Happenings of December 26

[Darlene733510]

If JB was wearing the pink nightgown, wouldn't that indicate that PR lied when she said she put her to bed in the shirt with the star, and the long johns? Do you think she was put to bed in the nightgown, and after the molestation the clothes she was found in were put on her? Had she wet the bed? We know the long johns had urine on the front of them, so she must have been on her belly for a while. There was urine stain outside the door, where they may have placed her. I think the garrote was put on her there when they realized, that after the headbash, she was still alive. I would think that when they used the garrote they did it while she was on her belly so they wouldn't have to look at her face.
Now, I will probably hear that my thoughts are ridiculous, but that spiral stairway looks very dangerous to me. Even the basement stairs. Could a very hard shove cause her to hit her head on the edge of one of the steps and cause this damage. I think of 2 children going to look for presents in the basement, JB gets pushed very hard. That basement was so cluttered, could she have landed on something there, at the bottom of the stairs. She did have other abrasions. A hard push would catapult her outward, where she would not hit every step on her way down. It's just an idea, maybe not likely, but anything is probable.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
Is debate of any consequence if nothing is plausible?

Confronted with the reality of abuse and a corpse the R's had to offer some answers. So to date you have had JR's TV representations, does this not suggest something to you, beyond any theory?

Since JR is not a theory he actualy exists to promote some viewpoint.

Why should the populour theory be the wrong one?

I'm not saying it's wrong due to it's popularity. That's something you seem to be reading into my statement. I'm acknowledging that it's popular.

Can you iterate your objections?

Have done, many times. I'll do it again.

The scenario that otg has described is this - JBR is being molested by juveniles. I'll assume one juvenile is BR. Not sure who else otg has in mind. Jr is unaware of the abuse, and JR is not doing any separate abuse himself. PR is not doing any abuse and is either unaware, dimly aware, or aware but not quite ready to confront the parties involved.

At this point the scenario can take different forms. 1. BR does the molestation, but not the blow to the head or the garotte. 2. BR does the molestation and blow to the head, but not the garrotte. 3. BR does the molestation, blow to the head, and the garotte. #2 seems to be the most popular variation.

So we have an innocent parent who has no idea what's being done to his daughter and an innocent parent who may know something isn't right but hasn't known for long and doesn't quite know the full extent of the abuse.

Upon finding their daughter injured (or possibly dead, depending on the exact scenario) the two innocent parents who have nothing to hide themselves, decide, depending on which flavor of the scenario you want to go with, to stage a phoney kidnapping, (significantly one that doesn't look like a kidnapping, given the body is in the house and will definitely be found when police are summoned) garrotte their daughter, and possibly do more vaginal damage to cover prior abuse. (Some people think the acute abuse is to cover chronic abuse, some, such as otg, don't).

I find it implausible that innocent parents decide on such a course of action rather than calling an ambulance. They transform in a short time from innocent parents to murderers and molesters.

The question of course is why would they do it? They are implicating themselves in the murder of their daughter (the GJ wanted to indict them) The risk they are taking is life in prison, possibly the death penalty, the loss of custody of BR, public embarrassment, loss of stature in the community, loss of business, and loss of a significant portion of their fortune. Again, why?

The reasons I've seen given are - 1) They don't want' BR named as the molester/killer. 2) They don't want the family embarrassed by the public finding out that JBR was killed by her brother. Two sides of the same coin.

Under CO. law BR can't be charged so there is no legal need to protect him. Even if this was not apparent the morning of the 26th, it is apparent after they've consulted with their lawyer. No reason to continue to steer a course for the gas chamber when BR is in no legal danger.

If others here are correct in stating that CO law won't even allow BR to be named as perp, due to his age, then no public knowledge of the events would exist.

If both parents are innocent, then sexual abuse wouldn't have been a relevant consideration as JR didn't know about it and PR wouldn't have known the full extent of it. The relevant consideration would be getting medical attention for JBR, even if there wasn't much real hope for recovery.

If BR did it, then it should have been apparent he was very disturbed. The most likely course of action for innocent parents, imo, is to try to pass it off as an accident, sibling rivalry that got out of control, then get BR the mental help he needs. The parents might also have considered their own safety with a 9 year old homicidal maniac in the house. They did not seem to be concerned.

IMO for BDI to make a modicum of sense, one parent (or both) had to be the long term abuser, and that was the motive for the coverup.

The problem with that theory is that PR is unlikely (possibly, but unlikely) to be the abuser, and therefore it's hard to believe she goes along with JR's plans for coverup.

Another problem with BDI is that even if innocent parents, or one innocent and one compliant parent, conspire to stage the crime scene, why isn't it a consistent story rather than a weird mish-mash of kidnapping/sex killer. IMO, it's not plausible that the Rs thought the police would believe it had really started as a kidnapping after finding the body. If they'd worked together then they'd have come up with one consistent believable story and would have staged accordingly.

The biggest problem with BDI is of course the implausibility of the kidnapping scenario. There shouldn't have been both a body and a RN. For the scenario to work the body should have been disposed of. Finding the body destroys the plausibility of the kidnap scenario. Why then would PR call the police, virtually guaranteeing the body would be found?

I'll leave you and others with this thought-

We have 3 detectives who have publicly opined (or in Kolar's case implied, danced around, sort of suggested) a theory.

LS, by far the most famous and successful detective on the case figures the bogeyman got her.

ST, an inexperienced investigator, figures PR went into a tizzy about bed-wetting, whacked her, then conspired with JR to stage a phoney kidnapping/sex murder.

JK, as far as I can tell, implies maybe possibly BR, w/o coming right out and saying so.

So, even if one of the 3 is right, that leaves the other 2 wrong. There is of course the possibility that all 3 are wrong. We needn't bee too concerned with which theory is currently leading in the polls - though that would likely be some variation on ST's PDI theory.

Talk to you next weekend.

 

[madeleine]

MAYBE all 3 got it wrong by focusing on a single person (and I mean the abuse&killing,not the staging)
it happened before,dad&son abusing the sister,mom&son abusing the sister,mom&dad abusing both kids (horrible cases)
even if JDI is my top theory sometimes I wonder whether it was not BR+PR and daddy had no clue until he found her (11am?)....or maybe he was not totally in the dark but was called in AFTER some of the staging was done....or maybe BR wanted to experience something he witnessed?(JR abusing jb)?who knows...
but I always had this theory that maybe some part of the staging was done not to fool LE but to fool the other parent...maybe this is why the elements of the staging are so contradicting?

 

[questfortrue]

Your statement about wondering if the staging was meant to fool the other parent is a very interesting idea. And, dual roles within the family in the abuse of JB.

I also found Otg’s recent post makes sense. Otg may be right that JR wasn’t around enough to be part of any molestation, IDK, there were just some things which raised flags for me. And, I acknowledge taken together they may still mean nothing. 1) The statement of one of their housekeepers that there was no warmth and affection between PR and JR. (PR’s cancer treatment perhaps a factor in her relationship) 2) The photo collage of his first daughter in JR’s bathroom 3) Higher exposure to child molestation than the average person (Subic Bay’s naval base and child prostitution history). 4) That in a high proportion of father/daughter molestation situations, the daughter looks like the mother. Also the high proportion of narcissism found in father/daughter molestation. 5) What I interpreted as veiled hostility towards JR in the ransom note, the parents coldness towards one another the morning of the discovery. Who is being silently blamed for what?

Then again, their visible estrangement morning of the 26th might indicate some other scenario: If BDI maybe one of them wanted to call 911 to get her help and the other felt it was too late and would open them up to troubles that he/she wanted to avoid. So they decide to stage, but they are not on the same page as co-conspirators. (I am assuming here that one of them discovers JB and enlists the other parent’s help early in the situation.)

Just for the record, here’s how each of the R’s responded to the idea of molestation.
1) PR in her response to Tom Haney seemed to be disbelieving, but then wanted to see the proof.
2) BR, when asked about uncomfortable touching, put a game board on top of his head and didn’t answer.
3) JR, in an interview in 2000 when attorney told him about fiber evidence in JB’s panties, linking him to the crime, became outraged and indignant. (His attorney LW seems to have had a “virtual meltdown” over this line of questioning). My interpretation and JMHO

 

[otg]

(respectfully snipped)

Just for the record, here’s how each of the R’s responded to the idea of molestation.
1) PR in her response to Tom Haney seemed to be disbelieving, but then wanted to see the proof.
2) BR, when asked about uncomfortable touching, put a game board on top of his head and didn’t answer.
3) JR, in an interview in 2000 when attorney told him about fiber evidence in JB’s panties, linking him to the crime, became outraged and indignant. (His attorney LW seems to have had a “virtual meltdown” over this line of questioning). My interpretation and JMHO

Just one minor correction, questfortrue... It may seem like a minor thing to some, but it's important to note that PR's shocked response in that interview (which I believe to be genuine because it came as a surprise to her) was to the suggestion that there was evidence that JonBenet had been molested in the past -- prior to the night she died.

IOW, I think PR knew about the molestation that night which led up to JonBenet's death, but she didn't know that things had happened in the past that would show up in the autopsy. This is further contradiction to the idea that the sexual assault could have been done to hide vaginal injuries from prior molestations.

 

[UKGuy]

Chrishope,

The biggest problem with BDI is of course the implausibility of the kidnapping scenario. There shouldn't have been both a body and a RN. For the scenario to work the body should have been disposed of. Finding the body destroys the plausibility of the kidnap scenario. Why then would PR call the police, virtually guaranteeing the body would be found?

PR called the police because JR told her to! All three R's were awake and talking together prior to the 911 call. BR was told to go to bed and fake being asleep, which he did.

What you consider implausable might simply be the remnants of a prior staging, all three Ramsey's acting at different stages with differing agendas.

Also there is no homicide rulebook which suggests all deaths must have a neat, consistent and linear narrative. From this absence you certainly cannot rule out BDI, even if it were present, then you have only set aside one out of many interpretations.

All three R's were involved in the staging. The forensic evidence confirms this, all three R's are linked to the wine-cellar. One R sexually assaulted JonBenet and an R, possibly not the same person killed JonBenet.

.

 

[UKGuy]

MAYBE all 3 got it wrong by focusing on a single person (and I mean the abuse&killing,not the staging)
it happened before,dad&son abusing the sister,mom&son abusing the sister,mom&dad abusing both kids (horrible cases)
even if JDI is my top theory sometimes I wonder whether it was not BR+PR and daddy had no clue until he found her (11am?)....or maybe he was not totally in the dark but was called in AFTER some of the staging was done....or maybe BR wanted to experience something he witnessed?(JR abusing jb)?who knows...
but I always had this theory that maybe some part of the staging was done not to fool LE but to fool the other parent...maybe this is why the elements of the staging are so contradicting?

madeleine,
This is what I think. It could actually be the case that BR staged things, including the head injury, so he could explain away JonBenet lying, wherever she was, in a coma?

I doubt Patsy knew much about the size-12's, otherwise why tell BPD she placed all the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer?

With them not there, regardless of who molested JonBenet, this person then removed all the size-12's, redressed JonBenet, then relocated the remaining size-12's out of sight.

It appears JonBenet had been wearing the pink barbie nightgown along with her missing underwear. This could have been a prior staging or how she had been left, say in her bedroom?

If the missing pair of size-6 underwear is a Wednesday pair then this will be why she was dressed in the size-12's.

And that little detail is of absolutely no significance to anyone else in the world, except another Ramsey.

Did Patsy really redress JonBenet in those longjohns, why would Patsy do that, we know the pink barbie nightgown was available?


I reckon all the Ramsey's at different points contributed towards the staging, giving the crime-scene what some have described as implausible features.


.

 

[otg]

The problem in making any sense of this mess is knowing exactly what to attribute to whom. And that is because more than one person had a hand the whole thing (as I believe most posters here will acknowledge). However likely or unlikely, and however dreadful or repugnant to consider, any one of four people who lived in the hellhole could have caused the vaginal injuries. But believing that the one person who is responsible for that has to be the same one who did everything else is IMO wrong.

We can go through the whole likelihood of one person over another, we can talk about statistics of abusers, and we can always discuss occam's razor vs the plenitude principle.

But based on what I can read in the AR and on the opinions and reasoning I’ve read from specialists who have actually seen all the evidence, I believe that the molestation had started a considerable length of time before her death. The exact amount of time cannot be reasonably estimated even by the experts. But understanding the term “chronic” as it is used by doctors tells us that it had to be a long enough period of time that any resulting injury would have time enough to partially heal but not scar over. The separate “acute” injuries had to have happened shortly before her death -- not afterwards as some have speculated, leading them to the incorrect conclusion that these injuries might have been inflicted to hide or mask the prior molestations.

This much we know because it is written by the coroner. The rest is speculation, so here's mine:

To me, this seems to have been something that had started happening within recent months prior to her death, and then escalated to the point of causing more and more physical damage (not to mention the mental damage) and eventually pain when it was being done.

So if you follow that line of reasoning, it makes more sense (to me at least) to believe this was something being done by a juvenile whose sexual curiosity had been awakened and was going to continue progressing until something happened that would stop it. And I don’t discount the possibility that more than one juvenile may have been involved in the ongoing molestation. There are indications that this may have been the case. I think PR was beginning to see signs of it, but either didn’t want to address it, or didn’t know what to do about it. I don’t think JR was even aware of it, but that’s only because I see him as being so busy with his business and detached from the family.

No, I don't subscribe to DocG's theory.

I think it's quite possible it was all done by one person.

Okay, Chris, I suppose we’ll never agree on that one, but I appreciate your opinion and enjoy a civil discussion.

Emphasizing the word "has", I would agree. But it could, imo, be the same person.

I understand what you’re saying.

Why couldn't the acute injuries have been inflicted prior to death with the intent to obscure chronic injuries? Not that I necessarily think the acute injures were in fact inflicted for that purpose, but I don't see why the couldn't be.

Too much about that supposition doesn’t make sense to me. Not that people who do stupid or vile things aren’t capable of making big mistakes in their reasoning, but I just don’t find that kind of action very plausible. But then, there’s Hanlon’s razor, which states, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

What indications?

Like much of what you question, I don’t necessarily think it was the case that there was more than one juvenile involved on the night JonBenet died, but I recognize the possibility. Others have pointed to the bicycle tracks in the yard, the possible phone calls in the middle of the night, and the inexplicable and sudden closeness to the Stines immediately following the incident (yet they were among the few who were not called over that morning). I do think though that there were others involved in the prior molestations that took place. There is no proof of that in any of what we know, but some of the other things we’ve heard or read about that were going on leading up to that night hint at it. (If you want, I could expand on that in another post.)

But then we have the old problem of why the Rs felt it necessary to implicate themselves in the murder of their daughter. We seem to be falling back to the idea that the Rs didn't want ti publicly known that BR was the abuser and/or head basher. But I always have trouble believing either adult in the household figured implicating themselves in a capital crime was preferable.

To me, it's implausible that parents who were unaware or only dimly becoming aware of prior abuse would decide the best course of action, upon discovering JBR's injuries, was to stage a phoney kidnapping. It does seem a popular theory.

Yup. We always come full circle back to that. The only explanation I can give to that is that they didn’t feel they would be implicating themselves in a murder if they were able to pull it off. They were simply trying to save themselves from the loss of their only remaining child. I don’t think you would (and I know I wouldn’t) consider taking that tack in the same situation. But who’s to say they aren’t smarter than you and I -- because it worked! And every article you read that comes out about it now reminds us all that the entire Ramsey family has been cleared by the DA. So it did indeed work.

 

[Chrishope]

MAYBE all 3 got it wrong by focusing on a single person (and I mean the abuse&killing,not the staging)
it happened before,dad&son abusing the sister,mom&son abusing the sister,mom&dad abusing both kids (horrible cases)
even if JDI is my top theory sometimes I wonder whether it was not BR+PR and daddy had no clue until he found her (11am?)....or maybe he was not totally in the dark but was called in AFTER some of the staging was done....or maybe BR wanted to experience something he witnessed?(JR abusing jb)?who knows...
but I always had this theory that maybe some part of the staging was done not to fool LE but to fool the other parent...maybe this is why the elements of the staging are so contradicting?

That's it exactly. The staging is there to fool the other parent.

 

[madeleine]

That's it exactly. The staging is there to fool the other parent.

It's part of S.Singular's theory...he's IDI and although I am not one I do like this particular part of it and IMO it's spot on...it made me go hmmm when I read it and it changed my own views a bit


http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/singular/index_1.html

Both parents, in my opinion, do not have the same information about what occurred that night.

I'm suggesting that the Ramseys loved their child deeply, despite what happened to her. To get rid of her on a cold night in December, by tossing her in a ditch or something of this sort, would have been a very difficult thing for a parent to do. I'm also suggesting, more significantly, that both parents did not participate in this cover-up. Only one. And the cover-up primarily intended to fool not the cops but the other parent. So it had to look credible while accomplishing other things: keeping the child in the house, even though she was dead, and making it look as if someone who knew their family and hated the father had come in and done all this to JonBenet. Also, one parent could not easily have left the house that night with the body. Something had to be done immediately that would occur in the home and be believable. According to John Douglas, the ex-FBI profiler who examined the Ramseys briefly after the murder and concluded they were not child killers, only one parent knew that John Ramsey had recently received a $118,000 bonus and that parent was the father. I believe that a husband's inability to confront his wife at a critical moment because of his desire to protect her feelings played an important role in this case. It is possible to be afraid of the cops, but terrified of your wife.


ITA with bold above....

 

[madeleine]

That's it exactly. The staging is there to fool the other parent.

If JDI I am sure he was the one who redressed her and wiped the body off (removing evidence of abuse) and IMO it wasn't only to fool the cops,it was to fool Patsy and the rest of the family....dunno how he managed then to convince her to write the RN ,maybe he claimed an accident happened? (IF she wrote it,I am not totally convinced)

her words and reaction when it comes to sexual assault (LKL show) speaks volumes....maybe she felt like a fool when she realized what she covered up for?maybe she doesn't wanna believe it?

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

PR called the police because JR told her to! ...

Are you sure?

In their CNN interview, New Years Day '97, JR says he told PR to call the police.

"RAMSEY, J: Well, no. I mean, I read it very fast. I was out of my mind. And it said "Don't call the police." You know, that type of thing. And I told Patsy, call the police immediately. And I think I ran through the house a bit. "

In Death of Innocence the Ramseys write;

"John runs down the main stairs and into the back hallway. I grasp my stomach and run after him. By the time I get to him he is down on his hands and knees, staring at the sheets of paper spread out on the floor in front of him. He is examining the ransom note, under the ceiling lights of the back hall. The note reads:

(PR states what how the note reads)

"What do I do?"I stammer.​

He shouts. "Call the police!"

"Are you sure?"

"Yes. Call them!"

Standing next to the wall phone, I instantly dial 911, and try to make the voice on the other end of the line understand. ​

So far, it looks like you're right, JR appears to have told PR to call the police. (Of course we are relying on Ramsey testimony here)

The problem is with the A&E Channel's documentary where PR states;

Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911."'

We (or at least I) could dismiss the inconsistency in who decided the police needed to be called. Whether JR ordered PR to do it, or whether it was PR who stated she was going to do it and JR went along. Except that the physical location of the "actors" tells us something is wrong. It's more than not remembering exactly who's idea it was. In version one, JR is on his hands and knees reading the note on the floor, and PR is standing next to the phone. In version two, they are upstairs, and she runs down stairs to make the call while JR goes to check on BR.

PR has lied, at least once, about what happened. The two versions are not consistent. So inconsistent that they cannot be reconciled.

So which version is true? Did JR tell PR to call? Or was it PR's decision, one which JR went along with?

If JR wanted the call made, why not make it himself?

But of course, your objection, even if true, doesn't dispose of the problem. The police were called, with the body in the house. Why would JR tell PR to do that? Why would they try to stage a kidnapping, then call the police who will certainly find the body and realize there was no kidnapping?

All three R's were awake and talking together prior to the 911 call. BR was told to go to bed and fake being asleep, which he did.

What you consider implausable might simply be the remnants of a prior staging, all three Ramsey's acting at different stages with differing agendas.

So you believe that ex-Naval Officer and sharp business man JR allowed his wife and son to run around the house, staging at different times, and with different agendas? With all his training in strategy he just let everyone run around willy-nilly staging for their own purposes? I know you seem to dislike the word implausible, but I don't know what else to use here - Fantastic? Absurd? Ridiculous?

If all 3 were involved (and they weren't) then JR would be in charge, directing how things would be done. The scene, as staged would have told a single, clear, convincing story, meant to fool the authorities.

Also there is no homicide rulebook which suggests all deaths must have a neat, consistent and linear narrative. From this absence you certainly cannot rule out BDI, even if it were present, then you have only set aside one out of many interpretations.

True, there is no rule book. JR could have left the body on the basement floor, hopped in his car, and took off for parts unkown, expecting the police would think it's a kidnapping case.

I'm sorry, but I must return to plausibility. If the Kidnapping is to be believed (and if not, why bother with it?) then there should not be both a body and a RN. Once the body is found, the kidnapping scenario is down the toilet.

If the body had been hidden in the crawl space we might be able to believe JR expected it would not be found there. But it was in the WC. Calling the police guarantees the body will be found and the kidnapping scenario goes down the drain.

Though there is no rule book, one might assume that any attempt to stage a particular scenario would have to be believable. Or to put it differently, there actually is an informal rule book - the scenario has to be plausible if it's going to convince the authorities. Once the body is discovered in the house it's no longer believable that there was a kidnapper. Suspicion immediately turns to the people who were in the house that night.

All three R's were involved in the staging. The forensic evidence confirms this, all three R's are linked to the wine-cellar. One R sexually assaulted JonBenet and an R, possibly not the same person killed JonBenet.

.

The evidence does not confirm all 3 were involved in staging. But we won't agree on that, so lets move on.

You have it right when you say on R (at least) sexually assaulted JBR, and an R, possibly not the same person, killed her. You've allowed, sensibly, for the possibility that it was the same person doing the abuse and killing.

 

[Chrishope]

It's part of S.Singular's theory...he's IDI and although I am not one I do like this particular part of it and IMO it's spot on...it made me go hmmm when I read it and it changed my own views a bit


http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/singular/index_1.html

Both parents, in my opinion, do not have the same information about what occurred that night.

I'm suggesting that the Ramseys loved their child deeply, despite what happened to her. To get rid of her on a cold night in December, by tossing her in a ditch or something of this sort, would have been a very difficult thing for a parent to do. I'm also suggesting, more significantly, that both parents did not participate in this cover-up. Only one. And the cover-up primarily intended to fool not the cops but the other parent. So it had to look credible while accomplishing other things: keeping the child in the house, even though she was dead, and making it look as if someone who knew their family and hated the father had come in and done all this to JonBenet. Also, one parent could not easily have left the house that night with the body. Something had to be done immediately that would occur in the home and be believable. According to John Douglas, the ex-FBI profiler who examined the Ramseys briefly after the murder and concluded they were not child killers, only one parent knew that John Ramsey had recently received a $118,000 bonus and that parent was the father. I believe that a husband's inability to confront his wife at a critical moment because of his desire to protect her feelings played an important role in this case. It is possible to be afraid of the cops, but terrified of your wife.


ITA with bold above....

Thanks, I'll read the link later today when I have more time.


I think that's right, the staging isn't convincing to the police. It's for the other parent.

 

[Chrishope]

If JDI I am sure he was the one who redressed her and wiped the body off (removing evidence of abuse) and IMO it wasn't only to fool the cops,it was to fool Patsy and the rest of the family....dunno how he managed then to convince her to write the RN ,maybe he claimed an accident happened? (IF she wrote it,I am not totally convinced)

her words and reaction when it comes to sexual assault (LKL show) speaks volumes....maybe she felt like a fool when she realized what she covered up for?maybe she doesn't wanna believe it?

I don't think she did write the RN.

Nothing done to the body was going to fool the cops/coroner. Once it was found, evidence of prior abuse was going to be found. The "staging" doesn't include the WC, imo. The police are not meant to open the WC and look in and say to themselves, "well, gee, we have a RN, and now a body. It's pretty clear that it started as a kidnapping and morphed into a sex murder". The WC is simply a place where things are stashed until they can be disposed of.

 

[Chrishope]

Okay, Chris, I suppose we’ll never agree on that one, but I appreciate your opinion and enjoy a civil discussion.


I understand what you’re saying.


Too much about that supposition doesn’t make sense to me. Not that people who do stupid or vile things aren’t capable of making big mistakes in their reasoning, but I just don’t find that kind of action very plausible. But then, there’s Hanlon’s razor, which states, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”



Like much of what you question, I don’t necessarily think it was the case that there was more than one juvenile involved on the night JonBenet died, but I recognize the possibility. Others have pointed to the bicycle tracks in the yard, the possible phone calls in the middle of the night, and the inexplicable and sudden closeness to the Stines immediately following the incident (yet they were among the few who were not called over that morning). I do think though that there were others involved in the prior molestations that took place. There is no proof of that in any of what we know, but some of the other things we’ve heard or read about that were going on leading up to that night hint at it. (If you want, I could expand on that in another post.)


Yup. We always come full circle back to that. The only explanation I can give to that is that they didn’t feel they would be implicating themselves in a murder if they were able to pull it off. They were simply trying to save themselves from the loss of their only remaining child. I don’t think you would (and I know I wouldn’t) consider taking that tack in the same situation. But who’s to say they aren’t smarter than you and I -- because it worked! And every article you read that comes out about it now reminds us all that the entire Ramsey family has been cleared by the DA. So it did indeed work.

You have some interesting points. I will respond again later when there is more time.

 

[madeleine]

I don't think she did write the RN.

Nothing done to the body was going to fool the cops/coroner. Once it was found, evidence of prior abuse was going to be found. The "staging" doesn't include the WC, imo. The police are not meant to open the WC and look in and say to themselves, "well, gee, we have a RN, and now a body. It's pretty clear that it started as a kidnapping and morphed into a sex murder". The WC is simply a place where things are stashed until they can be disposed of.

I am thinking....it's important to whom the note is addressed....it's an important detail...no matter who wrote it I think the idea belonged to him...if this was about revenge of course it's more plausible to target John (practice note showed Mrs And Mr....then it changed to only Mr)...he again wants to make it look like HE is the victim in all this...I am not the killer,I am the victim,it was all about ME.I always thought she was the drama queen but JR is one as well...the other side of HIS suffering....it was always important to him for the world to know how much HE went through...he talks more about that than about PR's cancer or JB's injuries....the note being addressed to him makes me believe not only that it was done to mislead (JR the killer>JR the victim) but also to underline once again that HE is a victim....

why didn't the note just say we've got your child,we want money or she dies....why ALL the details re JR?....what I am asking is,one of the two R's wrote it....why did the writer focus so much on JR?because it was always about ME ME ME?

dunno how clear I made myself,sorry,I gotta run

 

[Nom de plume]

I am thinking....it's important to whom the note is addressed....it's an important detail...no matter who wrote it I think the idea belonged to him...if this was about revenge of course it's more plausible to target John (practice note showed Mrs And Mr....then it changed to only Mr)...he again wants to make it look like HE is the victim in all this...I am not the killer,I am the victim,it was all about ME.I always thought she was the drama queen but JR is one as well...the other side of HIS suffering....it was always important to him for the world to know how much HE went through...he talks more about that than about PR's cancer or JB's injuries....the note being addressed to him makes me believe not only that it was done to mislead (JR the killer>JR the victim) but also to underline once again that HE is a victim....

why didn't the note just say we've got your child,we want money or she dies....why ALL the details re JR?....what I am asking is,one of the two R's wrote it....why did the writer focus so much on JR?because it was always about ME ME ME?

dunno how clear I made myself,sorry,I gotta run

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Exactly right!

 

[AD0086]

I think the garrote was put on her there when they realized, that after the headbash, she was still alive.

Why? WHY "finish her off"? I'll never understand this, if true, that they realized she was still alive and then took steps to kill her. So frustrating. And heartbreaking. What was the point?

 

[madeleine]

I am sorry but if someone would have done something like this because of ME I would:

1.die because of the guilt
2.I would ask myself every day WHAT did I do so wrong?what did I do to piss someone off that bad?I at least would have a clue WHO it might be
3.not only would I want the killer caught/sent to death row but I would NEED to face him and ask him WHY,what did I do in order for you to hate me that much


if it was a pedo,okay,we all know WHY they do what they do but this is SO different...if someone killed her because of HIM...aren't you at least curious as to who and why?I don't buy it! (was very frustrating to watch him how he changed his theory from a pedo did it to it was someone who hated MEMEME)

 

[madeleine]

I've said this before...even IF IDI (huge IF)....JR knows who and why and the reason he's covering for that person is he himself has something very ugly to hide (who knows what he did to that person?)...it's the ONLY IDI theory that makes sense to me....not probable,I think RDI...but not impossible