you sure? If so, that really does point to a cover up doesn't it?

Guru
John Ramsey is on record saying that the police used his cell phone the morning of the 26th. But there are no calls listed for the entire month of December on John's cell phone records.
A cover up of this magnitude makes me think that BC's theory is right on target.

Asking me a question does not prove anything whatsover. Moreover, it is impoosible to deductively infer to a valid and true conclusion using premises that are assumption or belief or opinion based.

 

[narlacat]

Asking me a question does not prove anything whatsover. Moreover, it is impoosible to deductively infer to a valid and true conclusion using premises that are assumption or belief or opinion based.

Wudge
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I did not ask you a question.
I was quoting someone else who had asked a question and was replying to their question. I guess I should have made that clearer but if you had been following the thread properly you would have realised that.

 

[concernedperson]

Bobbisangel,

Why then are the Ramseys lying their heads off and covering up? Who are they protecting?

Their perceived notions of themselves. Something is terribly wrong with Patsy, IMO! And, John, isn't far behind, IMO!

 

[Wudge]

Wudge
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I did not ask you a question.
I was quoting someone else who had asked a question and was replying to their question. I guess I should have made that clearer but if you had been following the thread properly you would have realised that.

Your post that responded to mine started out with: "Are you saying that John Ramsey's cell phone call transcript for December 1996 was "lost"??!?!??!!??!?!"

I think it is fair to say that your reponse asked me a question.

More importantly, my initiating post to you, wherein I asked for unimpeachable proof that the Ramseys lied, remains unfulfilled. In other words, you have yet to provide such proof.

 

[BlueCrab]

You are assumming that, as you put it, the Ramsey's are lying their heads off. That premise of yours is speculative, not factual. If you want to develop valid and true inferences via deduction, you will need to substantially improve the veracity of your premises.

Read my tagline.

Wudge,

This is not a court of law. Websleuths is an OPINION forum. The information posted here is based on published accounts and other credible and/or reasonable sources. From this information it's our constitutional right to voice our individual opinions.

In my opinion the Ramseys ARE lying their heads off and attempting to coverup. This information is from the police interviews, from the published books on the case, and in a million other places. If you want to "develop valid and true inferences via deduction", then please enjoy yourself and go do it. We need only to provide credible sources and that's ALL that's necessary to develop a total theory on the case or on the individual items of evidence, direct or circumstantial, on the case -- such as lies and coverups.

BlueCrab

 

[narlacat]

Your post that responded to mine started out with: "Are you saying that John Ramsey's cell phone call transcript for December 1996 was "lost"??!?!??!!??!?!"

I think it is fair to say that your reponse asked me a question.

More importantly, my initiating post to you, wherein I asked for unimpeachable proof that the Ramseys lied, remains unfulfilled. In other words, you have yet to provide such proof.

Look Wudge
Scroll up.....look back at the posts....I wasnt asking anyone a question ,I was trying to answer one. Gurujosh asked the question. I quoted his question so he knew i was answering it.
As for you asking for proof, these things dont take 2 minutes Wudge, they take time to go look up.
And right at this moment in time,I dont have time to do that. I came here for a quick look and was just reading all the highlighted threads.
I will respond to your post asap in between trying to have a life.

 

[Pepper]

I'm going to take the unpopular view here and jump in and say I don't think the Ramseys had anything to do with JBR's death or any so-called "cover-up."

I saw bits and pieces of the TV program between the time I was falling asleep. This program did not convince me of anything new.

I'll accept that Patsy Ramsey is a bit of a kook, and I certainly wouldn't dress up my 5 year old and train her to enter beauty pagents. That whole scene is sick to me. But there is simply no proof that PR wrote the ransom note.

The Boulder PD couldn't have been more inept if they were INTENTIONALLY trying to blow the investigation. Does anyone know if a professional profiler (Pat Brown, Cliff Van Zandt or the blonde woman in Florida) has voiced an opinion on this case? I'd be really interestered in a profiler's opinion.

No parent would ever use a garotte or similar device to kill their child. And I'm sure they didn't have the knowledge to make the knot used. There is just no motive for the Ramsey's to have done this. It doesn't make any sense at all.

I don't think this crime will ever be solved, and may well be argued into the next century (like Lizzie Borden!). Such a shame.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge,

This is not a court of law. Websleuths is an OPINION forum. The information posted here is based on published accounts and other credible and/or reasonable sources. From this information it's our constitutional right to voice our individual opinions.

In my opinion the Ramseys ARE lying their heads off and attempting to coverup. This information is from the police interviews, from the published books on the case, and in a million other places. If you want to "develop valid and true inferences via deduction", then please enjoy yourself and go do it. We need only to provide credible sources and that's ALL that's necessary to develop a total theory on the case or on the individual items of evidence, direct or circumstantial, on the case -- such as lies and coverups.

BlueCrab

It reflects poorly on you -- and whatever mode of reasoning you think you are using -- to represent opinion or beliefs or speculation or assumption as fact.

This might come as a surprise to you, but deductive logic will always derive valid and true conclusions in the exact manner and under the exact same rules whether you are in the court of public opinion or in a court of law.

 

[Wudge]

I'm going to take the unpopular view here and jump in and say I don't think the Ramseys had anything to do with JBR's death or any so-called "cover-up."

I saw bits and pieces of the TV program between the time I was falling asleep. This program did not convince me of anything new.

I'll accept that Patsy Ramsey is a bit of a kook, and I certainly wouldn't dress up my 5 year old and train her to enter beauty pagents. That whole scene is sick to me. But there is simply no proof that PR wrote the ransom note.

The Boulder PD couldn't have been more inept if they were INTENTIONALLY trying to blow the investigation. Does anyone know if a professional profiler (Pat Brown, Cliff Van Zandt or the blonde woman in Florida) has voiced an opinion on this case? I'd be really interestered in a profiler's opinion.

No parent would ever use a garotte or similar device to kill their child. And I'm sure they didn't have the knowledge to make the knot used. There is just no motive for the Ramsey's to have done this. It doesn't make any sense at all.

I don't think this crime will ever be solved, and may well be argued into the next century (like Lizzie Borden!). Such a shame.

For every whacky theory and motive that was offered up in the Scott Peterson case, there were far, far more developed in the Jon Benet case. Of course, by the time Judge Carnes issued her report, people had over six years to develop ideas or notions or beliefs that the best fantasyland writer could not have come up with. Fortunately, they only had two years with Peterson's case.

By the way Pepper, at least you got one case right. (chuckle)

 

[narlacat]

Your post that responded to mine started out with: "Are you saying that John Ramsey's cell phone call transcript for December 1996 was "lost"??!?!??!!??!?!"

I think it is fair to say that your reponse asked me a question.

More importantly, my initiating post to you, wherein I asked for unimpeachable proof that the Ramseys lied, remains unfulfilled. In other words, you have yet to provide such proof.

Wudge
Just because the Ramsey's have not been convicted does not mean they did not lie.
I could find you lie after lie but that would be pointless wouldnt it...
Go and read some of the interviews over at ACR and see for yourself.

 

[Bobbisangel]

I don't know about the lying by the Ramseys but if I had been in their shoes I might not have known if one of my kids was up or not. I think I would have been such a wreck I couldn't have remembered my name. A person becomes numb pretty fast and it can last a long time. I wouldn't expect their memorys to be in perfect working order. They were in the middle of the worst horror a parent can ever be in. That tends to become forgotten at times.

When this first happened I thought the Ramsey's were guilty or at least one of them. The more I heard though the more my opinion changed. I don't see a coverup here. Who would be covering up...not the BPD because they would give their eye teeth to hang the Ramseys. I can't think of any reason that either parent would want to murder that beautiful little girl.

I think it is a shame for mothers to dress their little girls up like little sex pots and to teach them sexy moves. But there are a lot of mothers who do that all over the world. I don't think that makes Patsy a bad mother or a wacko.
I think it fulfilled some kind of a need in Patsy's life.

 

[GuruJosh]

Thanks Narlacat for your response to my Q about John's mobile ph records...

I think this is really important... how sure are you that the cops used John's phone on Dec 26??

This is technology we're talking about, and big companies don't mess around when it comes to billing people for using their services.

like, when was the last time you were underbilled by a phone company or bank? it doesn't happen.

are you guys reallllllly sure that the police used john's phone?

because quite frankly if that is the case then we have a coverup, because it is just not possible that a big telco company would "lose" a customer's call records fora month. It just doesn't happen like that. Computers control the billing system, the call initiation and completion systems etc. You couldn't make a call without it showing up on your bill, unless Sprint or whoever John was with were using an abacus to run their systems.


EDIT - also who were they supposed to have called? (sorry, i sued to have all these books when i was in the USA but i sold them before i came back to australia so i am very sketchy about many case details!)

because if it was an engaged signal, no call would be initiated and thus no record would exist.

Did the person who used John's phone actually connect to the person he/she was trying to reach?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I think what's missing in a lot of these posts is perspective. Being able to separate the few important facts from guesses, trivial claims and misrepresentations. If it's just a bunch of mudslinging, It's not worth the time it takes to read it.

Fresh perspective means new ideas. Open-ness.

I read today that the vast majority of child murders each year are committed by a parent, and a only very slight minority committed by an intruder. On the other hand, I also read today that "parents who kill" are typically found to be suffering from psychosis, socioeconomic failure, and/or social withdrawl. Domestic abuse is very common in the case studies.

The Ramseys suffer no such disorders, but the ransom note author sure does. Forget the handwriting anaylsis for now, and look at the psychological profile of the author.

There were 2 things found in the Ramsey house on 12-26-96 that are clearly manifestations of psychotic behavior:

• The note threatening to behead a child,
• and the garroted and headbashed young girl.

From this, you could safely say there was a violent psychotic in the Ramsey house, at least on that night.

So if you were to rate the 2 manifestations separately on a scale of 1-10, 10 being most psychotic, you'd get a similar 9 or 10 for both, right? You could say then that the note and the killing displayed about the same amount and the same type of psychotic behavior. Both were brazen displays of extreme aggression and violence aimed at a small child.

What manifestations of psychotic behavior have taken place at the Ramsey's before the 2 manifestations of 12-26-96, and how would they rate on a 1-10 scale?

What manifestations of psychotic behavior have taken place at the Ramsey's after the 2 manifestations of 12-26-96, and how would they rate on a 1-10 scale?

Nothing over a 1 or 2, right?

:hand:

The fact that there was no violence aimed at children, and no manifestations of psychotic behavior that even approximated the ransom note prior to 12-26-96, leads to the conclusion that the violent psychotic who wrote the note and murdered JonBenet didn't live in the house.

 

[narlacat]

Thanks Narlacat for your response to my Q about John's mobile ph records...

I think this is really important... how sure are you that the cops used John's phone on Dec 26??

This is technology we're talking about, and big companies don't mess around when it comes to billing people for using their services.

like, when was the last time you were underbilled by a phone company or bank? it doesn't happen.

are you guys reallllllly sure that the police used john's phone?

because quite frankly if that is the case then we have a coverup, because it is just not possible that a big telco company would "lose" a customer's call records fora month. It just doesn't happen like that. Computers control the billing system, the call initiation and completion systems etc. You couldn't make a call without it showing up on your bill, unless Sprint or whoever John was with were using an abacus to run their systems.


EDIT - also who were they supposed to have called? (sorry, i sued to have all these books when i was in the USA but i sold them before i came back to australia so i am very sketchy about many case details!)

because if it was an engaged signal, no call would be initiated and thus no record would exist.

Did the person who used John's phone actually connect to the person he/she was trying to reach?

Hi Guru
I am absolutely sure John said in one of the police interviews that for some reason the police used his cell phone that day,if i remember correctly I think they used it twice. Im not sure which interview that was, I've had a quick look but cant see it right now.
I think the police needed a phone and theirs wasnt working so John offered his. I think they wanted to ring the station re: the case so I would assume they got through ok .
Im not sure where I read about the records going missing, maybe someone else can help with that one.

 

[bensmom98]

Hi Guru
I am absolutely sure John said in one of the police interviews that for some reason the police used his cell phone that day,if i remember correctly I think they used it twice. Im not sure which interview that was, I've had a quick look but cant see it right now.
I think the police needed a phone and theirs wasnt working so John offered his. I think they wanted to ring the station re: the case so I would assume they got through ok .
Im not sure where I read about the records going missing, maybe someone else can help with that one.

I remember reading something to that effect in PMPT, but can't find it either.

 

[Wudge]

Okay Wudge, I read your tagline, and it doesn't make any sense. So how come you don't practice what you preach?

YOU WROTE:

"It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool: it's what he does know that ain't so." JOSH BILLINGS

So, Wudge, since what you wrote doesn't make sense, I looked it up to find out what Josh Billings really said. What follows is Billings' accurate quotation, which DOES make sense.

BILLINGS ACTUAL QUOTATION IS:

"The trouble with most folks isn't so much their ignorance. It's know'n so many things that ain't so." JOSH BILLINGS 1818 - 1885

BlueCrab

He is also attributed with being the original source of my tagline. And if you do not understand the profound wisdom that is inherent in my tagline, I am certainly not going to be surprised, for that would help to explain why you represent your speculation/assumptions/opinion to be fact.

P.S. About once a month, I receive a PM from someone who has read my tagline and comments on its weighty insight as to it exposing a key ingredient that is often present when people end-up making fools of themselves. By your saying it does not make any sense, you are now officially the first person to tell me that they could not break my tagline's reflectively simple code.

 

[Wudge]

BC you know you can slam when u want to brother I was looking at his quote too. Made no sense, knew it must be incorrect. Kind of like the Ramsey's behaviour after 12/25/96

Congratulations on making a very short list, indeed. However, you are not in first place; Blue Crab did you proceed you.

(stunned)