just a theory, but what seems like a logical train of thought (to me), is 1. JB was suffering ongoing sexual abuse. 2. the killer knew it. 3. the killer wanted her dead. 4. the killer wanted to cover up the prior abuse and thought the rape that night would be enough to mask it. I realize that this theory would require some level of premeditation, but I'm not convinced there wasn't premeditation. Just a theory, but really, this doesn't look like any kind of accident to me. A bash that could leave that hole in a child's skull, had to be intentional. I can't imagine any scenario where a person hits a child so hard that the skull is destroyed, being non intentional. In my opinion, someone reared back and hit her as hard as he/she could. If a parent DID take a child to the ER with an injury like JB's, no way would even 1 dr or nurse buy into an accident excuse. And once the prior abuse was discovered, a door would slam shut to any credibility from the parents. Regardless, while there was still a chance to save JB, there were some big motives to not seek medical help. Imo, it looks like the killer thought the bash would kill her but when it didn't, he/she finished her off-with the intent to kill all along. all moo.
Mark Beckners AMA
- Thread starter cynic
- Start date
New Posts
-
NY NY - Canton, WhtFem, 30-40, found beaten and mutilated in ditch, Apr'50
- Latest: victoriarobinson642
-
Of course the bash wasn't accidental. It WAS intentional. But I still feel that her DEATH was unintentional. I think the BPD believes that too. There is a difference between the bash being intentional and the resulting death being intentional. You are absolutely right about what would have happened had JB been brought to an emergency room at that point. X-rays would have revealed the head bash and a resulting exam would have revealed the sexual assault. And THAT...is the simple answer to the often-stated comment that the parents couldn't be involved because parents would have called for an ambulance or taken her to a hospital. Occam's razor. The simplest answer is usually the correct one.
even while I was writing that last post, I waffled back and forth on how much premeditation/intent to murder was there. On the 1 hand, the murder does look intentional, but on the other hand, it looks like anger and abuse that spiraled out of control. One thing, imo, that points to it not being intent from the get go, was JB being raped right about the time of the strangulation. If the killer bashed to kill, wouldn't he have gone ahead and tried to cover up the prior abuse right then? Why wait until he strangled her, if he thought the bash was enough? moo
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 195
Hi, maddie. Some of the things Beckner said (like this) just don't make sense. Can the investigators really be that unable to put together the evidence they do have and still look at it on a surface level only? Your choice of the word "shallow" is fitting if they don't see this as a sexually motivated crime. The paintbrush was not used to "simulate" a sexual assault -- the insertion of the paintbrush was a sexual assault. And the sexual assault is what precipitated everything else.
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 195
I simply tried to eliminate some of the background noise so the voices could be better heard. I (obviously) don't have the kind of sophisticated equipment and software that Aerospace had at the time they did the enhancement. We don't even have a clean copy of the entire recording to work with because the end of the tape that was released publicly has been erased. But don't doubt, Tad, the existence of the enhanced version that investigators have. Here's what Beckner said about that:
QUESTION: It has been reported the dialogue at the end of the 911 tape was: Male: "We're not speaking to you!" Female: "Help me Jesus. Help me Jesus." Young Male: "Well, what did you find?"
Do you believe this is valid, that those words were actually spoken?
ANSWER: The words are difficult to hear and some claim they cannot hear them. After listening to the tape many times, I can tell you that I can hear what sounds like voices saying those words.
Do you believe this is valid, that those words were actually spoken?
ANSWER: The words are difficult to hear and some claim they cannot hear them. After listening to the tape many times, I can tell you that I can hear what sounds like voices saying those words.
http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_27637459/laurie-simpson-mark-beckners-mistakes
DC saw fit to publish this OP piece:
Laurie Simpson: Mark Beckner's mistakes
03/03/2015
"Former Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner ("Beckner opens up, then regrets it," Daily Camera, Feb. 25) shares comments about the JonBenet Ramsey murder case that are not in keeping with the facts in the case, the actual state of the case based on advancements in DNA forensic science; all while continuing to point the finger at the Ramseys based on behavior alone."
DC saw fit to publish this OP piece:
Laurie Simpson: Mark Beckner's mistakes
03/03/2015
"Former Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner ("Beckner opens up, then regrets it," Daily Camera, Feb. 25) shares comments about the JonBenet Ramsey murder case that are not in keeping with the facts in the case, the actual state of the case based on advancements in DNA forensic science; all while continuing to point the finger at the Ramseys based on behavior alone."
I'm relieved to see this is an opinion piece. I agree with the first comment on the article...left shaking my head.
snowblossom2
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 2
This isn't exactlu on topic but given the grand jury indictment and this AMA, I'd give anything for the Cold Justice team to take a look at this case. Unfortunately, they only go to places theyre invited ...
Agreed. This Laurie Simpson doesn't know her *advertiser censored** from her elbow. Like I said on the show last May, Josef Goebbels was, sadly, right.
Still plenty of Ramsey defenders out there. Still a few around here as well. You'll notice this Laura Simpson person really didn't cite any specific references in her article either. Typical.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unfortunately the powers that be in Boulder just want this case to go away. It's been a thorn in the side of every DA that's held the position since Alex Hunter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One of my friends pointed out that John Ramsey "friended" her on Facebook. THERE's her source.
Hey, I've said it a hundred times: this case isn't cold. It's so hot, it's radioactive. Nobody wants to get near it.
Speaking only for myself, damn skippy.
questfortrue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,005
- Reaction score
- 135
Moving away from Ms. Simpsons personal R commercial 
. . .
Beckner also gave some interesting responses to questions about Lou Smit which shed some insights into the issues involved with Smits participation on this case. In response to a question about why AH tried to keep Lou Smit away from the GJ by court order, which Smit had appealed and the court had overturned, Beckner suggested it may have been because LS had taken the case public and was misrepresenting some of the evidence.
Additionally, Beckner states, Originally, I wanted to rely on some of Lou's conclusions based on the evidence he was telling me about. More than once, I followed up on the evidence he was using to support his belief, and I found it not to be accurate.
Essentially both AH and Beckner had arrived at the same conclusion which was that LS was misrepresenting evidence. Its also been referenced at our sister site that much of the evidence presented in the civil case between the Rs and CW, at the Carnes court, was from LSs Powerpoint presentation. It was not evidence confirmed by the BPD. (BTW when the initials SMF- Statement of Material Fact-follow a quote about evidence, it is from the civil case in Georgia and the likely source is LS.)
One example of what might be referenced as misrepresentation of evidence, from the alleged depo of LS in the civil suit, as sworn by LS:
Q: Is there any evidence that any member of the Ramsey family had ever owned a logo Hi-Tec boot or shoe?
Answer from Smit: There is no evidence that I know of that anyone in that family owned that type of shoe.
ACR-During the Atlanta 2000 Interviews, a statement was made as FACT that prior to 1996 that Burke Ramsey said he owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots. The boots apparently were purchases while shopping with his parents in Atlanta, Georgia. During the same interview it was stated that "Fleet Junior also says that he had Hi-Tec shoes." Patsy Ramsey stated she can't remember Burke ever having any shoes or boots with compasses on them. When asked if this interview was the first time she heard Burke said he owned Hi-Tec shoes with compasses and Patsy said yes.
__________
My posts are my opinion, protected under the Freedom of Speech Amendment
. . .Beckner also gave some interesting responses to questions about Lou Smit which shed some insights into the issues involved with Smits participation on this case. In response to a question about why AH tried to keep Lou Smit away from the GJ by court order, which Smit had appealed and the court had overturned, Beckner suggested it may have been because LS had taken the case public and was misrepresenting some of the evidence.
Additionally, Beckner states, Originally, I wanted to rely on some of Lou's conclusions based on the evidence he was telling me about. More than once, I followed up on the evidence he was using to support his belief, and I found it not to be accurate.
Essentially both AH and Beckner had arrived at the same conclusion which was that LS was misrepresenting evidence. Its also been referenced at our sister site that much of the evidence presented in the civil case between the Rs and CW, at the Carnes court, was from LSs Powerpoint presentation. It was not evidence confirmed by the BPD. (BTW when the initials SMF- Statement of Material Fact-follow a quote about evidence, it is from the civil case in Georgia and the likely source is LS.)
One example of what might be referenced as misrepresentation of evidence, from the alleged depo of LS in the civil suit, as sworn by LS:
Q: Is there any evidence that any member of the Ramsey family had ever owned a logo Hi-Tec boot or shoe?
Answer from Smit: There is no evidence that I know of that anyone in that family owned that type of shoe.
ACR-During the Atlanta 2000 Interviews, a statement was made as FACT that prior to 1996 that Burke Ramsey said he owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots. The boots apparently were purchases while shopping with his parents in Atlanta, Georgia. During the same interview it was stated that "Fleet Junior also says that he had Hi-Tec shoes." Patsy Ramsey stated she can't remember Burke ever having any shoes or boots with compasses on them. When asked if this interview was the first time she heard Burke said he owned Hi-Tec shoes with compasses and Patsy said yes.
__________
My posts are my opinion, protected under the Freedom of Speech Amendment
Moving away from Ms. Simpson’s personal “R” commercial
Beckner also gave some interesting responses to questions about Lou Smit which shed some insights into the issues involved with Smit’s participation on this case. In response to a question about why AH tried to keep Lou Smit away from the GJ by court order, which Smit had appealed and the court had overturned, Beckner suggested it may have been because LS had taken the case public and was misrepresenting some of the evidence.
Additionally, Beckner states, “Originally, I wanted to rely on some of Lou's conclusions based on the evidence he was telling me about. More than once, I followed up on the evidence he was using to support his belief, and I found it not to be accurate.”
Essentially both AH and Beckner had arrived at the same conclusion which was that LS was misrepresenting evidence. It’s also been referenced at our sister site that much of the evidence presented in the civil case between the Rs and CW, at the Carnes court, was from LS’s Powerpoint presentation. It was not evidence confirmed by the BPD. (BTW when the initials SMF- Statement of Material Fact-follow a quote about evidence, it is from the civil case in Georgia and the likely source is LS.)
One example of what might be referenced as misrepresentation of evidence, from the alleged depo of LS in the civil suit, as sworn by LS:
Q: Is there any evidence that any member of the Ramsey family had ever owned a logo Hi-Tec boot or shoe?
Answer from Smit: There is no evidence that I know of that anyone in that family owned that type of shoe.
ACR-During the Atlanta 2000 Interviews, a statement was made as FACT that prior to 1996 that Burke Ramsey said he owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots. The boots apparently were purchases while shopping with his parents in Atlanta, Georgia. During the same interview it was stated that "Fleet Junior also says that he had Hi-Tec shoes." Patsy Ramsey stated she can't remember Burke ever having any shoes or boots with compasses on them. When asked if this interview was the first time she heard Burke said he owned Hi-Tec shoes with compasses and Patsy said yes.
__________
My posts are my opinion, protected under the Freedom of Speech Amendment
This is the reason why using the Carnes decision is treading on dangerous ground. As I've said before, she accepted a lot of things as facts that weren't facts simply because the opposition made no attempt to challenge them.
Also, the bolded part brings up some interesting questions. First and foremost, what did LS have on AH that made him change his mind?
887sMtreme
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,482
- Reaction score
- 9,223
Didn't MB say that this brand of shoe is worn by many Boulder police officers?
questfortrue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,005
- Reaction score
- 135
The focus of my post was Beckners statements that both he and AH were concerned about misinformation entering the public domain via LS. (Both Kolar and ST do mention that law enforcement may have worn Hi-Tec boots in the wc, and no way to know whose prints they were.) As far as boot prints, only relevance in my post is to give an example of misinformation from LS. Apparently, LS did not know or thought that PR had informed him correctly about whether BR possessed Hi-Tec boots. This only is an illustration as to why Beckner and AH had concerns about LS and his public presentations of evidence which had been proven to not be accurate.
___________
My posts are my opinion, protected under the Freedom of Speech Amendment
The fact that everybody in that family lied about Burke owning Hi Tek boots until Fleet White tipped LE off to it, pretty much tells you where that footprint came from.
It's interesting how many Burke related lies they told, he didn't wear Hi Teks, he didn't eat pineapple, he was asleep all morning, the Swiss army knife....
Makes you wonder
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's interesting how many Burke related lies they told, he didn't wear Hi Teks, he didn't eat pineapple, he was asleep all morning, the Swiss army knife....
Makes you wonder
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
eileenhawkeye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 8,755
- Reaction score
- 132
The same place (Reddit's UnresolvedMysteries page) that hosted the AMA with Mark Beckner is going to be hosting another AMA with James Kolar. There's a thread right at the top where you can post your questions.