Crime scene staging?

[tipper]

If you're calling the parents dialing 911 at 6:00 AM a 'tea party'? I call it 'doing the right thing.'

They called the two couples who were their closest friends. Probably if John had been alone he wouldn't have done that but I think it is completely in keeping with what we know about Patsy's personality. And she is the one who called them.

 

[narlacat]

Its an invalid unsubstantiated theory, promoted largely because it sells. Rich parents do in their own little girl--now thats scandalous. Its what tabloids are made of.

The JonBenet story was always going to sell. It was a tabloids dream.
A pretty little rich girl murdered in her own home, her father a multi -millionaire ,her mother a former beauty queen and Miss America entrant.....the child herself a beauty queen at 6 years of age with countless pictures and videos to prove it....
Patsy Ramsey could not be eliminated as the writer of the ransom note, it is that, and her oh so selective memory concerning her child and that night, that makes people so suspicious of her.

 

[narlacat]

If you're calling the parents dialing 911 at 6:00 AM a 'tea party'? I call it 'doing the right thing.'

I'm not talking about Patsy dialing 911, I'm talking about her ringing everyone over that morning when the ransom note clearly stated "talk to a stray dog and she dies".
I don't see how you can say it was doing the right thing.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The JonBenet story was always going to sell. It was a tabloids dream.
A pretty little rich girl murdered in her own home, her father a multi -millionaire ,her mother a former beauty queen and Miss America entrant.....the child herself a beauty queen at 6 years of age with countless pictures and videos to prove it....
Patsy Ramsey could not be eliminated as the writer of the ransom note, it is that, and her oh so selective memory concerning her child and that night, that makes people so suspicious of her.

What makes people suspicious of any R is mostly 'circular reasoning': The killing of JBR makes the family seem like suspicious people. Now that its embedded in your mind that the R's are suspicious, you conclude one of them must have done it.

If any R had authored the note, experts would have pinned it in days, not years.

 

[sissi]

I think it was an "OMG!! Call everyone, does anyone know anything, help,help!" Those that heard her anguish , as friends, came to be by her side.
There was no tea party, unless you call what those weird clean-up people were providing a tea party? The BPD invited the strangers, not Patsy!

 

[LinasK]

So PR accidentally kills her own daugher, and 'covers it up' by converting the crime scene into a capital murder? Then, to help in the charade, handwrites a 3 page ransom note that covers all aspects of lingusitics and handwriting?!?

OMG you gotta b kiddn me!

Well, I think John did it, but Patsy wrote the note and helped cover it up! Rich men do sexually molest their daughters, Patsy routinely had her dress up with full make-up and red lipstick like a minature woman. I think John pulled the garrote too tight while he was sexually abusing her and then they needed to make sure she was dead, so she was bludgeoned. John purposely contaminated the crime scene IMO when he carried her upstairs in the blanket. An intruder would not have re-dressed JBR.

 

[narlacat]

or gave her a little snack of pineapple.

 

[Lacy Wood]

What makes people suspicious of any R is mostly 'circular reasoning': The killing of JBR makes the family seem like suspicious people. Now that its embedded in your mind that the R's are suspicious, you conclude one of them must have done it.

Circular reasoning is simply the logical flaw of begging the question...wherein one consciously or unconsciously has a conclusion and subtly uses that conclusion to justify and mold evidence to fit his view. Suspecting Ramsey family guilt is not an example. It is also not circular reasoning to believe them innocent. Reasoning becomes circular when conclusions serve to alter perceptions of realities of evidence. Most of the thoughts here seem derived from evidence and are entitled to respect. The notion that mostly circular reasoning makes people suspicious of the Ramseys is false, irrational, and illogical. And to assume one is the sole proprietor of the final answer on a currently unknowable matter is also not rational.

But there are in fact certain comments expressed here that are an example of circular reasoning...one in particular is a campaign to proselytize the possibity of an intruder. Whether it started by assuming the family innocent as mandating an intruder, or vice versa, I have seen it to the point of clearly affecting the view of evidence. In some case contrary evidence is ignored and in others, things claimed to be supporting evidence that are not. The fact is that belief that the Ramseys are innocent is in no way shape or form a proof, or evidence of an intruder. The intruder possibility stands apart as a seperate evidenciary consideration which could negate a belief of Ramsey innocence. But if that causes one to say, wait, the Ramseys can NOT be guilty, then that would show a bias was held, not a belief...also circular reasoning, if that bias confirmed the belief in an intruder. This could work both ways obviously.

 

[Jayelles]

Its an invalid unsubstantiated theory, promoted largely because it sells. Rich parents do in their own little girl--now thats scandalous. Its what tabloids are made of.

I think what made the biggest story was the fact that the parents refused to sit down and be intereviewd with police. I think that is why most people think they looked suspicious - not because they were rich.

 

[Jayelles]

I think it was an "OMG!! Call everyone, does anyone know anything, help,help!" Those that heard her anguish , as friends, came to be by her side.
There was no tea party, unless you call what those weird clean-up people were providing a tea party? The BPD invited the strangers, not Patsy!

There is one thing glaringly wrong with this Sissi. You think the Ramseys called people to say "Help, help do you know anything?" - yet the one person who MIGHT have known something (Burke) was apparently left undisturbed in his bed!

Big hole in that argument I'm afraid.

 

[Moab]

There is one thing glaringly wrong with this Sissi. You think the Ramseys called people to say "Help, help do you know anything?" - yet the one person who MIGHT have known something (Burke) was apparently left undisturbed in his bed!

Big hole in that argument I'm afraid.

I agree Jayelles, and the Ramseys just walked right through that hole too, got their son out of the house, and then sequestered themselves from the police.

 

[Nehemiah]

I think what made the biggest story was the fact that the parents refused to sit down and be intereviewd with police. I think that is why most people think they looked suspicious - not because they were rich.

I totally agree. That is the most glaring reason why I can't be totally on the IDI side.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Circular reasoning is simply the logical flaw of begging the question...wherein one consciously or unconsciously has a conclusion and subtly uses that conclusion to justify and mold evidence to fit his view. Suspecting Ramsey family guilt is not an example. It is also not circular reasoning to believe them innocent. Reasoning becomes circular when conclusions serve to alter perceptions of realities of evidence. Most of the thoughts here seem derived from evidence and are entitled to respect. The notion that mostly circular reasoning makes people suspicious of the Ramseys is false, irrational, and illogical. And to assume one is the sole proprietor of the final answer on a currently unknowable matter is also not rational.

But there are in fact certain comments expressed here that are an example of circular reasoning...one in particular is a campaign to proselytize the possibity of an intruder. Whether it started by assuming the family innocent as mandating an intruder, or vice versa, I have seen it to the point of clearly affecting the view of evidence. In some case contrary evidence is ignored and in others, things claimed to be supporting evidence that are not. The fact is that belief that the Ramseys are innocent is in no way shape or form a proof, or evidence of an intruder. The intruder possibility stands apart as a seperate evidenciary consideration which could negate a belief of Ramsey innocence. But if that causes one to say, wait, the Ramseys can NOT be guilty, then that would show a bias was held, not a belief...also circular reasoning, if that bias confirmed the belief in an intruder. This could work both ways obviously.

One good sign of circular reasoning at work is any theory or argument that uses exclusively after-the-fact events or actions to support either an RDI or IDI point of view.

An example of this is the arbitrary application of a murderous personality onto someone only because they, under legal advice, didn't cooperate or behave as expected by a nonexistent standard for post-crime behavior.

To further illustrate this point, consider that a murderer commonly breaks other laws also. In the case of the R's, I haven't read where they've broken any laws whatsoever.

 

[Moab]

1. An example of this is the arbitrary application of a murderous personality onto someone only because they, under legal advice, didn't cooperate or behave as expected by a nonexistent standard for post-crime behavior.

2. To further illustrate this point, consider that a murderer commonly breaks other laws also. In the case of the R's, I haven't read where they've broken any laws whatsoever.

1. Please name me one other parent of a missing/kidnapped/murdered child who has refused for a period of 4 months to sit down and speak to the police?

2. Obstruction of Justice after the death of their child.

 

[BlueCrab]

The crime scene was obviously staged to high heaven, and only a Ramsey would have had the motive to stage it and cast suspicion away from house members.

However, there almost had to have also been a fifth person in the house that night because of all the missing crime scene evidence (the roll of black duct tape; the rest of the white cord; the nine pages from the notepad; the cloth material that was used to wipe down JonBenet and left fibers on her body; etc.).

Therefore, this crime likely involves two families -- the Ramseys and ?.

BlueCrab

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I don't think this was a murder planned out by a murderer, I think this was a series of unfortunate events sparked off by an overwrought and mentally unstable woman. I think JB's death was entirely accidental.

 

[Lacy Wood]

One good sign of circular reasoning at work is any theory or argument that uses exclusively after-the-fact events or actions to support either an RDI or IDI point of view.

An example of this is the arbitrary application of a murderous personality onto someone only because they, under legal advice, didn't cooperate or behave as expected by a nonexistent standard for post-crime behavior. QUOTE]

Sorry, but each of these comments is simply a projection of your misperceptions of how some people see the facts and evidence onto others. By projecting a view held by a scant few of those who suspect Ramsey involvement (i.e., those who believe the death was other than an accident or those claiming the Ramseys were by nature cruel, evil people), and/or by claiming that differing beliefs from yours are based on Ramsey behavior, not facts and evidence, you complete the circle of the very type "reasoning" you project onto others. That is, your personal conclusions are a prejudicial basis used to discredit the contrary evidence to those conclusions. When circular reasoning becomes clear, try googling "straw man argument".

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Sorry, but each of these comments is simply a projection of your misperceptions of how some people see the facts and evidence onto others. By projecting a view held by a scant few of those who suspect Ramsey involvement (i.e., those who believe the death was other than an accident or those claiming the Ramseys were by nature cruel, evil people), and/or by claiming that differing beliefs from yours are based on Ramsey behavior, not facts and evidence, you complete the circle of the very type "reasoning" you project onto others. That is, your personal conclusions are a prejudicial basis used to discredit the contrary evidence to those conclusions. When circular reasoning becomes clear, try googling "straw man argument".

I've read many posts where the argument for RDI is based solely on what is seen as the suspicious post-murder behavior of the R's. Thats circular reasoning. Even if someone signed a confession, which would be the ultimate post-murder behavior, more evidence would be needed to connect the suspect with the murder itself.

P.S. Are you saying the R's are not cruel or evil, and yet are involved in a coverup somehow?

 

[Brefie]

P.S. Are you saying the R's are not cruel or evil, and yet are involved in a coverup somehow?

Can't speak for Lacy, but that's certainly my opinion. Most people would do whatever it took to protect a family member. Maybe not from a murder rap - especially if the victim is also a family member, but many would for a their child. Let's face it, John had lost 2 daughters, would he do whatever to hold on to his son if it were Burke who had accidently killed her? Or would he protect Patsy from arrest to save his family from even deeper dispair?

I think he might.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Can't speak for Lacy, but that's certainly my opinion. Most people would do whatever it took to protect a family member. Maybe not from a murder rap - especially if the victim is also a family member, but many would for a their child. Let's face it, John had lost 2 daughters, would he do whatever to hold on to his son if it were Burke who had accidently killed her? Or would he protect Patsy from arrest to save his family from even deeper dispair?

I think he might.

You're right. Many people would do many different things to protect their family from 'deeper dispair'. No argument there.

Wondering who, though, is going to tighten a ligature around their own daughter's neck so tight as to leave a 'deep furrow'? Isn't that going a bit overboard on the staging thing?

Whoever did that must have really wanted to stage a vicious murder, because it sure looks like a vicious, evil murder, and the RN sure reads like it was written by a vicious, evil person.

In my opinion, sometimes a banana is just a banana. This was a vicious murder, exactly as displayed.