John Ramsey's Role

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Britt, though I don't think we agree on who killed JonBenet, I believe your post is soooo right (well, except about the head wound, which I'm not sure John or Patsy knew about). In their staging, the Rs tried desperately to deflect attention away from the truth of what happened. JonBenet's pubic area was wiped down and her panties changed. The phony ransom note contained no sexual overtones, no disgusting sexual threats toward JonBenet, even though the "intruder," who obviously knew quite a bit about the Ramseys, would have known that JonBenet was a pedophile's dream come true...so it would have been natural for the Rs to have created a pedophile intruder. But they didn't. Why? I think, like you do, that they didn't want the true, sexual aspect of what happened to become known (maybe they weren't sure if they'd wiped her down well enough), and were trying to direct attention away from JonBenet's genital area. I think that's one reason the attention-grabbing "garrote" was left in place, even though Patsy's fibers entwined in the knot suggest she may have initially tried to remove the thing.

imo
 
In the 2000 interviews John was being asked about when he carried Jonbenet upstairs and put her to bed. He said he removed her shoes and coat, or just the coat and couldn't remember shoes or visa versa. (I don't have it in front of me to read.) Anyway I thought it was odd that when he was asked if he noticed if Jonbenet had underwear on he said "I think I would have noticed if she didn't." I'm not quoting but you get the gist. Why would he have noticed something like that if he only removed her shoes and/or coat? How would anyone even know unless her pants were pulled down? Am I reading this incorrectly in the transcripts?
 
you guys are very convincing- I have never really believed the ramseys were/are guilty- but the more i read I certainly see why so many here do- if these things are true or proveable they would be guilty for sure..

I take one issue with the above post on moral=mental illness
Mental illness is not a decision - a poor decision - a morally corrupt one- it is as real as cancer - and noone would treat a person with cancer the way they would and do treat the mentally ill.
noone would accuse the cancer patient of creating their own cancer- of relapsing on purpose- or of not fighting for their lives..
Chemo therapy or radiation for cancer is no different than electric shock treatment or medication cocktails that the mentally ill take- they lose their hair, their memories, their ability to enjoy sex, and on an on - most people desert them- insurance companies dont pay for their treatment and so on- It is unadulterated ignorance to equate moral coruptness with mental illness - its irresponsible and just plain over the line- There is no relationship between morals and mental illness as a cause of it-its 99 percent biological- and it kills more people than cancer does..please think about what you are saying before you lump some of the most vulnerable in society in with those who may chose to kill or who operate from some other morality than most- If you had mental illness for one day you would weep for those inflicted.
 
newt, the fact that you have looked at this case and see the Ramseys innocent disqualifies you as a logician.

Your post is an great example of the failure of scientific materialism.

It is a common discussion in the annals of depth psychology as to how the lack of moral development and the subsequent social impairment and decision making impairment leads to brain pathway "cementing", behavior that is so difficult to correct that any attempt to do so leads to disociation of some sort. The question of an organic or psychic cause of mental illness is not clearly answered.

The mind is not just in the brain and we are not just a bunch of chemicals as you adherents of scientific materialism would like to think. Most myth systems regard people as spiritual beings in a material body. Your weltenschaung is a PHILOSOPHY, not the entire truth. I equate spirit with psyche.

The equation of mental illness with cancer as having one and only one type of pathogenesis is idiotic. The psyche is affected by it's own behavior with irreversible consequences to the body.

Clearly brain and chemical process abnormalities cause behavior problems, but to limit the human experience to the function of matter is a PHILOSOPHY. Your way of thinking is limited, arrogant and self congratulatory and doomed for the historical junk heap.

But! Congratulations on your Little Bo Peep diploma, what ever it is.
 
brothermoon- the fact that you disqualify anyone for anything speaks to your ignorance on all levels- I wont argue with you about it- if you had read past your nose you would see that I am saying- I have always thot them innocent until proven guilty but the info on htis thread is very convincing-however- nice try- the real issue is that you judged an entire group of vulnerable people in society and are not even big enough to take responsibility for the poor taste you are showing-

I dont get sidetracked by the innocence or guilt of the ramseys on htis matter- I challenge you to get your facts straight about mental illness- and leave the vulnerable out of your riteous judging..you need the help with your logic not me..
One thing is to think the ramseys are morally corrupt- please dont make the entire population inflicted with mental illness morally currupt - there is no relationship and you have no idea what you are talking about when u think u do
I wont respond again- my post is to those who know mental illness is not a choice-not to persuade the ignorant..argue with your own myopia I dont care to engage further and anyone informed knows that there is no relationship between the variables spewed forth in your post - wrecklessly so at that.
 
I didn't say mental illness was a choice.

I said lack of moral development leads to difficulty in decision making and the repeating loop this creates can lead to irreversible constitutional effects on the brain resulting in behavior patterns that are termed pathological.

Editted for personal attacks.
 
my unwillingness to dialogue has to do with your judgements before a dialogue can begin- remember - I am disqualified as a logician..so think about how you create an environment where u cant be supported for anything- cuz name calling is a good place to stop a dialogue before it gets going- look at yourself not at me..creating a climate where one can dialogue is as much your responsibility as mine-and what I wont get caught up in is the innocence or guilt of the ramseys as it relates to your comment about mental illness and what comes first..if you meant something else so be it- but its your words- I didnt make them up and all u had to say is what you just did- not disqualify another poster from having anything useful to add.
There is a real interplay between the two- (meaning - how you talk to another poster and whether they want to "dialogue" with you in the future..I dont need to prove anything to you- I just wouldnt want anyone with mental illness or with it in their families to read your post and feel the shame that such carelessness creates..thats my issue- not the ramseys and I made that very clear..my mind is changing about their innocence..because of what I am reading here- and if it were true (which isnt a statement about anyone-but a statement about-if these are the facts, then they are looking very bad)..and this is my last post..I dont find it a useful way to spend my time- whatever u think is yours to think- I simply don't think your reasoning was as innocuous as you are saying now- but if that was the intention then fine- I can accept it at face value.
 
BrotherMoon said:
The equation of mental illness with cancer as having one and only one type of pathogenesis is idiotic. The psyche is affected by it's own behavior with irreversible consequences to the body.
Click to expand...
What I wonder is this: how much conscious control did Patsy (IMO) have over the deeper forces at work?

IMO the "mental" vs. "moral" question (in this case) has to do with powerlessness vs. deliberate acts.
 
Britt said:
What I wonder is this: how much conscious control did Patsy (IMO) have over the deeper forces at work?

IMO the "mental" vs. "moral" question (in this case) has to do with powerlessness vs. deliberate acts.
Click to expand...

Whew! Britt to the rescue, great question.

According to depth psychology, there can be a moral aspect to the descent into psychosis, a preference for fantasy over consciousness. Also the deliberateness of the actions is in question as segments of the behavior patterns can be pre-existing in the mythic fantasy and the sufferer only participates in them without thinking them up on their own.

I say Patsy's crime was just one part in a mythic fantasy that came about as a compensation for lack of identity development. Patsy acted the part of wife, mother, daughter, southern belle, etc, while internally her moral development remained juvenile along with her natural identity. This is well described in books on borderline personality disorder.
 
I truly have never believed the ramseys had anything to do with this murder, but the more I read all the threads here the more I question them too- you guys are very thorough and I have lots of respect for the posts here- I guess I might have to move to sitting on the fence which I dont do very well- usually I take a look at it and seem to get an impression by instinct-I did not realize some of the nuances of the case-anyhow- thanks for all the hard work done by all of you - not just this thread- its a pleasure to learn new things- I think it must be the same as being in a jury room and hearing stuff you did not know and then forming a new opinion as it unfolds..
 
Ivy said:
I think John and Patsy knew the body would be examined to some degree, but maybe they were hoping that if there were no outward signs of sexual abuse, the vagina wouldn't be. In case it was, however, they couldn't try to pass JonBenet's death off as an accident, because an accident wouldn't explain the vaginal trauma. Had it not been for that, they might have been able to stage the scene to make it appear as if JonBenet had accidentally been hanged or strangled by a cord when she fell down some stairs. (I doubt that John and Patsy knew she'd been struck on the head and that her skull was fractured.)

I don't believe John or Patsy defiled JonBenet's body in any way during the staging, nor at any other time. I believe all the injuries on JonBenet's body were caused by Burke, who, in my opinion, unintentionally took JonBenet's life as the result of sexual play (maybe erotic asphixiation) that took a wrong turn when he inserted the broken paint stick into her vagina to "explore," and without meaning to, hurt her.

imo
Click to expand...
Ivy- thanks for this info- interesting to me who has never considered burke as being big enough to do this kind of thing- can u help me out on that - I ask this respectfully- he seemed like a scrawny-fine boned little boy and I wondered how it could result in a murder..did they take his dna do you know?
Much appreciation:):clap:
 
Hi, newtv...Burke, though slender, wasn't scrawny. He was in Little League baseball and also liked to rollerblade, so he wasn't a weakling either. At the time of JonBenet's death, Burke was almost as tall as Patsy. Here's a photo taken of Burke and JonBenet a few years or so before she died. As you can see, there was a remarkable difference in height between them, even then.

I'm quite sure Burke gave a DNA sample. With all the hoopla about how his DNA doesn't match the DNA in the CODIS sample, he better have!

imo
 
if he gave a sample and it didnt match-how is it that you think he may be the killer?/ just asking not arguing- I really do not see him as being big enough-but I do not know what he is like up close or was at that time..
 
newtv... Many of us here at WS don't believe the DNA that was entered into the databank was connected to the crime. The DNA, which had to be artificially amplified in order to obtain enough markers to qualify for the database, came from the panties found on JonBenet's body--new panties that had never been worn before, or at least never laundered. Investigators agree that if the DNA is real and not "stutter," a false positive resulting from the amplification process, among other innocent possibilities it could have come from a store customer who might have opened the package to look at the panties, or from a worker in the Asian factory that manufactured them. (WS poster Shylock dubbed the Asian factory worker "Sum Yung Gai." When you see the name, you'll now know whom we're referring to. :cool: )

I don't understand what you think Burke might not have been big enough to do. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Cyril Wecht said there was nothing about what was done to JonBenet that someone Burke's age at the time couldn't have done, and Michael Baden said he thought Burke "needs to be looked at." Both men are top forensic experts.

imo
 
Ivy said:
newtv... Many of us here at WS don't believe the DNA that was entered into the databank was connected to the crime. The DNA, which had to be artificially amplified in order to obtain enough markers to qualify for the database, came from the panties found on JonBenet's body--new panties that had never been worn before, or at least never laundered. Investigators agree that if the DNA is real and not "stutter," a false positive resulting from the amplification process, among other innocent possibilities it could have come from a store customer who might have opened the package to look at the panties, or from a worker in the Asian factory that manufactured them. (WS poster Shylock dubbed the Asian factory worker "Sum Yung Gai." When you see the name, you'll now know whom we're referring to. :cool: )

I don't understand what you think Burke might not have been big enough to do. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Cyril Wecht said there was nothing about what was done to JonBenet that someone Burke's age at the time couldn't have done, and Michael Baden said he thought Burke "needs to be looked at." Both men are top forensic experts.

imo
Click to expand...
ok I knew about the dna sample from the undies- I thot maybe there was other dna around her that would identify a family member- though i suppose its all too hard given the transfer factor-so I was wondering if they found any of burkes dna in a semen sample or whatever ..I just see him as too small to do it- it doesnt seem like he would be big enough - strong enough to kill her (I dont have an answer beyond that-it just didnt seem like he would be able to carry this out and be such a small kid-)..he seems frail to me- fine bones- not particularily boyish even-not capable of all the stuff that took place-like strangling her etc..I dont have any other reason except my gut reaction to him at the time and his size, age, etc..
I thot maybe the other ramsey kids but they had gone home on the plane before this occured so they did not do it..seems like an adult crime to me..(meaning someone in their 20'-50's)..i think older not younger actually..
I do not say I am right-I somehow see it being someone other than patsy and john is what I have contended-and eliminated burke for the reasons given and the reports that he wasnt a suspect..etc..
 
newtv, there was no semen found at the crime scene...including no semen on the body or in its orifices. The autopsy revealed slight vaginal trauma and minor bleeding. One area of trauma is thought to have been evidence of prior sexual abuse. In the other area, the trauma was acute and suggested digital penetration or "gentle" penetration with an object. Some of us WSers believe the art brush (the "paint stick") was that object. The finger/object scenarios both sound very kidlike to me. Some posters consider it outlandish to think Burke could be the killer. Based on the evidence, I don't. I agree with Drs. Wecht and Baden that there was nothing done to JonBenet that Burke couldn't have done, and that he needs to be looked at.

Burke was never looked at as a suspect, only as a witness. He was treated with kid gloves in his interviews, and any peculiar behavior or responses of his were attributed to the likelihood he was covering for his parents, whom he might be afraid of, and/or that he was traumatized over JonBenet's death, so his reluctance to talk about it was "understandable...poor kid." Despite the Rs' lawyer Lin Wood's insistence, DA Hunter refused to sign an affidavit Wood drew up declaring Burke was cleared. Hunter did sign the revision, however, which stated only that no evidence had been developed to support naming Burke a suspect.

imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 217 more.
Total: 2,884 (members: 218, guests: 2,666)

Online statistics

Members online
218
Guests online
2,666
Total visitors
2,884
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,621
Messages
18,097,519
Members
230,890
Latest member
1070
Back
Top