Members' Theories

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wilcox worked for them until Joni was 4.
She accused J of lying about her bed wetting problems.
She said this based on her knowledge of J's knowledge that she wet the bed when she was 2 and 1/2 to 4 years of age. Even then "it wasn't chronic." And she admits at 2 and 1/2 it isn't unusual.
"But it got progressively worse." 6 year old kids should have fewer problems than 4 year old kids. How did she know the severity of her bed wetting problems when she hadn't been there in 2 years? This lovely lady tells all who will listen that J is a liar.

Well, look at it this way. Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, told FOX News that she had found fecal staining in all of JBR's panties on the 3rd day of the investigation.

How were the R's supposed to counter this endless assault on their integrity?

I can think of an obvious answer, but I doubt you'd like it.
 
Linda Wilcox probably got this information about the bedwetting from the same place we did- she read about it. It WAS true, actually. While some children do still wet the bed at age 6, these are children who have never been dry through the night. With JB, her toilet training progressed normally, with her becoming dry most nights and in control of bladder and bowels during the day. Then, she began to regress, both wetting and soiling herself (the latter is most unusual for a child that age) and wetting the bed most nights. Nedra said JB had regressed when Patsy went through her cancer treatments, and as she said, that might not be unusual, especially as JB was only 3 at the time and not far past being in diapers. But for this to resurface three years later, with Patsy long recovered from her treatments, would be cause for concern.

I think it was a stretch for her to declare J a liar when she couldn't know for sure what he knew about her wetting problems when she hadn't been in their home for 2 years. Would any of us expect a person two years removed from our lives to insist as a fact what we did or didn't know about our kids? For the Rs it was par for the post murder course and it sucked.
 
Well, look at it this way. Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, told FOX News that she had found fecal staining in all of JBR's panties on the 3rd day of the investigation.

I can think of an obvious answer, but I doubt you'd like it.

I think the anti-Ramsey crowd should ask to have all their personal matters, regardless of content, to be ripped from any protections and have every single solitary personal, embarrassing, offensive, humiliating, private, sacred, ugly, questionable, sensitive detailed piece of information splattered all over international media outlets unceasingly for 3 plus years. This would include every statement, judgement, opinion, remark of all who knew you at any time in your life. It includes vacuuming every computer in your home and office, all those hard drives, revealing every single website ever visited and every bit of data received and viewed. This should take place immediately upon experiencing the most tragic and devastating and overwhelming event in your lives.
 
J. RAMSEY: Let's deal with facts. December 26, 1996, Commander Eler (ph) released a press release: "The family has been cooperative, and the investigation is continuing." December 29, 1996, "The family continues".

THOMAS: What day was that, John?

KING: What do you think happened?

THOMAS: But I think there was a toiletting issue that night that has been dismissed and underplayed. KING: OK, toiletting -- explain.

THOMAS: A bed-wetting or a toiletting issue.

KING: That caused Patsy to get mad at her daughter.

THOMAS: Absolutely.

KING: And say slap her, or hit her, or punish her?

THOMAS: I don't know. I'm suggesting that there was an explosive encounter, because at one point put the child in clothes, a red turtleneck, for example, not the same clothing she was found in deceased, the following day. I think something happened in that bathroom.
KING: All right. Why would it lead then to garroting and hitting on the head: What would lead to that?

THOMAS: I don't know. What can you imagine would led to garroting or hitting on the head?

P. RAMSEY: What can you imagine? I can't imagine. I want to you look at me and tell me what you think happened.

THOMAS: Actually, I'll look you right in the eye. I think you're good for this. I think that's what the evidence suggests.

KING: Are they looking at other suspects, by the way?

P. RAMSEY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) paid John (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

THOMAS: Yes, they -- it's interesting. The Ramseys at this point -- of course, the Boulder police will look at any legitimate suspect that's brought to them. But at this point, until the Ramseys satisfy the Boulder Police Department that they are not involved in this case...

KING: You're asking them to prove their innocence?
From LKL Thomas and Ramseys
 
I think the anti-Ramsey crowd should ask to have all their personal matters, regardless of content, to be ripped from any protections and have every single solitary personal, embarrassing, offensive, humiliating, private, sacred, ugly, questionable, sensitive detailed piece of information splattered all over international media outlets unceasingly for 3 plus years. This would include every statement, judgement, opinion, remark of all who knew you at any time in your life. It includes vacuuming every computer in your home and office, all those hard drives, revealing every single website ever visited and every bit of data received and viewed. This should take place immediately upon experiencing the most tragic and devastating and overwhelming event in your lives.

This would have happened to pretty much anyone in their situation. It was a perfect storm as far as the media was concerned. The sensational nature of the crime, the beautiful tiny beauty queen, the wealthy, good-looking parents and their seemingly perfect life in a seemingly perfect town. It's a paparazzi's dream.
The search of the home and computer histories, etc. are standard procedure in murder cases, and especially when a child is found by a parent in the home, it would be a breach of the investigation NOT to do it. As an innocent parent, my thought would be to do whatever they have to do to rule me out.
Don't underestimate the weight given to the fact that JB was found in her own home, by a parent. Right there, the kidnapping and RN were pretty much thrown out by LE.
 
This would have happened to pretty much anyone in their situation.

With the police leaks and cash offers to talk and the cops' certainty of their guilt, they never had a chance. It isn't merely the searching. It is the world wide monsoon rain storm of every drop of their personal information, including fictitious accounts of all things cruel, unpleasant, embarrassing and irrelevant that was the most debasing piece of this travesty and every outspoken anti-R should taste and see what that is like.

Feb. 23 - Supermarket tabloids employ a flamboyant style of reporting, headline writing and picture editing that can be silly, funny and entertaining.
Sometimes the subject matter doesn't fit the style, but the tabloids plunge ahead anyway as they have done with their coverage of JonBenet Ramsey, the 6-year-old killed in her wealthy family's Boulder home.
They entertain and amuse with outlandish or shocking headlines that often are not supported by the stories, unnamed sources that may or may not exist, doctored or misleading photographs, a kernel or two of truth in a field of fiction, and a disdain for celebrity.
It's all driven by a fierce competition among experienced, top-notch reporters whose aggressiveness earns them some of the highest salaries paid in journalism.
The tabloids are armed with thick checkbooks and the freedom to buy information they can't get any other way.
And they have broken news in the Ramsey case, a story that includes a millionaire father, John Ramsey; a younger beauty-queen mother, Patsy Ramsey; a child victim who starred in kiddie beauty pageants; and a team of investigators some have compared to the Keystone Kops.
Tabloid reporters often beat the mainstream media when they zero in on a story.
Their coverage of the Nicole Brown Simpson murder forced highly regarded national newspapers to quote tabloid stories.
But readers should be aware that tabloids do not approach or display a Ramsey story any differently from the way they do one about Michael Jackson's monkey or the latest twist in Elizabeth Taylor's love life.
Ramsey reports carried in the Feb. 25 editions of the four weeklies, which began arriving at newsstands on Feb. 17, are worth a critical look.
The Enquirer and Globe devote the majority of their covers to the case.
The Examiner and Star carry the story across the top of Page 1.
All four carry pictures of the dead child.
The Globe also features a picture of her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey. The Enquirer includes a small picture of the mother.
Each front page contains the tabloid standard of a shocking headline that promises more than the story will deliver.
The Examiner's three-deck, yellow headline screams: "MYSTERY FOOTPRINT LEADS TO REAL JonBenet KILLER." A smaller headline drives the point home, "Shocking new police evidence."
That headline is repeated above a story on Page 13. It leads with the "news" that insiders say the killer left "telltale footprints that can lead right to his door." The footprints, it says, were found on stairs in the house and outside in the snow.
Writer John Latta then quotes a former Philadelphia detective on how important the prints could be and how police would investigate them. He talks at length on how valuable they could be even if the police don't match them to a pair of shoes.
And that's pretty much it. Like the footprints, the story leads nowhere.
Two pictures of interest run with the story. In one, six shoe prints mar an otherwise pristine snow scene. Under that picture sits one of an officer in a Boulder County Sheriff's car parked in front of the Ramsey house.
A cutline says shoe prints were found outside the home, but it doesn't say the pictured tracks are the ones. Nothing ties the photograph to the crime scene. That's the job of the photograph of the deputy and the house. That picture, however, shows a snow-free lawn.
The Enquirer's front page states: "COPS: MOM CONFESSES 'IT'S MY FAULT,' " "BEAUTY QUEEN murder bombshell" and "PLUS: 10-year-old brother's torment." Inside, it shouts: "BEAUTY QUEEN'S MOM CONFESSES: IT'S MY FAULT!" But the first two paragraphs turn the volume way down: " 'It's my fault . God, it's all my fault."
"With that anguished cry, grieving mother Patsy Ramsey confessed to shocked friends that she blames herself for the death of her beloved beauty pageant princess, JonBenet."
A police source, the story says, told the Enquirer that police knew about Mrs. Ramsey's "confessions.'' It goes on to quote "a close friend," "a source close to her" and "a family friend." These unnamed sources in turn provide direct quotes from the mother's mouth, the Enquirer claims.
But some of her quotes sound suspect.
For example: " 'When I dressed her in those lovely costumes and let her learn to dance and sing, was I making her a target for the pervert who killed her?' "
Would a grief-stricken, guilt-ridden mother really say "those lovely costumes" if she believed those clothes contributed to her daughter's brutal death?
Also, the Enquirer brags it was the first to report that the dead girl had been a chronic bed-wetter. That "fact" is addressed by the article's one named source: Judianne Densen-Gerber, who is identified only as a forensic psychiatrist. She discusses signs that sexual abuse is occurring.
"Even bed-wetting can be a sign," she says.
Note the use of "can be." That's not enough even for a supermarket tabloid, so the Enquirer trots out an unidentified family friend who says, "(Mrs. Ramsey) always worried about JonBenet's bed-wetting problem. And she (Mrs. Ramsey) was horrified to learn after her death that it's one of the classic signs of an abused child!"
A possible sign has become a classic one, and there's still no confirmation from a reliable source.
The Star's headline reads: "JONBENET MOM SOBS: I'LL TELL ALL TO COPS." The inside headline leaves off "TO COPS." While its story quotes an unnamed insider and source, the Star presents a fairly straightforward article about the standoff between the Ramseys and police over where a formal interview will take place.
It offers a direct quote from Mrs. Ramsey: " 'I'll tell you what I know but don't make me come downtown.' " But then the reporters signal their uncertainty about whether she said it by adding, "she reportedly said."
The story also reports the arrest of family friend Jay Elowsky in a baseball-bat attack on a television crew staking out his home where the family was staying.
It quotes Boulder Mayor Leslie Durgin talking about her frustration at the Ramseys' refusal to submit to police questioning.
Accompanying the story is a grainy picture of Mrs. Ramsey and a man identified only as a bodyguard.
The picture was shot through a car's windshield.
The Star gives the case two full pages, with sidebars about "Strange case of dog who was banished from little girl's room" and "4 QUESTIONS THE COPS NEED ANSWERED." A picture of the dog runs with one story. Also, the Star displays three pictures taken of a pensive JonBenet in July at a beauty pageant. The cutline says people - no names used - at the pageant "now realize there was a dark edge to that day. "It's as if she had an eerie premonition something awful lay ahead,' says a witness."
The Globe's front trumpets: "I WON'T TURN IN JONBENET'S DAD! He's innocent, says mom as cops turn up heat."
It also carries a picture of the Ramseys walking together. A red tag claims "Photo Exclusive." Another headline mocks them: "GOTCHA! PARENTS COME OUT OF HIDING." "JonBenet's MOM STANDS BY HER MAN," reads the headline over the story.
The lead says "The defiant mom of slain JonBenet Ramsey has refused to crack in the face of relentless pressure by lawmen who want to finger her hubby for the murder of their precious little daughter, sources reveal." In the next graph, insiders say police "are playing torturous mind games with Patsy Ramsey .
 
Hi Everyone,

First I apologize for letting WhiteFang's name calling post stand for so long. I get a zillion alerts and sometimes the JBR alerts get lost.

In the future if you see a very blatant violation of our Terms of Service please alert on it as you would usually do but if nothing has been done about it within a day or so please email me at tgrif@xmission.com

Thanks,

Also, please do NOT quote the posts violating TOS OK?

I have a little project I will need your help on. We need a standard letter so the next time Jane Valez Mitchell or any other clueless media person proclaims the Ramseys "Cleared by the cops" we can send it off to them. I'd like us to write it together.

More later,

Tricia
 
Hi Everyone,

First I apologize for letting WhiteFang's name calling post stand for so long. I get a zillion alerts and sometimes the JBR alerts get lost.

In the future if you see a very blatant violation of our Terms of Service please alert on it as you would usually do but if nothing has been done about it within a day or so please email me at tgrif@xmission.com

Thanks,

Also, please do NOT quote the posts violating TOS OK?

I have a little project I will need your help on. We need a standard letter so the next time Jane Valez Mitchell or any other clueless media person proclaims the Ramseys "Cleared by the cops" we can send it off to them. I'd like us to write it together.

More later,

Tricia

Hi Tricia

Well, I think WF was pushed to the extreme, and that's what caused the 'name calling' which didn't seem to worry the callee at all!!

Second, I think that we would need to do two letters about the Ramseys "Cleared by the cops" proclamations. Some of us actually believe they DID NOT DO IT!!

It sounds as if this website has it's own bias.
 
How much does "on time out" mean?24h?one week?

I think it is two weeks Maddy. Way to go RDI. I know WF gets a little emotional but aren't we mature enough to not tattle tale. I can guarantee that I may complain about RDI arguments, but not tattle tale about their emotion for them to get banned.

And, WF, we IDI's need you here and I told you this was gonna happen. Step away from the computer when angry cause your emotions will be played on. Next time is banning.
 
I think it is two weeks Maddy. Way to go RDI. I know WF gets a little emotional but aren't we mature enough to not tattle tale. I can guarantee that I may complain about RDI arguments, but not tattle tale about their emotion for them to get banned.

And, WF, we IDI's need you here and I told you this was gonna happen. Step away from the computer when angry cause your emotions will be played on. Next time is banning.

Why would you blame ANYONE else for what happened? WF lashed out, and that's why he was given a "time out". We are supposed to be adults. No one here should be calling anyone names (in writing, anyway). Try saying "way to go WF" because that is accurate.
It doesn't mean anyone "tattled". Mods do read the board too, you know. That's why there're here.
 
Why would you blame ANYONE else for what happened? WF lashed out, and that's why he was given a "time out". We are supposed to be adults. No one here should be calling anyone names (in writing, anyway). Try saying "way to go WF" because that is accurate.
It doesn't mean anyone "tattled". Mods do read the board too, you know. That's why there're here.


I think I put some blame where it was due. And someone did tattle if you would read it correctly. Anyhow, your point is duly noted.
 
I think it is two weeks Maddy. Way to go RDI. I know WF gets a little emotional but aren't we mature enough to not tattle tale. I can guarantee that I may complain about RDI arguments, but not tattle tale about their emotion for them to get banned.

And, WF, we IDI's need you here and I told you this was gonna happen. Step away from the computer when angry cause your emotions will be played on. Next time is banning.

Nobody "played" on WF's emotions to "get rid" of him. The first few weeks he was here, everything was fine. In many ways, he reminded me of you, and that's saying a lot. Then something--I don't know what--happened and it's like he became a different person.

So, it's my hope that he will come back, and an even greater hope that he'll be his old self.
 
I thought I`d consider RDI and prior sexual abuse.

In RDI scenarios I tend to lean BDI, so first here`s some thoughts on that. Hope this does not offend anyone.

JB sometimes for example slept in Burke`s room and children do "play games", vaginal penetration is rare probably, but not impossible. I have wondered, whether the pageants possibly influenced how Burke saw her, and possible "sibling jealousy". John was away a lot, and Patsy may have focused more on JB.

I would not be surprised, if Burke and JB sometimes at night went downstairs to eat something or play and not tell their parents. That christmas night, perhaps they ate the pineapple (hence Burke´s prints) and went to the basement where the train room was. And some sort of sexual game took place or there was an accidental blow to the head with the golf club. At some point he told his parents, which resulted in the panicked ransom note and some staging. I have no idea what would have been staged other than the RN. Burke never mentioned eating the pineapple, and J/P told Burke to just say you slept all night, didn`t hear anything, simple story.

The problem with accidental head blow theory is, for me, with all RDI scenarios that I don`t see why they didn`t just call the ambulance, why all the staging? I would understand it better if BDI and/or something else, like sexual abuse, was involved. Or perhaps they knew the abuse would come up in the autopsy, and that`s why had to stage the sexual assault and couldn`t just call the ambulance. Shoot, that´s it.

The problem with sexual game gone wrong that night is that they had had a long day, were leaving early in the morning to Charlevoix, and wouldn`t the garroting leave marks on the neck? Difficult to imagine this sexual game that particular night by an R.

Some things that imply RDI to me are: the pineapple, the 118, 000 dollars, and I find it very odd that the RN has no J/P fingerprints.

I`m also interested in the John Douglas book that John was reading, and whether it contained stuff about sexual crimes and garroting like one of his articles. I think that`s were the idea of garroting (staged) might have come from.

Just throwing ideas..
 
I thought I`d consider RDI and prior sexual abuse.

In RDI scenarios I tend to lean BDI, so first here`s some thoughts on that. Hope this does not offend anyone.

JB sometimes for example slept in Burke`s room and children do "play games", vaginal penetration is rare probably, but not impossible. I have wondered, whether the pageants possibly influenced how Burke saw her, and possible "sibling jealousy". John was away a lot, and Patsy may have focused more on JB.

I would not be surprised, if Burke and JB sometimes at night went downstairs to eat something or play and not tell their parents. That christmas night, perhaps they ate the pineapple (hence Burke´s prints) and went to the basement where the train room was. And some sort of sexual game took place or there was an accidental blow to the head with the golf club. At some point he told his parents, which resulted in the panicked ransom note and some staging. I have no idea what would have been staged other than the RN. Burke never mentioned eating the pineapple, and J/P told Burke to just say you slept all night, didn`t hear anything, simple story.

The problem with accidental head blow theory is, for me, with all RDI scenarios that I don`t see why they didn`t just call the ambulance, why all the staging? I would understand it better if BDI and/or something else, like sexual abuse, was involved. Or perhaps they knew the abuse would come up in the autopsy, and that`s why had to stage the sexual assault and couldn`t just call the ambulance. Shoot, that´s it.

The problem with sexual game gone wrong that night is that they had had a long day, were leaving early in the morning to Charlevoix, and wouldn`t the garroting leave marks on the neck? Difficult to imagine this sexual game that particular night by an R.

Some things that imply RDI to me are: the pineapple, the 118, 000 dollars, and I find it very odd that the RN has no J/P fingerprints.

I`m also interested in the John Douglas book that John was reading, and whether it contained stuff about sexual crimes and garroting like one of his articles. I think that`s were the idea of garroting (staged) might have come from.

Just throwing ideas..

Mysteeri, would you be at all willing to move this to a discussion thread? If not, that's fine.
 
Mysteeri, would you be at all willing to move this to a discussion thread? If not, that's fine.

Depends what you mean on "this", an idea can be "moved" of course. But I`m not comfortable in moving the message, it´s not coherent..

I did realize that prior sexual abuse would be a motive for a) not calling the ambulance (if they thought she was dead) and b) staging the sexual assault to cover up old injuries.

Especially the acute injuries in her vagina have been too much to imagine that they would stage.
 
Depends what you mean on "this", an idea can be "moved" of course. But I`m not comfortable in moving the message, it´s not coherent..

I did realize that prior sexual abuse would be a motive for a) not calling the ambulance (if they thought she was dead) and b) staging the sexual assault to cover up old injuries.

Especially the acute injuries in her vagina have been too much to imagine that they would stage.

SD asked that because this thread is not supposed to be for discussions, and he probably wanted to discuss your post further. You don't actually have to MOVE it, just re-post it on one of the discussion threads or start a new thread.
 
SD asked that because this thread is not supposed to be for discussions, and he probably wanted to discuss your post further. You don't actually have to MOVE it, just re-post it on one of the discussion threads or start a new thread.


Ok (that`s how I took it), I don`t want to re-post it either. :)

About John Douglas book, this was on http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com:

Mindhunters Book Not in Ramsey House. It has been alleged that Ramseys had Mindhunter in their home and that this might have given them ideas about how to stage the crime scene. However:
Internet poster Rainsong says the "book was not found in the home nor was it taken into evidence by BPD."
Internet poster Evening2 claims "Lin Wood stated unequivocally that the Ramseys did NOT possess JD's book "Mindhunter"."
Internet poster Rainsongj has stated: "We've all seen the evidence lists and Mindhunter is not on the lists. John Douglas went through the house and did not see his book among those in the bedroom--he even mentioned it during one of his radio shows because he specifically looked for it."
Internet poster Margoo has asserted: "John denied he had the book. No one could produce a copy or even a photo of a copy."


Now where did I read that John himself said he was reading John Douglas`book? Please correct me if I`m wrong. What book was he reading then?

If this thread is not for discussion, then someone feel free to pm me..

Edit. The article I read some time ago was this: http://www.crimeandclues.com/index....analysis-modus-operandi-signature-and-staging

It helped me understand IDI. Afterwards I read about JR reading John Douglas`book and thought about it being a source for staging ideas. I wonder if in some of his books it is also mentioned that perpetrators may use things found inside the house when committing the crime. Lou Smit at least said that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
2,123
Total visitors
2,264

Forum statistics

Threads
600,260
Messages
18,106,096
Members
230,993
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top