I can't find a hole in this theory...

[OpenMind4U]

If you consider John losing his business, spending a fortune on lawyers, private detectives, PR people, etc., having his dirty linen aired in the media on a daily basis for years, being widely reviled in the press and the Internet -- if you consider that "success" then I can't argue.

O, please! Don't make me cry feeling sorry for Ramsey's misfortune of losing their business, money and image...:floorlaugh:...and please remind me: how many houses JR still owned today? should I worry if he still has the yacht and plane too?...or should I care how many times a year he plays golf???!!!! O, but IMAGE? Yes, you're right on this one. His face is very recognizable from all his TV and book signing appearances and his name is forever associated with the MURDER.......bad image...Dear Mr. John Ramsey! Do you need any moral support because I know one person (DocG) who really cares about you!
:woohoo:

 

[BOESP]

I know you asked DD this question...sorry for interruption...IMO, these are the MAIN facts ST woudn't know before he resigned: DNA analysis which points to 6 different 'contributors' AND knowledge of GJ interviews and findings.

Glad you jumped in. I didn't intend to make it a closed question. :seeya:

Linda Hoffman-Pugh, who testified before the Grand Jury, stated later that in her opinion the GJ was going to indict Patsy. Also, even though this is a contradiction to what I just said, knowing who testified before the GJ and not knowing how Hunter charged the jury, I would question the the use of the GJ as providing evidence contrary to Thomas's opinion. I believe I read somewhere that Thomas couldn't get a foot in the door to testify in the GJ but Lou Smit did testify - that is lopsided in my opinion. I think I also read somewhere that Patsy and perhaps John both believed they'd be carted off to jail after the GJ met.

The DNA analysis, unless there is more to it than the public knows, is pretty useless in forming an opinion in my book. It could belong to anyone.

So, be my devil's advocate because I can't see the GJ or DNA changing things all that much.

 

[BOESP]

If you consider John losing his business, spending a fortune on lawyers, private detectives, PR people, etc., having his dirty linen aired in the media on a daily basis for years, being widely reviled in the press and the Internet -- if you consider that "success" then I can't argue.

I consider it successful that they kept their rears out of jail. They asked for the media involvement and press interviews and the PR machine that handled the funeral and all their other "events."

 

[OpenMind4U]

Glad you jumped in. I didn't intend to make it a closed question. :seeya:

Linda Hoffman-Pugh, who testified before the Grand Jury, stated later that in her opinion the GJ was going to indict Patsy. Also, even though this is a contradiction to what I just said, knowing who testified before the GJ and not knowing how Hunter charged the jury, I would question the the use of the GJ as providing evidence contrary to Thomas's opinion. I believe I read somewhere that Thomas couldn't get a foot in the door to testify in the GJ but Lou Smit did testify - that is lopsided in my opinion. I think I also read somewhere that Patsy and perhaps John both believed they'd be carted off to jail after the GJ met.

The DNA analysis, unless there is more to it than the public knows, is pretty useless in forming an opinion in my book. It could belong to anyone.

So, be my devil's advocate because I can't see the GJ or DNA changing things all that much.

I love 'devil advocate' concept (especially, performed by Al Pacino...! IMO, information from GJ could produce 'an ocean' of an additional facts...especially about BR. And I want to believe that FW has a lot to 'offer' as well. Of course, too bad that BPD couldn't provide the guidance for proper questioning, but this is another topic for discussion....

I believe Kolar's knowledge about GJ details - makes a huge 'contribution' for his theory. You probably noticed, Kolar very often refers to ST in his book. I do believe he did talk to ST many times before publishing his book. But ST theory didn't impact Kolar's finding. In contrast, if you'll read Larry King interview w/ST in 2000 - you'll see that ST NEVER considered BR at all!!! So, my deduction is that Kolar find something about BR in 2006 which Thomas couldn't know about in 1998.

In regards of DNA, I would partially agree with you. It wasn't a big contribution...however, during ST involvement, every 'suspect' was provided DNA for 'match'. Now, after Kolar book, we should think: these 'tests' means absolutely nothing, right? Or maybe we should think that LE has something as part of these 'dozen secrets'?...Anyway, you did asked question about what Kolar know and what Tomas didn't...I answered as much as I know (and I know very-very little...Great discussion, thank you!!!

 

[rashomon]

I honestly don't know how to respond to the above statement. How on earth do you suppose I could forget that this was a faked ransom note? Or are you saying it was a faked faked ransom note? Of course the writer knew the threats had no basis in reality.

The Ramseys knew that there was there was no danger from any kidnappers if they went went against the instructions in the ransom note because they themselves had written that (faked) RN.

Whereas you argue that the Ramseys' behavior ignores what it says in the RN. They ignore their own concoction, so to speak, by acting openly against it. This strikes you as 'not logical', but imo the mistake you make is that you are trying to construct sense out of nonsense, i. e. you are trying to attribute logical sense to a jumbled mix which the R's threw together in their panicked and amateurish attempt to write what they errounesously believed to be a 'genuine-looking' ransom note, full of threats not to call the police and other stuff from gangster flicks.

 

[rashomon]

DeeDee249,
Of course he would. Do you reckon he knew that, what did Patsy say to John that night, did she request dialling medical assistance?

After listening to a few online radio talks, I note nobody, not even Kolar addresses the sexual assault or staging, however you describe it, maybe they do not want to go there?

During Kolars interview someone referred to the artwork and the title of the book. Given Kolar could not be pressed to offer who he thought did it. I thought his emphasis on the books title Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? was interesting, since when queried on it. He said if someone is taken from one location to another, by force then that is a kidnapping, I think he cited from the kitchen to the basement as an example. Somewhere else he reckons JonBenet was snacking pineapple and went from there to the basement: BDI?

I still find the title of the book confusing.

 

[BOESP]

I still find the title of the book confusing.

Yeah, me too. He can be ambiguous with the public but I bet his petition was/will be unambiguous and of forensic quality.

So glad to see you and Solace posting again. Now if we could get Jayelles posting again.

 

[SyraKelly]

Yeah, me too. He can be ambiguous with the public but I bet his petition was/will be unambiguous and of forensic quality.

So glad to see you and Solace posting again. Now if we could get Jayelles posting again.

I would like to see KoldKase again!!

 

[rashomon]

The knots in the garrotte, at the neck, are not intricate or difficult to make, IMO. The weird way that the garrotte is attached to the handle would, IMO, take some time to make and is evidence of some knot tying skills.

The way in which the cord was wrapped around the paintbrush stick was simple as well: in "concentric loops and ended in a simple hitch that secured the knot in place". (Kolar, p. 66)

If, for example, one loops a shoelace around a pencil a few times to the left of the middle of the pencil, then a few times to the right, and then secures the loops by a knot in the middle, it looks pretty similar.

 

[rashomon]

So you actually believe Patsy Ramsey capable of brutally strangling her daughter to cover for: what?

What exactly do you think she would have been covering up? And why?

I think she covered up that her daughter had become the victim of a domestic homicide and had also been the victim of chronic sexual abuse. Imo what drove Patsy was to keep up the facade for the public.

Losing her temper and striking her on the head? Burke doing the same? That it? Or must we include vaginal penetration by a sexually active nine year old? Which would more likely implicate John? Or vaginal penetration by John himself? Or are you saying Patsy both sexually attacked JonBenet and strangled her?

In a family which was so highly dysfunctional, can anyone of them definitely be ruled out as having sexually abused JonBenet?

 

[BOESP]

I would like to see KoldKase again!!

I didn't know KoldKase wasn't posting anymore. I thought maybe he/she was on vacation or something.

 

[UKGuy]

I still find the title of the book confusing.

rashomon,
I think the title is an indirect reference to the notion that JonBenet was never kidnapped, e.g. it was all staging.

But when asked about this he said as an example taking JonBenet from the kitchen down to the basement agianst her will, is technically a kidnapping?

So I reckon Kolar is hinting via his title that whatever clues, suggestions there are in his book, then the person so profiled kidnapped JonBenet.

That is; A Ramsey Kidnapped JonBenet: Not A Foreign Faction!

If I had not heard him talk about this I doubt it would ever have occurred to me.

Its as if Kolar wants to employ irony deliberately?


.

 

[UKGuy]

I think she covered up that her daughter had become the victim of a domestic homicide and had also been the victim of chronic sexual abuse. Imo what drove Patsy was to keep up the facade for the public.

In a family which was so highly dysfunctional, can anyone of them definitely be ruled out as having sexually abused JonBenet?

rashomon,
The simple answer is no. Since that might include not only the immediate Ramsey's, but the extended family, e.g. Paughs.

Consider you are defending a R in court on the charge of homicide. Which defence seems more credible, one of a mercy killing or that to silence the victim, so that which is secret remains so?

The R's knew what would be made public if JonBenet was able to talk. With the R's fibers present at critical locations in the basement, JR and BR present prior to the 911 call, and Burke acting asleep before being relocated by FW, tells you all three R's were complicit in the death of JonBenet Ramsey.


.
.

 

[dodie20]

I think she covered up that her daughter had become the victim of a domestic homicide and had also been the victim of chronic sexual abuse. Imo what drove Patsy was to keep up the facade for the public.

In a family which was so highly dysfunctional, can anyone of them definitely be ruled out as having sexually abused JonBenet?

Right. And from what I've read, the abuse seemed to center around 'digital penetration', which IMO, doesn't necessarily point to a man. The other day, I did read something about penis penetration, but I need more follow up, and for it to be backed by experts, before I can accept it as fact. IMO, sexual abuse doesn't have to be about sexual gratification. In a situation like this, I think it would be more about power and inflicting pain. (Then why not stick to 'regular, ol', physical abuse?) IDK, but it would depend on the abuser's frame of mind, and how she herself, related to the vaginal area. For instance, if she had been molested, raped, or physically hurt there, she might see it as a vulnerable, 'hard to detect', area. In other words, injuries there, wouldn't be noticed, like a black eye would. If the female is a very abusive woman, what could be a more effective way, to wield her control? All of this is MOO, based on me personally, not being able to rule PR out as the abuser.

 

[dodie20]

The Ramseys knew that there was there was no danger from any kidnappers if they went went against the instructions in the ransom note because they themselves had written that (faked) RN.

Whereas you argue that the Ramseys' behavior ignores what it says in the RN. They ignore their own concoction, so to speak, by acting openly against it. This strikes you as 'not logical', but imo the mistake you make is that you are trying to construct sense out of nonsense, i. e. you are trying to attribute logical sense to a jumbled mix which the R's threw together in their panicked and amateurish attempt to write what they errounesously believed to be a 'genuine-looking' ransom note, full of threats not to call the police and other stuff from gangster flicks.

also, the ransom note was obviously written for the purpose of bringing a stranger in, as the perp, And to keep cops from thinking JB was dead in the home. If they had simply called 911 and reported her missing, (without the RN), the house, from top to bottom, would have been checked, immediately. It's kind of mind boggling, how well the RN actually Did work. I have a couple of ideas about JR finding JB. #1, he was uninvolved in her death, but knowing PR and her habits, checked the basement, or #2, he was involved in JB's death somehow, but got antsy, waiting for LE to get out of the house. About PR going against the ransom note demands. It's MOO, that whoever wrote the note, got a little carried away with the threats, because #1, JB's murder was weighing heavily on his/ her mind, and those thoughts trickled down to the words, and #2, the writer might have been intoxicated, and #3, he/she had not decided What to do with the body...(get rid if it? which is what IMO, the author realized he/she needed to do, or have a proper burial? which IMO, is what the author wanted to do). Also, IMO, it's possible that the note was written before the strangulation. Maybe the plan was to dump the body, but after finding JB clinging to life, he/she finished the job, (by not actually having to put his/her hands on her), and then simply ran out of time. moo

 

[BOESP]

So to you the ransom note is pure nonsense, thrown together in a panic? Sorry, but if you take a good look at this note, you'll see that it is most certainly not thrown together. Every single i is dotted, every t is crossed, the spacing is remarkably uniform, the margins are adhered to in almost every single line. Very specific demands are made, not only for the ransom amount but also how it is to be broken down into 100's and 20's. Very specific threats are made. And a specific time window is indicated as to when the "kidnappers" are to call. And yes there are quotes from gangster movies, so what?

The note was written for a purpose, no question. I can't imagine anyone with any LE experience doubting that. And that purpose was completely undermined when the 911 call was made -- by Patsy.

It is simply beyond belief that Patsy would take all the time and trouble to write that note and then simply hand it over to the police as evidence against her. And if you really believe it's so obvious she wrote it, then that certainly was evidence against her. That could send her to the chair! And for what? Once the body is found it's clear there was no kidnapping and so there would have been no point in writing a fake ransom note.

Anybody with "LE experience" would recognize the note as staging.

 

[ozazure]

I think the note could have two purposes, the first to point a finger outwards and a second to escalate the search immediately so that JonBenet was found. Of course a missing child seemingly taken from a bedroom would be taken seriously but you'd assume proof of an abduction via the note would send the efforts off the scale and she'd be got to nearly immediately.

The crime scene shows a mixture of cruelty and care to JonBenet. Patsy or John or both did not want her discarded like garbage to rot somewhere. They wanted her cared for in death and given a proper funeral and burial. If it was too late for am ambulance, they still wanted her in the morgue and cared for appropriately. If either were really concerned about obscurely all evidence they would have cleaned up all the soiled items for a start, I don't think hiding her body for reducing evidence was considered at all. They did what was necessary and little more.

That's one reason you may right a note that ultimately implicates you, because despite what happened to your child that night under your care or at your hands, while protecting yourself you still want her cared for.

 

[txsvicki]

I can't form an opinion on whether jonbenet was cared and/or tended or not. Ninety minutes isn't very long to decide a child is dying or accept that she is dead. Her injured head is thought to have been turned over to strangle. No care taken with the hair in the knots or necklace. No proof she was covered before being put in the wine cellar. The mucus and saliva left on her face. Even the wiping and separating the labia was further intrusion to the injured genital area. I can't decide an opinion on that either. Was it fanatical wiping off urine just as much as wiping blood away. If an adult staged even one small thing then she is capable of hiding a body, which the note did predict.

 

[dodie20]

I can't form an opinion on whether jonbenet was cared and/or tended or not. Ninety minutes isn't very long to decide a child is dying or accept that she is dead. Her injured head is thought to have been turned over to strangle. No care taken with the hair in the knots or necklace. No proof she was covered before being put in the wine cellar. The mucus and saliva left on her face. Even the wiping and separating the labia was further intrusion to the injured genital area. I can't decide an opinion on that either. Was it fanatical wiping off urine just as much as wiping blood away. If an adult staged even one small thing then she is capable of hiding a body, which the note did predict.

Like you, I'm not sure that JB was cared for. If somebody had a show of love, wouldn't he have removed the garotte? If the plan was to dump the body, leaving the garotte seems even more heinous.The only thing that points to care, IMO, is the blanket, and it could have been used for another reason. And didn't it have a nightgown stuck to it? What it sounds like, is somebody pulled the blanket out of the dryer, and didn't notice the gown, because it was dark and the flashlight, didn't illuminate very well. I remember PR saying she kep her personal medical supplies in and opened bathroom drawer, ( in JAR's room, I think). I wonder if her alcohol swabs were used, to clean JB.

 

[LinasK]

The fibers are linked to people who were and had been for some time in intimate contact with the victim. If they'd been linked to anyone else (such as Fleet White, "Santa" McReynolds, etc., etc.) that would be significant. But nothing of that sort was found. As I see it, the presence of John's fibers in JonBenet's crotch is far more significant than Patsy's fibers on the tape and cord. It's not difficult to imagine how her fibers may have been transferred to the tape and cord via JonBenet herself, but it's harder to see how John's fibers could have been innocently transferred to her crotch, especially since she was not found naked, but with panties on. When his lawyer, Lin Wood was informed of this evidence, he went ballistic and for good reason, because this is potentially very damaging evidence.

MY point is that we need not continue to haggle over the meaning of all these various bits and pieces, because what we see from the known and undisputed facts themselves already tells us everything we need to know.

I totally agree, and it seems John's fibers often get overlooked in favor of Patsy's. I do believe JDI, but that Patsy stood by her man and helped with the staging and probably the RN.