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

[UKGuy]

BOESP, I know the question wasn't posed to me, but the Ramsey/Stine connection has always fascinated me. Not that I have any answers -- just questions.

Why did JR deny any closeness with the Stines, yet he and Patsy had gone on a trip to New York with them just before JonBenet's death without any kids? In fact, IIRC, this trip happened while JonBenet was in the Christmas parade in Boulder, and it caused them to miss it. Does anyone here go on out-of-town, overnight trips with another couple, leaving their kids behind to be looked after by someone else, that they're "not close with"?

The Stine house was the last stop for present drops on Christmas night before they went home for the night. No one seemed to be able to remember if BR went to the door or not, even though JR claimed the only connection was that BR and DS were "buddies" (JR's words).

Why was everyone and their cousin called over to the "Ramsey Kidnapping Party" -- except for the Stines?

If the Stines were not in their inner circle of friends, why would they choose their house to stay at after the BPD told them not to leave town?

When BR was sent back to school, why did they choose the pitbull to escort the kids back and forth?

Why would the pitbull risk jail time for herself in her attempts to sway public opinion by impersonating a police officer (the Chief yet), or to get back at a reporter by stealing his ID and refusing to return it until the police told her she had to?

And of course, why would both of the Stines quit their jobs with the university to follow the Ramseys to Atlanta?

Like I say... I don't have the answers -- just lots of questions.

otg,
Also ... why would the pitbull recieve the honor of opening the door to the 911 responder on 12/23/1996?

The Stine's and the Ramsey's patently have a common purpose. They have a shared agenda, so important and sensitive, that the stine's quit their middle class jobs to follow the R's.

I reckon there is an indirect connection between the stines and the death of JonBenet, and it is this that is being obscured. I think BlueCrab had a theory where DS returned in the R's car to stay overnight, returning using the bike?

Apply Occams Razor, i.e. either both sets of parents have something personally to hide, or their children have something to hide?

e.g. The Stines were called on the cell-phone 12/26/1996 requesting advice or to remove a relative etc.

Both sets of children might have engaged in prepubescant games, Played Doctors, e.g. Sleepovers. Could one child have innapropriately advised another?

Ever wonder if the Pitbull is concerned about being linked with suspects in one of the USofA's most notorious homicide cases, now that we know the parents should have been indicted?

.

 

[Venom]

Thanks, Venom. I'm familiar with that theory. :wink:

So, if I am reading you correctly, you are saying that you think John Ramsey's "we aren't friends of the Stines" could be a statement to create distance between the two couples?

Yes. This is another angle that has my brain on overload. So he says they aren't really friends; ok, so what they aren't.
But on the other hand do you:
-deliver presents late on Christmas night
-stay for an extended time at their house
-take an overnight trip (and miss your daughter in a pageant) with the couple
to acquaintances?

If PR and SS were pretty good friends, why didn't JR just say my wife is good friends with her instead of flat out say they weren't in the inner circle?

Sure they could have stayed with them because they offered out of good will, but I saw somewhere that the S's said the R's came to dinner and just never left. Kind of implied that they imposed on them. And the R's were rich, they could have rented someplace to stay until they decided what to do rather then staying with friends.

 

[seesthru]

The guy who killed himself shortly after her murder is the one I suspect.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

The guy who killed himself shortly after her murder is the one I suspect.

?

Who dat?

 

[Venom]

The guy who killed himself shortly after her murder is the one I suspect.

Care to explain better?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The guy who killed himself shortly after her murder is the one I suspect.

yes.. The guy with the hitech boots.. yes???

I have always wondered more about this guy.

 

[Harmony 2]

The guy who killed himself shortly after her murder is the one I suspect.

Welcome to Websleuths!!
I believe you are referring to Mike Helgoth...

But there is one thing investigators are sure of: Helgoth's DNA does not match the DNA profile sitting in the Denver crime lab.
"Investigators must be careful not to put all the weight in the investigation on the DNA because the DNA, as important as it is, could be misleading them, depending on who it matches or who it doesn't match," says LaBerge.

It could mean that if Helgoth was involved, he wasn't alone. And the person who sexually assaulted and killed JonBenet is still out there.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-661569.html

In a documentary I watched it was mentioned that Helgoth owned hi tec boots, stun guns, Victory brand pants and a SBTC cap.

Even more strange, a baseball cap with the letters s-b-t-c was found near Helgoth's body. Those are the same letters found in the ransom note at the Ramsey home. DeMuth says he believes Helgoth's DNA was tested and didn't match up.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/08/did-santa-claus-kill-jonbenet.html

Can anyone familiar with the case weigh in on those notions? I found that the Victory brand does exist...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ICON-VICTOR...=100011&prg=8093&rk=2&rkt=5&sd=400543333875&'

http://www.jafrum.com/Shop-By-Brand...RidingPants&gclid=CNuLnafItbkCFQ6f4Aodcz4AWA#



Note: A rebuttal was posted here from Tricia:
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-john-stephen-gigax.htm

 

[Venom]

Thanks Harmony for giving a little explanation.

 

[gramcracker]

I think sometimes no matter how you try to make something fit sometimes there is something completely sensible that won't let you.

that was obvious in the first few minutes

inviting five people to the house along with marked police cars was completely insensible, given the promise that JB would be beheaded if the Rs so much as interacted with a stray dog

if the RN was real, they would have asked for plainclothes officers in one unmarked car and they would not have invited five other people as well. if the RN was real, defying its instructions signed JB's death warrant

panic, schmanic, yadda yadda yadda

I think sometimes no matter how you try to make something fit sometimes there is something completely sensible that won't let you.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

that was obvious in the first few minutes

inviting five people to the house along with marked police cars was completely insensible, given the promise that JB would be beheaded if the Rs so much as interacted with a stray dog

if the RN was real, they would have asked for plainclothes officers in one unmarked car and they would not have invited five other people as well. if the RN was real, defying its instructions signed JB's death warrant

panic, schmanic, yadda yadda yadda

So if your child was missing, You would not call police? The responsible party for making a mess of it is the police. They get a call that a child has been kidnapped with the note and show up in a marked car and make a mess of the scene.

In a heartbeat I would have called my family and my closest friends. I would need them.

 

[Venom]

So if your child was missing, You would not call police? The responsible party for making a mess of it is the police. They get a call that a child has been kidnapped with the note and show up in a marked car and make a mess of the scene.

In a heartbeat I would have called my family and my closest friends. I would need them.

If you had a note threatening to behead your kid? Call police, yeah. Call your whole inner circle, nah.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If you had a note threatening to behead your kid? Call police, yeah. Call your whole inner circle, nah.

Yes.. Every kidnapper writes not to call police.. Every one.

You still call the police. They are supposed to know better when they show up.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Yes.. Every kidnapper writes not to call police.. Every one.

You still call the police. They are supposed to know better when they show up.

How many kidnappers actually communicate with the victim's family?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

How many kidnappers actually communicate with the victim's family?

I am not sure what this has to do with anything.. Your child is kidnapped you call the police. Period. They are supposed to handle it right.. Not the family

 

[gramcracker]

They were told not to talk to police by their attys. Nothing odd about that.

like many generalizations, that one contains a degree of truth. but it also IMO attempts to deflect from the context of this issue. it's not that they didn't want to talk to the police with or without their attorney present, they just plain flat-out did not want to talk to the police at all. and when they did finally agree to be interviewed the questions and and answers and the wordings of same were parsed to the nth degree. which did not present well and served to portray them in a worse light, although I had not thought that possible

lawyers give the shut-up advice as a matter or course but especially when they know or suspect that their clients are guilty, and then they will even more closely monitor every syllable. unless they are public defenders, lawyers are not required to take someone's case. they choose their clients, and some clients provide more personal and professional satisfaction than others. some lawyers prefer not to know if their client is guilty and some do prefer to know, because of the Rule of Law, which is: if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if the facts and the law are against you, yell like hell, pound the table, and call the other lawyer names

lawyers like to win cases and/or beat the system by blocking their opponents' moves. the justice system is not about truth; it's a chess game and it's about who plays a better game. there is one rather odd concept of law: clients who plead guilty. which lawyers perceive as boring, and counterproductive to increasing one's wealth and income and reputation

there are certain lawyers who, as soon as they've been retained, alert my intuition that their client is most certainly guilty. those attorneys (Bailey and Cochran, among others) like to have it both ways: they revel in their reputation of successfully defending those who are un-get-off-able because of overwhelming evidence/motive/opportunity while at the same time insisting that you believe their client is innocent and is being framed or railroaded. and unless I'm on a jury I'm allowed to believe that someone is guilty before they've been charged/arrested/tried

too often a very, very, very good reason why lawyers advise against talking to police is so that guilty clients won't endanger the lawyer's game plan: deny, delay, stall, delay, file, delay, threaten, delay = ego, reputation, and billing hours

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

like many generalizations, that one contains a degree of truth. but it also IMO attempts to deflect from the context of this issue. it's not that they didn't want to talk to the police with or without their attorney present, they just plain flat-out did not want to talk to the police at all. and when they did finally agree to be interviewed the questions and and answers and the wordings of same were parsed to the nth degree. which did not present well and served to portray them in a worse light, although I had not thought that possible

lawyers give the shut-up advice as a matter or course but especially when they know or suspect that their clients are guilty, and then they will even more closely monitor every syllable. unless they are public defenders, lawyers are not required to take someone's case. they choose their clients, and some clients provide more personal and professional satisfaction than others. some lawyers prefer not to know if their client is guilty and some do prefer to know, because of the Rule of Law, which is: if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if the facts and the law are against you, yell like hell, pound the table, and call the other lawyer names

lawyers like to win cases and/or beat the system by blocking their opponents' moves. the justice system is not about truth; it's a chess game and it's about who plays a better game. there is one rather odd concept of law: clients who plead guilty. which lawyers perceive as boring, and counterproductive to increasing one's wealth and income and reputation

there are certain lawyers who, as soon as they've been retained, alert my intuition that their client is most certainly guilty. those attorneys (Bailey and Cochran, among others) like to have it both ways: they revel in their reputation of successfully defending those who are un-get-off-able because of overwhelming evidence/motive/opportunity while at the same time insisting that you believe their client is innocent and is being framed or railroaded. and unless I'm on a jury I'm allowed to believe that someone is guilty before they've been charged/arrested/tried

too often a very, very, very good reason why lawyers advise against talking to police is so that guilty clients won't endanger the lawyer's game plan: deny, delay, stall, delay, file, delay, threaten, delay = ego, reputation, and billing hours

As soon as you have a lawyer you shut up and do what they tell you. The end.

That is it. Once you have a lawyer the point is to follow their directions and do what they say. Especially at a time when you are distraught and probably not capable of talking.

To me lawyers are there to protect us all. They get such a bad wrap but their job is to make sure you and I don't have our rights infringed on.

Getting a lawyer does not make you guilty of anything.

 

[gramcracker]

So if your child was missing, You would not call police?

In a heartbeat I would have called my family and my closest friends. I would need them.

maybe you read my post too quickly and missed the part I have now bolded?

inviting five people to the house along with marked police cars was completely insensible

I most certainly would call the police. I would also impress upon them that my daughter's head will be separated from her body if they arrive in uniform/in marked cars with lights/sirens/etc. surely they would honor the request to arrive as incognito as possible (if I asked them to), given the circumstances. but we'll never know that about the Boulder PD because the Rs didn't request it. oh, wait, PR did ask one officer to remove as much of his uniform as possible after he was INSIDE THE HOUSE

as for my friends and pastor, I have the rest of my life to spend with them but only this one morning to save my daughter by following the RN instructions and not defying the kidnappers (who don't even want me talking to stray dogs)

 

[Chrishope]

that was obvious in the first few minutes

inviting five people to the house along with marked police cars was completely insensible, given the promise that JB would be beheaded if the Rs so much as interacted with a stray dog

if the RN was real, they would have asked for plainclothes officers in one unmarked car and they would not have invited five other people as well. if the RN was real, defying its instructions signed JB's death warrant

panic, schmanic, yadda yadda yadda

I agree. So, it appears that "they" were not trying to make the RN appear real. At the very least, "they" were making it appear that it was not something they needed to take seriously.

Since I already have a theory of the case (JDI) there is always a danger of seeing things in a way that support the theory. Mindful of that danger, I still have to say that if "they" were trying to fly a kidnap scenario by the police, "they" would have called making sure to explain that JBR's life was in danger if police showed up in marked cars/in uniform. "They" would also have refrained from calling friends to come over.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

maybe you read my post too quickly and missed the part I have now bolded?



I most certainly would call the police. I would also impress upon them that my daughter's head will be separated from her body if they arrive in uniform/in marked cars with lights/sirens/etc. surely they would honor the request to arrive as incognito as possible (if I asked them to), given the circumstances. but we'll never know that about the Boulder PD because the Rs didn't request it. oh, wait, PR did ask one officer to remove as much of his uniform as possible after he was INSIDE THE HOUSE

as for my friends and pastor, I have the rest of my life to spend with them but only this one morning to save my daughter by following the RN instructions and not defying the kidnappers (who don't even want me talking to stray dogs)

I did not miss it. But we all know exactly what Kidnappers write. No police,tell no one.
The police should know what to do, The family should not have to tell them.

It has nothing to do with spending time with those people but needing them to lean on.

You would have done it differently. But they did it the way they did it. It does not mean guilt. In face it works for the R's.

If you think they are guilty then you would NOT invite people over for your dd's body to be found. You are not going to invite people to the place you killed your child. That makes no sense.

They called the police because they believed their dd was gone.

 

[Chrishope]

I did not miss it. But we all know exactly what Kidnappers write. No police,tell no one.
The police should know what to do, The family should not have to tell them.

It has nothing to do with spending time with those people but needing them to lean on.

You would have done it differently. But they did it the way they did it. It does not mean guilt. In face it works for the R's.

If you think they are guilty then you would NOT invite people over for your dd's body to be found. You are not going to invite people to the place you killed your child. That makes no sense.

They called the police because they believed their dd was gone.

"They" didn't call police. PR called the police. The call is at odds with what the RN says, so at a minimum there is no attempt to make it appear that "they" are taking the warnings in the RN seriously. I would go as far as saying the caller had no intention of making the kidnap scenario plausible at all.