Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[ScarlettScarpetta]

We're familiar with it, Scarlett. The problems with it are:

1) By his own admission, he never performed an internal exam on JB.

2) He hadn't seen her in a while.

3) He wasn't just her doctor, he was personal friends with John. He said he was quote, "in awe" of John.



You took the words right out of my mouth.


That is the standard IDI claim.



Hold on, let me find my violin.



As opposed to the money THEY'VE made off JonBenet?!

In awe? Really? That sounds like embellishment not fact. There is nothing wrong with being friends with a dr. It happens all the time in small towns across America.

The worst part of this case for me is separating the rumor from the fact. It is intertwined like poison ivy.

 

[tezi]

In awe? Really? That sounds like embellishment not fact. There is nothing wrong with being friends with a dr. It happens all the time in small towns across America.

The worst part of this case for me is separating the rumor from the fact. It is intertwined like poison ivy.

Problem is, Boulder isn't a small town.

IMO, JMO, :moo:, and all other disclaimers.

 

[tezi]

I don't think they wrote their book for cash. Not in my opinion.. They wrote it to get their story out.

That is their right, They have a story to tell and wanted the world to hear it and understand their pov. But that is all it is.

They are not outsiders pushing an " I SOLVED THE CRIME" byline and now buy my book and find out.

There is a difference.

A big one.

If they wanted to get their "story" out, they should have told it to the detectives investigating the death of their daughter. Not by appearing on CNN or writing a book.

JMO

 

[questfortrue]

If they wanted to get their "story" out, they should have told it to the detectives investigating the death of their daughter. Not by appearing on CNN or writing a book.

JMO

R's received a $750,000 advance from the publisher for writing their book.
H-mm.

 

[2 percent]

I don't think they wrote their book for cash. Not in my opinion.. They wrote it to get their story out.

That is their right, They have a story to tell and wanted the world to hear it and understand their pov. But that is all it is.

Colorado has the Son of Sam Law, which means simply that a murderer can't profit from his crime. So if the Ramseys are ever convicted of JB's murder, it actually is not their right to get the story out. Especially if they are lying, sensationalizing, for profit.

They are not outsiders pushing an " I SOLVED THE CRIME" byline and now buy my book and find out.

There is a difference.

A big one.

No. They could be worse...parents lying, claiming they didn't murder their child, using a book as a public forum to frame their version of the story.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't think they wrote their book for cash. Not in my opinion.. They wrote it to get their story out.

The dough was just gravy, right? You should hear what they did with the money from their so-called "charity!" That'll get your blood boiling.

They are not outsiders pushing an " I SOLVED THE CRIME" byline and now buy my book and find out.

There is a difference.

A big one.

Like I said, I'll try not to take that personally.

 

[BBB167893]

In awe? Really? That sounds like embellishment not fact.

I think DeeDee has the exact quote. I'll try to find it for you.

There is nothing wrong with being friends with a dr. It happens all the time in small towns across America.

I'm well aware of that. Just not quite like this.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The dough was just gravy, right? You should hear what they did with the money from their so-called "charity!" That'll get your blood boiling.



Like I said, I'll try not to take that personally.

And even if they did make money or spend the money in an odd way that still does not make them guilty of murder or sexually assaulting their daughter. At most it makes them guilty of being bad money handlers.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Colorado has the Son of Sam Law, which means simply that a murderer can't profit from his crime. So if the Ramseys are ever convicted of JB's murder, it actually is not their right to get the story out. Especially if they are lying, sensationalizing, for profit.



No. They could be worse...parents lying, claiming they didn't murder their child, using a book as a public forum to frame their version of the story.

It does not apply here. The Ramseys are not guilty of anything. It is always their story. Always. Their child died even if they were convicted what happened would still be their living experience. No one has to believe it but it is their story.


Or they could be parents who had the worst thing happen to them and now have to endure people making up incredible scenarios in which they are guilty.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Problem is, Boulder isn't a small town.

IMO, JMO, :moo:, and all other disclaimers.

And? The dr and the father were friends?

Big town little town. It happens all over.

 

[BBB167893]

And even if they did make money or spend the money in an odd way that still does not make them guilty of murder or sexually assaulting their daughter. At most it makes them guilty of being bad money handlers.

An innocent person would not set up a phony charity, then use what proceeds did come in to pay for an anti-police propaganda campaign.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If you have proof of that I would love to see it.

 

[2 percent]

It does not apply here. The Ramseys are not guilty of anything. It is always their story. Always. Their child died even if they were convicted what happened would still be their living experience. No one has to believe it but it is their story.

Like I said, if they were ever convicted they could be sued for their profit off the book by the next nearest relative.

Or they could be parents who had the worst thing happen to them and now have to endure people making up incredible scenarios in which they are guilty.

"Incredible scenarios"? Not true. There is far more evidence and suspicion the Ramseys are involved rather than an intruder.

 

[BOESP]

otg was kind enough to post some links concerning Nedra's comment about JonBenet being "a little bit molested." I bumped the thread (see the Wendy Murphy thread on today's index of threads) but here's the meat of the question about what Nedra said.

"Originally Posted by southcitymom

Yes, I researched this a litle and found the exact reference is to PMPT, papareback, page 519, where Nedra was being interviewed for Geraldo and she said she didn't know that JBR had "been molested to some extent and hit on the head." Also, it sounds like this scene was translated in the movie and something similar was said by Nedra about hearing JBR had been a "little molested"

So, taken in context, it doesn't sound like Nedra's comment indicated any prior knowledge about chronic molestation."

 

[rashomon]

I'm gonna go ahead and agree with you, however I think the head blow was first. It's the simplest explanation and it really is the only one that fits. It was accidental though, and it happened in Burke's presence. All the staging and nonsense afterward was John aided by Patsy. I think that when it was determined that Jonbenet was mortally wounded they had to make a judgement call. Report the accident and tarnish the family's reputation regarding an incestious relationship amongst their children or salvage what they can. When the latter was determined they had to keep her body out of the E.R. and make whatever happened look like a sexual attack covering up prior abuse. The ransom note was just to buy time and mislead investigators for a motive. Remove it from the scene and John would have looked a lot worse carrying his daughters corpse up those stairs. I really think it's that simple and it is staring everyone in the face yet everyone comes up with crazy ideas about this case. The Ramsey's salvaged their son and their reputation. Even now with all the scrutiny this family has faced I think the disclosure of any sort of inappropriate sexual relationship would be far worse for them in their eyes.

For many years, I used to be PDI, but Kolar's book has caused me to finally waver so much that I'm leaning toward BDI now (and the above scenario described by poster JimmyWells.

The reason why I, during all those years, never even considered the possibility of BDI: I just could not imagine that a nine-year-old might have been involved in his sister's chronic sexual abuse.

 

[Flossie JMO]

Well it's the irony isn't it?

Going to a sleuthing site to declare the sleuthing useless and invalid is kind of like going to a gay website and complaining about all the homos there.

:facepalm:

I am catching up, but sleuthing the 3 members of the family, and related theories, without bashing and or name calling is allowed afaik.

 

[BOESP]

Possibly, Burke and JonBenet may have been in some type of episode or altercation but I'm not convinced any such event is the direct action that caused JonBenet death.

Like Rashomon, the thoughts of Burke being involved have always been in the back of my mind but there are doubts. Right now I see Burke as a witness to some unknown event(s) and/or, perhaps, possibly being involved in some action or event that might have precipitated Patsy taking action.

I've also been thinking about the fibers found on JonBenet and how some of us have cussed and discussed what the "wiping down" of JonBenet's private area means; what the "thin, watery, red fluid" in her vaginal cavity means. I had always seen this as an after-event, meaning it was done after JonBenet died. It dawned on me today that instead this could be evidence of the corporal cleansing brought up by Steve Thomas.

The above thoughts also work by substituting John Ramsey's name for Burke's. It also works with PDI on her own.

Right now, I see it as evidence supporting Thomas's theory just as it could support cleaning up after some incestuous event. Either way, it seems to point to Patsy.

 

[Nom de plume]

Possibly, Burke and JonBenet may have been in some type of episode or altercation but I'm not convinced any such event is the direct action that caused JonBenet death.

Like Rashomon, the thoughts of Burke being involved have always been in the back of my mind but there are doubts. Right now I see Burke as a witness to some unknown event(s) and/or, perhaps, possibly being involved in some action or event that might have precipitated Patsy taking action.

I've also been thinking about the fibers found on JonBenet and how some of us have cussed and discussed what the "wiping down" of JonBenet's private area means; what the "thin, watery, red fluid" in her vaginal cavity means. I had always seen this as an after-event, meaning it was done after JonBenet died. It dawned on me today that instead this could be evidence of the corporal cleansing brought up by Steve Thomas.

The above thoughts also work by substituting John Ramsey's name for Burke's. It also works with PDI on her own.

Right now, I see it as evidence supporting Thomas's theory just as it could support cleaning up after some incestuous event. Either way, it seems to point to Patsy.

I've always been more JDI with Patsy helping with the clean up & RN, but you make a good point about the possibility of it being a corporal cleansing before the murder.

Bottom line, I think BR was messing with JB, and probably a little more than innocent "playing doctor". I'd bet money JR was molesting her, and wouldn't put JAR past suspicion either. PR was an emotional mess, IMO, due to her own abuse as a child, her cancer, and JB's abuse. She probably was "cleaning" JB in ways not appropriate for a 6 yr old girl in some attempt to "erase" the abuse she was suffering. This alone could account for a good number of the infections, with the abuse accounting for the rest.

So in a way, all three, and possibly four, are guilty of making her life a living hell IMO. As to who struck the blow and who tightened the garotte, I doubt we'll ever know. :moo:

 

[UKGuy]

For many years, I used to be PDI, but Kolar's book has caused me to finally waver so much that I'm leaning toward BDI now (and the above scenario described by poster JimmyWells.

The reason why I, during all those years, never even considered the possibility of BDI: I just could not imagine that a nine-year-old might have been involved in his sister's chronic sexual abuse.

rashomon,
Well BDI is the most consistent theory given the current forensic evidence.

ST has seen more forensic evidence and he reckon its PDI, or is that just to placate Lin Wood and friends?

James Kolar suggests BDI but offers little new forensic evidence, so why switch to BDI?

New forensic evidence might implicate Patsy, as in some kind of mother/daughter abuse, think pageants?

.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BDI is the most out there scenario to me. It seems like pure fantasy to me. A 9 yr old boy. Now there have been some dastardly kids I have seen but I have not once ever seen anything like this from a 9 yr old boy.

This theory to me has not one fact behind it. At least with JDI, Or PDI, I can see things that people connect to get there.
The BDI theory to me is just a sacrificial theory because the other ones don't seem to be as strong as people want them to be. It has no basis in anything but imagination.

OMO