JonBenet's Other Brother

[Toltec]

In one of his theories...JAR told police that it could have been one of Patsy's "flashy" friends. It's no secret that JAR resented Patsy in that it is normal for step-children.

It was JAR that told LE about the movie references in the ransom letter. He also told LE that it was unusual that the RN was left on the back stairs...

I don't buy this AE theory...Burke was too young and children his age are not particularly interested in girls. I believe if it was Burke who killed JB...he did it out of anger because JonBenet did something to him that night...like pull the Nintendo controller out of it's console...thereby erasing the gameplay.

The new N64 took some getting used to. It was hard to control the game...given the new controller and such. I challenge anyone who has never played MARIO64 to try it.

If JonBenet wanted a turn and Burke said no...then JonBenet, being the bratty kid that she was, most likely pulled the plug out of the console...ruining the game and enraging Burke.

 

[BlueCrab]

I don't buy this AE theory...Burke was too young and children his age are not particularly interested in girls. I believe if it was Burke who killed JB...he did it out of anger because JonBenet did something to him that night...like pull the Nintendo controller out of it's console...thereby erasing the gameplay.

Toltec,

EA in this case is not a theory. It's a fact. That was an erotic asphyxiation device wrapped around JonBenet's neck.

Since a stun gun was likely used during the crime, probably as a means of torture, it appears that the use of the EA device by JonBenet was involuntary. This crime seems to have been a brutal rape/murder committed by a Ramsey family member and ridiculously staged to try to make it look like an intruder did it.

There was no intruder because the Ramseys wouldn't be lying their heads off and covering up to protect the identity of an intruder.

BlueCrab

 

[Voice of Reason]

EA in this case is not a theory. It's a fact. That was an erotic asphyxiation device wrapped around JonBenet's neck.

This is very misleading. It is far from a fact. There is evidence that CAN support this THEORY, but it is by no means a fact. To call it such is not fair to readers who are not as familiar with this case and can be misled by such blanket conclusions...

 

[BlueCrab]

This is very misleading. It is far from a fact. There is evidence that CAN support this THEORY, but it is by no means a fact. To call it such is not fair to readers who are not as familiar with this case and can be misled by such blanket conclusions...

VoR,

It is not a theory that an erotic asphyxiation device was wrapped around JonBenet's neck. It's a physical fact. It exists. There are numerous crime scene photos of the device, and it's not a garrote even though an uninformed public and media continue to call it a garrote. Garrotes look nothing like that.

It's true the device was eventually used to strangle her, but the device was designed as an EA tool. A killer wouldn't construct an elaborate cord device with special knots and a stick handle just to strangle a little six-year-old girl. The multiple circumferential marks on JonBenet's neck confirm it was used as a breath contol device prior to it being pulled so tight that it strangled her.

The cops, including Lou Smit, have called the EA device on JonBenet a sexual device, as has John Ramsey who said "The killer is a pedophile who prefers little girls and is experinced in autoerotic asphyxiation".

BlueCrab

 

[UKGuy]

VoR,

It is not a theory that an erotic asphyxiation device was wrapped around JonBenet's neck. It's a physical fact. It exists. There are numerous crime scene photos of the device, and it's not a garrote even though an uninformed public and media continue to call it a garrote. Garrotes look nothing like that.

It's true the device was eventually used to strangle her, but the device was designed as an EA tool. A killer wouldn't construct an elaborate cord device with special knots and a stick handle just to strangle a little six-year-old girl. The multiple circumferential marks on JonBenet's neck confirm it was used as a breath contol device prior to it being pulled so tight that it strangled her.

The cops, including Lou Smit, have called the EA device on JonBenet a sexual device, as has John Ramsey who said "The killer is a pedophile who prefers little girls and is experinced in autoerotic asphyxiation".

BlueCrab

The fact that a ligature and broken paintbrush were tied around JonBenet's neck does not entail that it was an EA device or tool.

It may have been constructed after she was asphyxiated by some other means as a form of staging.

A valid interpretation of this is that it may be EA based and that the ligature supports this, but that is far from being an established fact.

The cops, including Lou Smit, have called the EA device on JonBenet a sexual device, as has John Ramsey who said "The killer is a pedophile who prefers little girls and is experinced in autoerotic asphyxiation".
BlueCrab

The cops can suggest it was a sexual device, my 2-cents is that it did not represent a sexual device to a 6-year old, who would have no concept of or understand its purpose. And pedophiles by definition prefer little girls, but one experienced in autoerotic asphyxiation should not then result in the death of a child.

The use of a stun gun is hypothetical, the marshaling of evidence to suggest a sadistic sexual slaying, along with the proviso or condition that the ridiculous staging and Ramsey cover up and obsfucation is all intended to mask a Ramsey, since who else would they cover for, is simply redolent of or mirrors Lou Smit's rhetoric wrt to an intruder, but now the suspect is a Ramsey.

Aspects of the BDI and AE have been extrapolated beyond necessity. Toltec's suggestion conforms with occams principle and has some merit.

 

[lawman]

were the items in the suitcase determined to be from the house or elsewhere.
who would have access to them.

lawman

 

[Toltec]

Is there any history of pedophiles using AE on children?

My theory is that the cord embedded in her neck was not the original ligature that strangled her. I believe Patsy placed the cord after removing the real ligature.

My BDI theory is that it was the nintendo64 controller.

 

[LazyCat08]

JonBenet's

For anyone to place JAR's blue suitcase and its contents in close proximity to JonBenet's corpse appears curious. Either it is there by accident and circumstance, or at some point both it and JonBenet's body were intended to be removed from the house?


The EA device appears to have been fashioned, in a hurry, downstairs in the basement. I think splinters from the paintbrush were left on the floor?

If nylon fibers from the EA device were found in JonBenet's bed, this may suggest JonBenet was at some point, alive or dead, lying tethered on the bed? This would be consistent with assumptions about prior staging.

Suddenly, this really struck me as very interesting. The suitcase evidence is very compelling. The blanket - with semen, the child's book, the flash light (maybe used to sneak into JB's room at night?)

BUT what of the MALE DNA that does not match anyone in the house? How does that fit in?

I believe that the body was found by PR & JR either in JB's room or elsewhere in the house. This explains why fibers from Patsy's clothing were on her, and fibers from the cord were in the bed... I think that perhaps the impact to her head was an attempt to stage the murder.... but by who? I just don't think that the device was part of the staging - I mean IMO - who the hell knows how to tie those knots AND thinks of that when there child/ sibling has just been murdered AND thinks it would be a great way to try to cover up the murder.... it just doesn't make sense to me.
JB's body was cleaned, I think by Patsy and moved to the cool basement area (and possibly was ready to be removed for the house, along with the evidence in the suitcase) perhaps while the family was trying to figure out what the hell to do.....

Is it possible that in the hysteria that followed the discovery of JB - that family and friends where called and showed up in the process of The Ramsey's trying to dispose of or hide evidence or stage the scene to make it look like an intruder had commited the crime....

The only reason for the authorities to cover up the murder is if a young child were involved.
The only reason for the Ramseys to cover up the murder was (IMO) if their child was involved....
This points toward BR and it makes sense that BR could have learned things from JAR that may have led to JB death, although JAR may have not been directly responsible for the actual death.... I also think JAR would be the likely author of the "ransom" note...

questions, questions, too many questions!

Does anyone know what has become of JAR?

 

[Eagle1]

tipper,JAR was cleared, but the cops also said that anyone who has been cleared can just as quickly be uncleared. The items in that suitcase have never been satisfactorily explained. Had the EA device also been stored in the suitcase it would appear to be a pedophile's rape kit. The testimony of JAR's two buddies and JAR's mother, Lucinda, that JAR was in Atlanta at the time of the killing is the basis of the clearing. As we all know, college buddies lie for each other; and mothers lie for their children. If JAR's "out of the state" alibi can be broken, then he is the likely killer.

If it could be proven he was in Boulder, that still would not prove guilt. It would just be embarrassing and a problem.

Another quote: "Some sources put JAR in Atlanta on the 23rd, but I think he was in Boulder on the 23rd and had attended the Ramseys Christmas party on that night. I remember seeing a group picture of the attendees and JAR was in the left background of the photo. It was during that party that someone called 911 and hung up. When the police called back they got a voice message, so they sent a cop to the Ramseys house. Susan Stine reportedly refused to open the door and got rid of the cop by telling him through the door that everything was okay.

To place JAR in Boulder on Christmas day would mean that JAR's three witnesses in Atlanta were lying. One of the Atlanta friends was a pilot, as was Jeff Ramsey, John's brother. Could JAR have been in Boulder on the 23rd, the 24th, and the 25th, and been flown secretly to Atlanta on Christmas night in one of John Ramsey's two airplanes and be ready to be picked up at his friend's house by Melinda and her fiance early on the 26th to catch the flight to Minneapolis?

Were JonBenet and Burke sitting at the breakfast room table late that night, snacking on pineapple and sipping on tea, after the parents had gone to bed, waiting for a preplanned secret visit by JAR? "
(End of second quote, a copy/paste)..........................................

JAR's possible presence wouldn't necessarily mean guilt, certainly would not be proof of guilt. I'm keeping an open mind that he really could have been there.

The California visitor who resembles JAR is just as suspicious.

As I've been saying all along, someone evidently molested JonBenet at that party on the 23rd and she evidently tried to call 911, was interrupted by someone, probably FW, who tried to take credit for the call when police followed up.

It's been said FW's mother was partying that night, not in a hospital as he claimed. What were that group up to, that would cause Stine to turn away police at the door? Would any of us have thought to do that and had the nerve? She'd say it would have just spoiled the party, I'm sure, and probably some friendships would have been lost. Still, could there have been something more to it?

 

[angelnsb]

Does anyone have a link to the picture that may be JAR at the christmas party?

 

[tipper]

Does anyone have a link to the picture that may be JAR at the christmas party?

I looked at ACR but couldn't find it. I know I've seen it online with all the people identified. Don't remember JAR but with my memory...

 

[angelnsb]

I looked at ACR but couldn't find it. I know I've seen it online with all the people identified. Don't remember JAR but with my memory...

Thanks for checking for me Tipper! I will keep trying.

 

[tipper]

Thanks for checking for me Tipper! I will keep trying.

http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=1168&forum=DCForumID101

Here's a reference to it, posts #24, 25. Try sending Jayelles a message. It appears she has a copy.

 

[lawman]

some very interesting thoughts by everyone.

does anybody know where the fibers were found on jbr.

lawman

 

[BlueCrab]

some very interesting thoughts by everyone.

does anybody know where the fibers were found on jbr.

lawman,

According to the CBI the fibers from JAR's pillow sham and comforter (which had been taken off JAR's bed on the second floor) were on JonBenet's vaginal area, on her shirt, on the duct tape thar was on her mouth, and on the ligature that had bound her hands at the wrists. The Dr. Seuss book apparently belonged to JAR because he had his name written in it.

The FBI contradicted the CBI's findings and said the fibers on JonBenet did not come from the pillow sham nor the comforter, but they could not find anything else in the house that matched the fibers.

BlueCrab

 

[Eagle1]

I wouldn't say the body was cleaned, when it was merely wiped with a dark colored cloth. Dry wiping isn't exactly cleaning. No mother would call that a cleaning. We mean some criminal's idea of a cleaning, right?

I remember the group picture, hope someone finds a copy. About the suitcase with his things in it and his bedcovers on the body, NOBODY is stupid enough to leave all that laying around and get accused of a murder. It wasn't convincing evidence to the cops or anyone. JAR may not be a genius but he's not THAT dumb. Neither were the parents, to leave a dictionary open to the word Incest, and the Bible open to Psalms only Father Rol seemed to know about.

He may have known something, reason he's, I believe, dead now. Anyone know what he died of? Was he sick? Take your pick of a smiley. First one looks like me. :angel: :boohoo:

 

[BlueCrab]

Neither were the parents, to leave a dictionary open to the word Incest, and the Bible open to Psalms only Father Rol seemed to know about.

He may have known something, reason he's, I believe, dead now. Anyone know what he died of? Was he sick?

Eagle1,

To the best of my knowledge Rev. Rol Hoverstock is not dead. Do you have a source for your comment?

 

[tipper]

He wasn't dead as of May 2005

« http://www.stjohnsboulder.org/2005/05/16/rantings-ravings-ruminations-and-reflections/

Rantings, Ravings, Ruminations, and Reflections

May 16th, 2005

However you may articulate your own faith in God and wherever you think you may be on your journey (in faith) to faith, it’s hard not to get swept up in all of today’s discussions of faith and politics.

This has truly been the spring of discontent. We’ve seen the exploitation of religion by political operatives and other cynics with worldly ends. The media’s maneuverings with the Terry Shiavo story took what should have been sacred space and a sacred moment in a family’s life and turned it into an international, politically charged stunt. And then, we have an event like "Justice Sunday" which has nothing to do with the sort of justice Jesus speaks of. "Justice Sunday" is a politically driven rant and rally against our judicial system and against judges who are now slandered as "activist judges" by a narrow-minded, fundamentalist group which, I feel, does not represent the majority of Americans.

For me, it is repugnant and soils the spirit of Holy Sunday; it makes a sham of the Sabbath. And, to add to it all, the world is put on notice that anyone who does not agree with their thinking is damned and declared to be an enemy of "people of faith."

To my mind, this exclusionary, isolating, egotistical, not-above-board posturing regarding faith is not Christian thinking. The hysterical reactions and divisiveness this creates is not an act of a faithful person. Jesus doesn’t behave that way!

I’ve discovered that one’s faith in God has a lot to do with God. Faith is ever-changing and deepening, is always God-led and, for me, is symbolized by the actions of an open hand not a clenched fist. Faith in God invites and includes, it does not condemn and exclude. It builds open communities, not gated communities. Early communities of the faithful were a society within a society and acted not out of political power, but only out of the power of love. The faith lived by Jesus himself (and I believe he qualifies as a "person of faith") permitted no restrictions on participation. People were not separated into citizens and non-citizens; there were no Greeks and non-Greeks; no slaves and non-slaves; no male, no female….."for we are all one in Christ Jesus."

To be a person of faith, a disciple of Jesus, means that we are to live now in our time the way he did in his. We are to be both a sign of, and a servant to the reign of God in our midst.

When "people of faith" first became the church we were the church of the catacombs, not the church of the senate.

That’s something "people of faith" should never forget.
Father Rol

 

[lawman]

thanks bluecrab for the information.

what to make of this ?, is the C.B.I or the F.B.I correct.
possibly they fall into the category of numerous other fibers found at the crime scene, of being consistent to some item.
eagle1`s problem of the police seemingly not being interested in this evidence, is i believe because of the time between the crime and when the evidence was known.
JAR had been cleared before the connection was known i believe.of course up until this time PR was their main suspect.
in hindsight the BPD should of realised they might be on the wrong track or at least the crime was far more complicated than thought. imo.


lawman

 

[BlueCrab]

lawman,

JAR was a serious suspect early in the investigation, but he was nevertheless cleared in March of 1997. He was cleared after the cops checked his alibi about being in Atlanta at the time of the crime, and after they checked all of the possible commercial flights that he could have used to fly between Georgia and Colorado that night.

JAR's alibi included his mother, Lucinda Johnson, and his two friends, Chris Stanley and Brad Millard, plus movie ticket stubs that he had been at the movies in Atlanta that night, and a receipt from an ATM in Atlanta that night. It appears to be an ironclad alibi.

However, the suspicious evidence in the blue suitcase in the basement cannot be easily dismissed. Even if JAR was in Atlanta during the murder, his blanket in the suitcase with his semen on it, the Dr. Seuss book, and fibers from his blanket on JonBenet's vaginal area, is evidence that something unnatural had likely taken place at a previous time if not that night.

Since an EA device was wrapped around JonBenet's neck, my guess is that JAR was the childrens' tutor of erotic asphyxiation which, in my opinion, accidentally killed JonBenet by strangulation. OR the strangulation was not accidental and was intended to shut her up about past molestations.

BlueCrab