JonBenet's Skull Fractures: The Weapon

[dodie20]

Where is your evidence? Really? It's right there in black and white for all to see. Please make your case.

Really? It's right there in black and white for all to see... the handwriting AND words. Did you notice the last paragraph? The last line said, 'It's up to you now John!' This was a little pep talk, (complete with a peppy little exclamation point), an' 'I've done my part, now you do yours'. Who, besides PR, would feel the need to give JR a pep talk?

 

[dodie20]

I have a headache now. This thread started out with OTG laying out thoughtful information regarding the blow to head and then imploded with IDI nonsense. Okay, did I miss what OTG named as the weapon? My IQ fell 50 points between page 1 and 6 of this thread so I may have missed it.

No, the weapon is still up for debate. I did notice in BR's interview, he referred to a hammer as the weapon, and I also noticed in a search warrant, a hammer was taken...so, a hammer isn't out of the question.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Really? It's right there in black and white for all to see... the handwriting AND words. Did you notice the last paragraph? The last line said, 'It's up to you now John!' This was a little pep talk, (complete with a peppy little exclamation point), an I've done my part, now you do yours. Who else, besides PR, would feel the need to give JR a pep talk?

Patsy Ramsey could not be positively identified as the author of the note according to the balance of expert analyses. Therefore, your insistence that she was the author amounts to little more than willful personal conjecture.

BTW: I do not agree that the author of the note was necessarily giving JR a "pep talk" and I deem this wild conjecture to be quite completely absurd, regardless of who wrote the note.

 

[dodie20]

Patsy Ramsey could not be positively identified as the author of the note according to the balance of expert analyses. Therefore, your insistence that she was the author amounts to little more than willful personal conjecture.

BTW: I do not agree that the author of the note was necessarily giving JR a "pep talk" and I deem this wild conjecture to be quite completely absurd, regardless of who wrote the note.

That line was completely unnecessary to the context of the note, so it was put there for a personal reason, and IMO, that personal reason was to convince JR to unite with the author...who I do believe was PR.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

That line was completely unnecessary to the context of the note, so it was put there for a personal reason, and IMO, that personal reason was to convince JR to unite with the author...who I do believe was PR.

...but PR could not be positively identified as the author. Don't you think it might make sense to consider the note being written by someone else?

 

[wengr]

Where is your evidence? Please make your case.

Edmond, I am not an atty. I do not have a case.
I am like you, an individual with an opinion.
The difference is that my opinion is formed from careful consideration of facts and not imagination.

 

[wengr]

No, the weapon is still up for debate. I did notice in BR's interview, he referred to a hammer as the weapon, and I also noticed in a search warrant, a hammer was taken...so, a hammer isn't out of the question.

I'd like to see that hammer. I never considered the hammer much, but it now occurs to me that on some traditional claw hammers, there is a curvature to the top edges. It seems possible that a blow from the side of hammer could produce a similar injury.

 

[wengr]

Evidently, you do not consider brutal murder a form of violence. Take my word for it, it is.

Agreed. It certainly is. And this allows you to misrepresent statistics from another post because...?

 

[SunnieRN]

And the Ramseys reveled in their daughter's career. Patsy Ramsey regularly had her kindergartner's hair lightened at a beauty salon.[/COLOR]

Notice the plural Ramseys - and remember John said JB's pageants were something fun for Patsy and JB. He usually kept himself somewhat distanced from caring about JB's pageant life, except to tell us that he emphasized JB's TALENT being what matterered most. Interesting comment by the article reporter about a "career".

This brings me back to JR's comment, calling JonBenet a 'little Lolita'. Who would talk about their daughter that way? Maybe the deeper PT got into the pageants, JR got more involved.

A murdered child is not a sign of a burglary.
A sexual assault is not a sign of a burglary.
A rediculous ransom note from mom's pen and pad is not a sign of a burglary.
Not a single item missing from the house is not a sign of a burglary.

And, not surprisingly, there is no evidence of a break in, no evidence of an intruder in the house, and therefore little reason for police to pursue such a theory.

Just think how much further the R's argument of an intruder would have gone, if they had filed a police report for various losses. Thank goodness they never thought of that one!

 

[midwest mama]

This brings me back to JR's comment, calling JonBenet a 'little Lolita'. Who would talk about their daughter that way? Maybe the deeper PT got into the pageants, JR got more involved.

Just think how much further the R's argument of an intruder would have gone, if they had filed a police report for various losses. Thank goodness they never thought of that one!

Hi Sunnie:seeya: The google info about the remark above led me to believe this statement was created by tabloids, and Barbara Walters referenced it that way in her interview with JR and Patsy. Or do you have a link??.....

But here's a thought.....The R's saved their 'burglary' report for the time JR claimed he was was locked into his bathroom (which only locked from the inside) and the thief made off with all of Patsy's 'k-mart' jewelry. :floorlaugh:

 

[midwest mama]

Darlene I thought of a Pageant Trophy as the weapon too! Dear God if true what an ironic horrific end. Were the trophies in JonBenets bedroom?

Yes, there were trophies of all sizes in her bedroom - up to several feet tall. And there were trophies of hers on display in the play area( big ones there too) and a few in Patsy's bedroom, along with some of Patsy's. No lack of trophies around the house from just a few of the 'something to do on Sunday afternoon' pageants.

 

[BOESP]

That line was completely unnecessary to the context of the note, so it was put there for a personal reason, and IMO, that personal reason was to convince JR to unite with the author...who I do believe was PR.

Good points, Dodie. The ransom note author also advised John to be well rested. What kidnapper would care if John Ramsey was rested?

Iirc, the FBI's CASKU commented that in the annals of their many investigations they had never seen a ransom note (legitimate or fake) such as that found in the Ramsey house. :twocents:

 

[midwest mama]

So who is your choice of suspects, and why?

I'll have to take up a bit of your time with my answer, since you asked why, while I realize it will contain more information than you requested.

When this crime first occurred, my initial reaction what that JAR was responsible. I could not believe her parents would have killed her in that manner for many of the same reasons you present. And also because I am a mother and grandmother who would literally let someone anesthetize me and take my heart out for a transplant into one of my children or grandchildren if it was necessary.

Thus I followed the case carefully over the years, and 'followed the evidence' that has been presented to the public. Right here, I have to emphasize that redacted information might cause me to change my opinion once again, if I learn anything new/more than what I know now.

I've ridden the roller coaster of suspicion ( :rollercoaster: ) while others have come to a conclusion for themselves which they will value until or unless an acceptable confession is made. Isn't it wonderful to be an American and have these freedoms??

Anyway, I have also considered Patsy, JR and PR together without covering for Burke, and with covering for Burke. Because the available evidence has led away from JAR, I have had to exclude him, though my henky meter still goes off when I think of the possibility, I'll admit. Most of all, I really wanted to latch on to the IDI theory when the reports first started coming out, because it let me off the hook from having to go any further and consider the parent's involvement.

Unfortunately, the evidence, as I interpret it, always leads me back to the killer being a family member. The ONLY intruder I could accept at this point is one that had a standing invitation for access to the home at any time. To me that would have been only very, very close personal friends or other family members.

I have spent a good deal of time considering posts on other forums and a couple of blogs, with selection of www.solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com, as presenting what I consider to be the most factually based. And I became totally impassioned about trying to see some resolve for this case, though I have always hoped an arrest would be made, when John Ramsey wrote his most recent book. There is something very wrong, in my opinion, in the mind of someone who not only needs to sell the story (Death of Innocence) of his response to his murdered child once, when he already possesses enough wealth to provide a comfortable life by most standards for himself and a family, but then feels he must do it a second time (The Other Side of Suffering) only to attach it to his faith in Christ. Christ threw moneychangers out of the temple. And Christ asks only to "come unto me, you who are burdoned, and I will give you rest". A true Christian does not need to sell his story of comfort to anyone for any reason. If he would have offered to witness his story, free of charge, to as many congregations as would hear it, at his own expense, I might have believed him. There is a story told by Christ in the Bible of the widow who gave all she had - her only mite - and was praised for being a true giver.
So much for John Ramsey's Christianity, in my opinion.

Anyway, it was what struck me about the type of mind JR must have. I stood back, started taking a closer look at the evidence, and for me, the pieces fell into place very slowly, one at time, that have led me to believe John Ramsey killed his daughter, intended to throw off Patsy first, the police second, would have carried out the scenario he crafted within the note (which was written in a style some might see of his wife as his back up plan if there was going to be a glitch), and has carefully devoted his resources, time and energy in continuing the cover up of his guilt.

I will relent to this, IF, and I do say IF, Patsy was involved in a cover up, it was as an accessory after the fact - for one of two reasons:
she was purposefully and gulliballly duped (which I think she might have been too smart for, but due to prescription drug use might have been capable of), or she was terrified of what she perceived as a genuine threat against her life from her husband or her son, or any other part of her family - probably a combination of it all.

Now, my nutshell answer to you is: I think JR killed his daughter because he
was not willing to have his world come crashing down upon him, even though he was a very sick, sick man.

 

[dodie20]

Evidently, you do not consider brutal murder a form of violence. Take my word for it, it is.

It's ok to say murder is violence but it's not ok to say violence is murder. Somebody can be beaten within an inch of his life, but if he survives, he wasn't murdered.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Now, my nutshell answer to you is: I think JR killed his daughter because he
was not willing to have his world come crashing down upon him, even though he was a very sick, sick man.

The problem with any JDI theory is the near total lack of evidence. JR was completely ruled out as the author of the note. The only evidence linking him to the crime is the circumstantial evidence of his daughter being brutally murdered in his own home. There is nothing in his history to suggest that he is a pedophile. There is zero history of him being violent toward his children. There is just no grounds for believing JR to be the culprit in this outrage.

As for writing books about his tragic experience and the awful witch hunt to which he and wife and son were subjected, and are still subjected, one can hardly blame him. He needs to fight back for the good of his family name and the honor of his late wife and murdered daughter. He shouldn't have to, as all good Christians should err on the side of him being innocent, sans very convincing evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Worse still, there seems to be increasing calls for his blood now that his wife has passed away. It appears that many of the former PDI theorists need him as the new target upon which to vent their latent cruelty, still in the guise of "seeking justice for JonBenet."

 

[midwest mama]

The problem with any JDI theory is the near total lack of evidence. JR was completely ruled out as the author of the note. The only evidence linking him to the crime is the circumstantial evidence of his daughter being brutally murdered in his own home. There is nothing in his history to suggest that he is a pedophile. There is zero history of him being violent toward his children. There is just no grounds for believing JR to be the culprit in this outrage.

As for writing books about his tragic experience and the awful witch hunt to which he and wife and son were subjected, and are still subjected, one can hardly blame him. He needs to fight back for the good of his family name and the honor of his late wife and murdered daughter. He shouldn't have to, as all good Christians should err on the side of him being innocent, sans very convincing evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Worse still, there seems to be increasing calls for his blood now that his wife has passed away. It appears that many of the former PDI theorists need him as the new target upon which to vent their latent cruelty, still in the guise of "seeking justice for JonBenet."

BBM, to which I respond:

I disagree. My opinion is that there are grounds to believe JR is a culprit in this outrage.

You are right. He shouldn't have to, and wouldn't have to, if all who believe in the American justice system, including Christians, would have seen due process take place with regard to this crime. If he and Patsy had been arrested, as was the desire of the GJ, he might have been able to have his day in court, and the outcome would have determined the fate of his family.
If he would have been found "guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt, no books necessary. If he would have been found "innocent", he undoubtedly would have found plenty of other avenues from which to glean income and retribution for his family - with much more impact than book sales.

Any of the PDI theorists are valid in now continuing to seek him as a target, since learning a GJ voted to indict both him and Patsy in the death of JB. Just because Patsy is gone, it does not exclude John from the culpability of actions that led to the death of his daughter, no matter how the GJ presented them at the time. Of course, now there might have to be a new GJ investigation in order to proceed with a trial. And the minimum charges a Grand Jury would have to use to indict are Felony Murder.

Seeking justice for JonBenet is not a guise. It is a cause championed by those who do not want to let the murder of a six-year-old girl be left unanswered.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

BBM, to which I respond:

I disagree. My opinion is that there are grounds to believe JR is a culprit in this outrage.

Okay. Where is your case?

 

[midwest mama]

Is there anyone here who believes that burglary and murder never happen in tandem? If so, let them speak now or forever hold their peace. I am tired of belaboring this moot point.

Of course burglary and murder happen in tandem. You are belaboring this point simply because it is moot with regard to this case, given the investigation results that are known. :moo:

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Of course burglary and murder happen in tandem. You are belaboring this point simply because it is moot with regard to this case, given the investigation results that are known. :moo:

No, that really has nothing to do with it as I am not the one belaboring the point, but I'm glad you agree with me that burglary and murder do happen in tandem. I was beginning to fear that I was the only one who understood this.

 

[midwest mama]

Okay. Where is your case?

I have presented my case in numerous postings throughout this forum, and choose not to repeat myself. If you care to read through my posts, you can do so through looking at the "Statistics" tab on my listing through the Member's list. I have tried to establish "my case" using my interpretations of case evidence and history, and I do not claim to have done the kind of job that you might expect. So, I can only say that I will continue to share my opinion that John Ramsey should face charges, and as I do so, I hope to use fairness and credibility in my reasoning when I share my opinions on this forum.

You are welcome not to share them, or give credence to them.