Nehemiah
Well-Known Member
Good point, Eliza. I hadn't thought of that angle.
Is The Location A Smoking Gun?
- Thread starter UKGuy
- Start date
sissi
Former Member
That is a good point Eliza, could we safely say , Patsy was close to being eliminated as the writer, John was eliminated, Burke likely wouldn't have been allowed by his parents to write it, that no Ramsey wrote that note?
BTW Nehemiah I admire you that you haven't so totally bought into a theory that you have closed your mind to options. I wish I could say that about myself, I try to stay open to other's ideas but it's really tough for me as it appears to be difficult for many on here.
IMO
BTW Nehemiah I admire you that you haven't so totally bought into a theory that you have closed your mind to options. I wish I could say that about myself, I try to stay open to other's ideas but it's really tough for me as it appears to be difficult for many on here.
IMO
K777angel
Member
The "ransom" note is the most critical piece of evidence in the case.
Consider the case WITHOUT the note. What do you have?
A dead child in the home.
But there IS a "ransom" note left behind.
But the problem is there is ALSO the child left behind and not taken.
And she is left DEAD.
So the note sheds light on the whole mess.
It is nothing but staging. And that is obvious at first glance.
The FBI KNEW something was "hinky" in this case before JonBenet's body was ever 'found.'
The sheer length of the note was a huge red flag.
Then when the contents were read - BEFORE any handwriting analysis was ever done - it became just more obvious that this was bogus.
And so then after it became known it was a murder and not a kidnapping and the investigation expanded, the note was of course a major point of study and investigation. It holds the biggest clue to what happened to JonBenet.
So what did the experts say about the note?
That it was written by a WOMAN or a 'genteel man'.
NOT a 10 yr old kid. That is very obvious. No 10 yr old kid is going to use language like "and hence" (although his mother does). No 10 yr old kid is going to use the term "gentlemen" (although his mother does). No 10 yr old kid is going to use the term "southern common sense" (although his mother does).
The note also had Patsy's habit of using exclamation points and acronyms.
It went from "Mr. Ramsey" and slid into "John" and "when you get home..."
Wifey tone to it.
Evidence of Patsy being involved deep in the staging is evident not only forensically with her clothing fibers from that night in the tote where the paint brush used in the strangling device around her neck was taken from, but those same fibers are also ENTWINED in the knot in the cord pulled around JonBenet's neck. Hello!!
Not to mention laying blankets down on the floor to lay JonBenet - but the perp/stager went even further and wrapped her up in a blanket. And put her favorite nightie near her.
There is no question that Patsy Ramsey was the "main stager" - but the question that the authorities struggled with in a legal sense was exactly WHO did what. You cannot charge an accessory to a crime in Colorado without FIRST charging someone for the crime itself. Murder. Or perhaps even manslaughter.... But nonetheless, a person MUST be charged with the main crime itself. Either they were never 100% certain just WHO killed JonBenet (the 2 major injuries inflicted on her were both fatal type injuries: head blow, strangulation) - or they were sure but it was a matter of PROVING it beyond a reasonable doubt that hung them up. I believe it was the latter.
Not only would a powerful defense attorney (which the Ramseys could afford and had) rip the prosecution's evidence apart due to the mishandling of the crime scene that morning - they could also point fingers at the district attorney's office with charges of corruption and Hunter knew it and didn't want to deal with it. Sharing information (on tape mind you) with a tabloid reporter would not go over well with a jury.....
And, if it was determined that a minor according to Colorado law (Burke Ramsey) was in fact the one responsible for the death of his sister (accident or not...) and his mother and/or father helped cover it up - NO ONE could be charged for this crime. Burke was too young under the law and his parents as accessories to the crime could not be charged because no one had, or could, be charged with the main crime. Murder/manslaughter.
I think it is safe to say that because there is ample evidence forensically and circumstantially of Patsy Ramsey being involved in the crime - IF they believed she was in fact also the perp - I think they WOULD have brought charges against her. Her fibers in the knot alone is very powerful evidence.
But I believe they uncovered what really happened (Burke was in fact the initial injury inflicter) and the evidence of Patsy's involvement in the crime was that of staging (accessory) and not of murder/manslaughter. So no one could be charged.
That's what the known evidence says to me.
~Angel~
Consider the case WITHOUT the note. What do you have?
A dead child in the home.
But there IS a "ransom" note left behind.
But the problem is there is ALSO the child left behind and not taken.
And she is left DEAD.
So the note sheds light on the whole mess.
It is nothing but staging. And that is obvious at first glance.
The FBI KNEW something was "hinky" in this case before JonBenet's body was ever 'found.'
The sheer length of the note was a huge red flag.
Then when the contents were read - BEFORE any handwriting analysis was ever done - it became just more obvious that this was bogus.
And so then after it became known it was a murder and not a kidnapping and the investigation expanded, the note was of course a major point of study and investigation. It holds the biggest clue to what happened to JonBenet.
So what did the experts say about the note?
That it was written by a WOMAN or a 'genteel man'.
NOT a 10 yr old kid. That is very obvious. No 10 yr old kid is going to use language like "and hence" (although his mother does). No 10 yr old kid is going to use the term "gentlemen" (although his mother does). No 10 yr old kid is going to use the term "southern common sense" (although his mother does).
The note also had Patsy's habit of using exclamation points and acronyms.
It went from "Mr. Ramsey" and slid into "John" and "when you get home..."
Wifey tone to it.
Evidence of Patsy being involved deep in the staging is evident not only forensically with her clothing fibers from that night in the tote where the paint brush used in the strangling device around her neck was taken from, but those same fibers are also ENTWINED in the knot in the cord pulled around JonBenet's neck. Hello!!
Not to mention laying blankets down on the floor to lay JonBenet - but the perp/stager went even further and wrapped her up in a blanket. And put her favorite nightie near her.
There is no question that Patsy Ramsey was the "main stager" - but the question that the authorities struggled with in a legal sense was exactly WHO did what. You cannot charge an accessory to a crime in Colorado without FIRST charging someone for the crime itself. Murder. Or perhaps even manslaughter.... But nonetheless, a person MUST be charged with the main crime itself. Either they were never 100% certain just WHO killed JonBenet (the 2 major injuries inflicted on her were both fatal type injuries: head blow, strangulation) - or they were sure but it was a matter of PROVING it beyond a reasonable doubt that hung them up. I believe it was the latter.
Not only would a powerful defense attorney (which the Ramseys could afford and had) rip the prosecution's evidence apart due to the mishandling of the crime scene that morning - they could also point fingers at the district attorney's office with charges of corruption and Hunter knew it and didn't want to deal with it. Sharing information (on tape mind you) with a tabloid reporter would not go over well with a jury.....
And, if it was determined that a minor according to Colorado law (Burke Ramsey) was in fact the one responsible for the death of his sister (accident or not...) and his mother and/or father helped cover it up - NO ONE could be charged for this crime. Burke was too young under the law and his parents as accessories to the crime could not be charged because no one had, or could, be charged with the main crime. Murder/manslaughter.
I think it is safe to say that because there is ample evidence forensically and circumstantially of Patsy Ramsey being involved in the crime - IF they believed she was in fact also the perp - I think they WOULD have brought charges against her. Her fibers in the knot alone is very powerful evidence.
But I believe they uncovered what really happened (Burke was in fact the initial injury inflicter) and the evidence of Patsy's involvement in the crime was that of staging (accessory) and not of murder/manslaughter. So no one could be charged.
That's what the known evidence says to me.
~Angel~
BlueCrab
New Member
K777angel said:
Angel,
Excellent post. However, I don't agree with you about Patsy writing the ransom note. The handwriting and the language used in the note resembles Patsy's because SHE was the one who helped teach Burke how to write. So he writes alot like his mother writes -- phraseology and all.
The CBI could not eliminate Burke as the writer of the ransom note. But Patsy was close to being eliminated as the writer by the six handwriting experts the CBI used. Also, Patsy was totally eliminated as the writer by the private (Ed Gelb) polygraph examinations she took, and by the U.S. Secret Service handwriting expert (Richard Dusak).
There is other evidence that Burke wrote it, but it will likely never be released to the public because of Burke's age at the time. So we must wait for leaks and testimony in depositions before the final pieces of the puzzle can be fitted into place.
JMO
Nehemiah
Well-Known Member
BlueCrab said:
Do you have knowledge of other evidence, and are unable to share it, or are you just assuming?
BlueCrab
New Member
Nehemiah said:
Nehemiah,
No, I don't have any other evidence personally. What I was alluding to was if we could get the official results of Burke's handwriting examination given by the CBI, and obtain a professional handwriting analysis of the captions in Burke's photo album to determine if they were written by Burke or by Patsy, or get an admission from the Ramseys that Burke wrote the captions, the evidence against Burke would be convincing.
If it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Burke wrote the ransom note then, IMO, the case is solved. Burke killed JonBenet or knows who killed her, or he knows she accidentally asphyxiated herself while messing with AEA.
JMO
Nehemiah:
Sorry for not being clearer, here are the acronyms I use to try to understand the case.
WDI == WhoDunnIt , your favorite theory.
RDI == A Ramsay Did It
BDI == Burke Did It
PDI == Patsy Did It
JDI == John Did It
IDI == Intruder Did It.
AEADI == Auto Erotic Asphyxiation Did It
ADI == Accident Did It, same as AEDI but more general.
Now these can be seen to fall into four rough categories:
(1.) A Ramsay did it
(2.) An Intruder did it
(3.) An Intruder and a Ramsay did it
(4.) An Accident did it
In category 3, I just assume anyone from outside is an intruder, even if they are family or a trusted friend since i assume they were not meant to be there. So for clarity Doug Stine is an Intruder.
If you then take the evidence, some of it lends itself to one WDI more favorably than others. Since there is some missing evidence, and some that appears to originate from outside the house this may indicate that an IDI, or IDI + RDI.
Also loosely, category 1 includes the assumption that the Ramseys may have all been involved. So RDI can be used singularly or collectively.
Sorry for not being clearer, here are the acronyms I use to try to understand the case.
WDI == WhoDunnIt , your favorite theory.
RDI == A Ramsay Did It
BDI == Burke Did It
PDI == Patsy Did It
JDI == John Did It
IDI == Intruder Did It.
AEADI == Auto Erotic Asphyxiation Did It
ADI == Accident Did It, same as AEDI but more general.
Now these can be seen to fall into four rough categories:
(1.) A Ramsay did it
(2.) An Intruder did it
(3.) An Intruder and a Ramsay did it
(4.) An Accident did it
In category 3, I just assume anyone from outside is an intruder, even if they are family or a trusted friend since i assume they were not meant to be there. So for clarity Doug Stine is an Intruder.
If you then take the evidence, some of it lends itself to one WDI more favorably than others. Since there is some missing evidence, and some that appears to originate from outside the house this may indicate that an IDI, or IDI + RDI.
Also loosely, category 1 includes the assumption that the Ramseys may have all been involved. So RDI can be used singularly or collectively.
BlueCrab:
Thanks for your remarks.
Now:
"Burke likely asked "What did you find?" because it's the only way he could have phrased the question in regard to whether the parents had found JonBenet. For instance, if he had asked "Did you find JonBenet's body?" it would have revealed to his parents that he had been involved."
Assuming that Burke was that cold and calculating, why did he not ask "Whats wrong?" ; Why should there be anything to find?
And:
"The torch (flashlight) would have been needed when the perps were ready to take the body outside into the darkness to plant it, probably in someone's backyard. The surprise dusting of snow terminated that plan, leaving the perps with a body AND a ransom note in the house."
If the flashlight was never used, why was it forensically cleaned?
Also:
"The "third party", if you are referring to the fifth person in the house that night, probably left by bicycle. There are bike tracks in the snow acros s the Ramsey's front lawn. He appears to have taken Patsy's new bicycle she had gotten that Christmas from John. The bike was missing, but later returned."
If a 3rd party or fifth person could leave by bicycle, why could they not take the body with them? I forget Doug Stines age then, but JonBenet strapped to his back, using their tried and tested roping techniques, would seem to be a solution for removing the body, even placing her somewhere on the bike itself may have worked.
Also there appears to be no evidence of Doug Stine having been in the house, apparently he never participated in tea or pineapple.
When did he arrive, did he make any snowprints going in? These children are incredibly forensically aware, they even wiped the flashlight and baseball bat down.
Now allowing for all the planning and forensic staging they undertook, writing the ransom note etc, they decide because of the snowfall to call it off, and just retire to bed? This is incongruous, and inconsistent with their intentions as implied by the staging and removal of evidence.
Thanks for your remarks.
Now:
"Burke likely asked "What did you find?" because it's the only way he could have phrased the question in regard to whether the parents had found JonBenet. For instance, if he had asked "Did you find JonBenet's body?" it would have revealed to his parents that he had been involved."
Assuming that Burke was that cold and calculating, why did he not ask "Whats wrong?" ; Why should there be anything to find?
And:
"The torch (flashlight) would have been needed when the perps were ready to take the body outside into the darkness to plant it, probably in someone's backyard. The surprise dusting of snow terminated that plan, leaving the perps with a body AND a ransom note in the house."
If the flashlight was never used, why was it forensically cleaned?
Also:
"The "third party", if you are referring to the fifth person in the house that night, probably left by bicycle. There are bike tracks in the snow acros s the Ramsey's front lawn. He appears to have taken Patsy's new bicycle she had gotten that Christmas from John. The bike was missing, but later returned."
If a 3rd party or fifth person could leave by bicycle, why could they not take the body with them? I forget Doug Stines age then, but JonBenet strapped to his back, using their tried and tested roping techniques, would seem to be a solution for removing the body, even placing her somewhere on the bike itself may have worked.
Also there appears to be no evidence of Doug Stine having been in the house, apparently he never participated in tea or pineapple.
When did he arrive, did he make any snowprints going in? These children are incredibly forensically aware, they even wiped the flashlight and baseball bat down.
Now allowing for all the planning and forensic staging they undertook, writing the ransom note etc, they decide because of the snowfall to call it off, and just retire to bed? This is incongruous, and inconsistent with their intentions as implied by the staging and removal of evidence.
sissi
Former Member
If the perp jumped right in ,confessing on this forum, called the police, and da, I betcha' no one would believe him or follow up.
Like the poster a few weeks ago, she made an interesting case, and was really pooh pooh'd right off, it may be someone just like she claimed or maybe it was her? Can ya' imagine the frustration if you committed this crime not gaining anyone's attention, bangin' your head up against a wall trying to give all the clues possible while being ignored. Seems like it's time she write the media, but do you think they would put it in print, heck even a good zodiac like note would be dumped in the trash. I'm afraid soon this perp is going to have to kill another just to get some recognition!
Like the poster a few weeks ago, she made an interesting case, and was really pooh pooh'd right off, it may be someone just like she claimed or maybe it was her? Can ya' imagine the frustration if you committed this crime not gaining anyone's attention, bangin' your head up against a wall trying to give all the clues possible while being ignored. Seems like it's time she write the media, but do you think they would put it in print, heck even a good zodiac like note would be dumped in the trash. I'm afraid soon this perp is going to have to kill another just to get some recognition!
KATKAT19691
Inactive
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 202
- Reaction score
- 3
why do you assume that because the panties were size 12 she did not put them on herself. We are talking about a child, who liked the days of the week panties very much and she would not have cared it they fit or not. Most kids could careless if cloths fit only if they like them. An adult would be the only one that would consider this unapprop. I was just wondering why everyone assumes the size of the panties is such a big deal?UKGuy said:
Kat
imo
BlueCrab
New Member
sissi said:
Sissi,
It was BAD's juvenile method of unveiling her story that turned everyone off. Bad's evidence was somewhat interesting, but she took thousand's of words, which were supposed to contain clues to what she was talking about, to make people go on silly treasure hunts on the internet to try to discover the perp. BAD could have explained the whole thing in ONE post. It was definitely a game for her -- trying to make fools of WS posters.
JMO
sissi
Former Member
We had the discussion as to whether posting someone's name in connection with a murder would be slander or lible, I thought perhaps it was the possibility of legal action that moved Tricia into taking her position?
I thought ,as well, that the "goosechase" method was only because the poster wasn't comfortable with her own legal position in mentioning her suspect's name?
I thought ,as well, that the "goosechase" method was only because the poster wasn't comfortable with her own legal position in mentioning her suspect's name?
KATKAT19691
Inactive
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 202
- Reaction score
- 3
Someone please tell me who is this bad person what did they post that was so bad. Was gone on vacation for a couple of weeks and must of missed it. :banghead: If you cant post it please let me know where to go to read for myself or send me an im.BlueCrab said:
Thanks
Kat
IMO
twizzler333
Inactive
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2004
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 0
BAD was a member under the name of BigAppleDetective we just put BAD for short. She claimed to have been a NYC detective and she "KNEW" who killed JonBenet and gave us a kazillion google look ups and told us if we just looked we would see who did it......anywho, she claims she figured out who this person was in just a couple of weeks by doing a google search. She started a big ruckus on the forum and when we figured out who she was talking about, things got carried away and she ended up getting banned. Just look over the posts with BigAppleDetective and any mention of the "elf theory" and you will see. She made some good points but I cannot make the connection she made as to this person being the killer.
KATKAT19691
Inactive
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 202
- Reaction score
- 3
Ty for the info! I looked and I do not find any post by her but sounds like it would be a waste of time though. I hate not knowing new info so again thanks!twizzler333 said:
IMO
Kat
sissi
Former Member
KATKAT, I'm not sure if this is kosher for me to direct you elsewhere, but BAD is alive and well on cybersleuths.com, just click forum, and you can catch up on all she has to say about her suspect.
KATKAT19691
Inactive
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 202
- Reaction score
- 3
Hey Sissi, thanks for the info but no thanks. I googled her and found out what no one wanted to say. If I want to hear the rantings of a psyco, well I have Brothermoon. At least his information can be verified which gives him credit. We may not agree with how he says it but at least he is not a nut who has come up with nothing but hey I know lets google every word until we make it fit.sissi said:
Again thanks but I think I will stay right here where I disagree with sane logical people. You are a doll for trying to help.
IMO
Kat
twinkiesmom
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,660
- Reaction score
- 41
why do you assume that because the panties were size 12 she did not put them on herself. We are talking about a child, who liked the days of the week panties very much and she would not have cared it they fit or not. Most kids could careless if cloths fit only if they like them. An adult would be the only one that would consider this unapprop. I was just wondering why everyone assumes the size of the panties is such a big deal?
Kat
imo
__________________
An adult might have put on the size 12 underwear because they had some meaning for him/her (what a shame JBR will never grow into these).
Kat
imo
__________________
An adult might have put on the size 12 underwear because they had some meaning for him/her (what a shame JBR will never grow into these).
I'm sure you've heard the theory that Patsy flew into a rage when JB wet the bed and that's what set the wheels of her death in motion.twinkiesmom said:
Well there is another theory that Patsy flew into the rage because when she changed JB she found out that JB had taken the size-12 panties that she (Patsy) had bought to be given away as a present on their trip.
There are other theories, but the size-12 panties could be directly related to her death in some way.
AbigailCrane
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 0
The globe tabloid made hints that the panties are a big deal.
The evidence points directly at Patsy as the killer, say insiders, because
an intruder would not have:
--Known about the special drawer where the underwear was kept.
--Known the location of the stacked washer and dryer in a closet near the
child's bedroom.
--Taken time to remake the bed, redress the child and wash the urine-stained
sheets and nightclothes.
--Taken time to write a three-page ransom note while the parents were
sleeping in the house.
The evidence points directly at Patsy as the killer, say insiders, because
an intruder would not have:
--Known about the special drawer where the underwear was kept.
--Known the location of the stacked washer and dryer in a closet near the
child's bedroom.
--Taken time to remake the bed, redress the child and wash the urine-stained
sheets and nightclothes.
--Taken time to write a three-page ransom note while the parents were
sleeping in the house.