Possible NEW Suspects In JonBenet Ramsey Case?

[DeeDee249]

SuperDave:

It is just like Bill Kurtis said in the A&E documentary: Look at the evidence one way, it was someone inside the house, look at the same evidence another way, and it was an intruder.

But leaving aside the $118,00 and "good southern common sense" for one moment, what do you make of the "proper burial" reference in the note.

If I were advocating for the RDI side (which I am not), I would say that phrase betrays that PR wrote the note, and shows the reason why the Rs didn't just take JBs body and dump it at some location where she would never be found. They wanted a cover-up that would allow for a proper burial of their child.

However, from the IDI side, I would advocate this phrase indicates the intruder knows something of the Rs religious beliefs.

Here's my take on the "proper burial" phrase. I believe a parent wrote the note. JB had already died, so the writer knew the "kidnap victim" was already dead. They perfect "explanation" for a dead victim was also written in the note (call police, talk to anyone and she dies, etc. ) The "beheading" nonsense was just that - shock value "this-must-be-a-terrorist" nonsense.
Now- they KNEW there was a dead body already in the house. So they wanted to give the impression they were "given her remains for proper burial". They HAD to say something like that. A REAL kidnapper wouldn't have left behind the victim anyway, dead or alive. And they certainly wouldn't have risked returning a dead victim for "proper burial".
But the Rs KNEW they would have a proper burial. Not only that, but a media storm of a world-class burial. There was NO way they'd ever secretly dispose of her body or pull a "Casey Anthony" and hide her till she decomposed past the point of determining a cause of death. They needed a burial, they needed her body. The only way to reconcile a "kidnapping" with a victim that never left the house was to infer in the note that the kidnappers felt a proper burial would be important to the parents.

Part of the reason the note is so long and so rambling is that the note was written after the fact. It was written to "fit" the crime that had already happened. The writers tried to incorporate every possible type of suspect and event. The first thing JR said to Detective Arndt was "this is an inside job", implicating friends and acquaintances, promptly fingering housekeeper LHP. They mentioned JR's "bussiness" and bonus amount to give the impression it might be a disgruntled employee. They mentioned "small foreign faction" and "beheading" to give the impression it might be a foreign terrorist group (who would never refer to themselves as a small foreign faction anyway). They mentioned she'd be killed if the Rs spoke to anyone. They promptly did, ensuring the "kidnappers" would act on their threat, thereby explaining the dead child. They mentioned the proper burial to explain why they still had the body. Never mind the note saying they'd be "denied her remains". They HAD her remains. There was NO WAY they weren't going to give her a proper burial.
By the way, no kidnapper/pedophile killer cares whether the victim has a proper burial. and I would venture a guess that in the entire recorded history of such crimes, there has been only ONE case where a ransom note has mentioned denying remains for a proper burial- JonBenet Ramsey.

 

[vlpate]

Here's my take on the "proper burial" phrase. I believe a parent wrote the note. JB had already died, so the writer knew the "kidnap victim" was already dead. They perfect "explanation" for a dead victim was also written in the note (call police, talk to anyone and she dies, etc. ) The "beheading" nonsense was just that - shock value "this-must-be-a-terrorist" nonsense.
Now- they KNEW there was a dead body already in the house. So they wanted to give the impression they were "given her remains for proper burial". They HAD to say something like that. A REAL kidnapper wouldn't have left behind the victim anyway, dead or alive. And they certainly wouldn't have risked returning a dead victim for "proper burial".
But the Rs KNEW they would have a proper burial. Not only that, but a media storm of a world-class burial. There was NO way they'd ever secretly dispose of her body or pull a "Casey Anthony" and hide her till she decomposed past the point of determining a cause of death. They needed a burial, they needed her body. The only way to reconcile a "kidnapping" with a victim that never left the house was to infer in the note that the kidnappers felt a proper burial would be important to the parents.

PLEASE read the plethera of documentation on this case - court documents, interviews, depositions, legitimate news articles with legitimate sources - NOT Bill Curtis....his documentary was full of misinformation that was fed to him by the Ramsey's and a North Carolina housewife. I remember watching the Bill Curtis documentary and wanting to shoot my TV set...and I remember my mother calling me and trying to tell me how wrong I had been all those years because she saw the TRUTH on A&E. Ugh.

ACandyRose is a wonderful resource for information.

 

[DeeDee249]

PLEASE read the plethera of documentation on this case - court documents, interviews, depositions, legitimate news articles with legitimate sources - NOT Bill Curtis....his documentary was full of misinformation that was fed to him by the Ramsey's and a North Carolina housewife. I remember watching the Bill Curtis documentary and wanting to shoot my TV set...and I remember my mother calling me and trying to tell me how wrong I had been all those years because she saw the TRUTH on A&E. Ugh.

ACandyRose is a wonderful resource for information.

Not sure what this had to do with my post, but I think it is safe to say that I HAVE researched the JB case very well, on acandyrose as well as other sites, and various books.

 

[mtwentz]

Not to be nitpicky, and the only reason I know is because I grew up in Chicago, where Bill was an icon anchoring the nightly news with Walter Jacobsen, but it is Kurtis with a K, not a C .

I thought the A&E Documentary was fair. It did tilt toward the Ramsey's, but I did not detect any glaring inaccuracies. It probably did omit some stuff that might not have made the Rs look so good, though.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

BTW, the A&E documentary is on YouTube. Just search for "JonBenet investigation" and it will come up.

 

[vlpate]

Not sure what this had to do with my post, but I think it is safe to say that I HAVE researched the JB case very well, on acandyrose as well as other sites, and various books.

So sorry DeeDee, that was not directed toward your post....I know you are very well versed in the case, no doubt. I was talking about the poster who cited the A&E documentary.

 

[vlpate]

Not to be nitpicky, and the only reason I know is because I grew up in Chicago, where Bill was an icon anchoring the nightly news with Walter Jacobsen, but it is Kurtis with a K, not a C .

I thought the A&E Documentary was fair. It did tilt toward the Ramsey's, but I did not detect any glaring inaccuracies. It probably did omit some stuff that might not have made the Rs look so good, though.

I stand corrected

There are inaccuracies, subtle or glaring, they muddle the facts. You would really have to have followed the case in the first few years to know the facts of the case and catch the inaccuracies. Maybe I'll watch it again later on and post what I perceive to be the skewed facts. Have a good one!

 

[BBB167893]

Not to be nitpicky, and the only reason I know is because I grew up in Chicago, where Bill was an icon anchoring the nightly news with Walter Jacobsen, but it is Kurtis with a K, not a C .

I thought the A&E Documentary was fair. It did tilt toward the Ramsey's, but I did not detect any glaring inaccuracies. It probably did omit some stuff that might not have made the Rs look so good, though.

It's still a far cry from what we have today. We've got our bloody friends Wood and Tracey to thank for that!

 

[vlpate]

It's still a far cry from what we have today. We've got our bloody friends Wood and Tracey to thank for that!

I long for a book which finally tells the truth using facts, not fiction. Hint. Hint.

 

[AKWILKS]

I’ll phrase it this way, you have spoken of rebuttable presumption and common law gives an age span from age 7 to 14.
Below 7 would be universally regarded as irrebuttable, correct?

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer: English common law 7 to 13 it was a rebuttable presumption of lack of capacity. Under 7 it was considered an irrebuttable presumption. Even with that, a prosecutor could still make an argument in an EXTREME case, though I think 99 out of 100 judges would shoot him down. As America become a country with 50 different legal systems, the old common law was followed as a guide but then departed from. It seems most states have something similar, but there are many variations as to where the cut off is - 7, 10, 12.

 

[cynic]

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer: English common law 7 to 13 it was a rebuttable presumption of lack of capacity. Under 7 it was considered an irrebuttable presumption. Even with that, a prosecutor could still make an argument in an EXTREME case, though I think 99 out of 100 judges would shoot him down. As America become a country with 50 different legal systems, the old common law was followed as a guide but then departed from. It seems most states have something similar, but there are many variations as to where the cut off is - 7, 10, 12.

You are aware, then, that the age below which there is an irrebuttable presumption of incapacity in Colorado is 10?

 

[BBB167893]

I long for a book which finally tells the truth using facts, not fiction. Hint. Hint.

Message received loud and clear!

 

[SunnieRN]

Not to stray too far from the subject, but that Paugh family was something. As opinionated as Nedra was, and considering mothers almost always take their children's side, she never threw John under the bus or accused him of sexually molesting JonBenet - in fact, she was always about the intruder theory and throwing any and everyone else under the bus. Being a mother myself, I think I would at least take a sideways glance at the adult male in the house when the autopsy showed prior sexual abuse.

I will tell you though, that AK's question about why the Ramseys would let Burke be questioned alone if he was implicit in the crime, made me think. It brought me back to my original theory that Patsy did the deed over bed wetting. If he was made to stay in bed while all the staging was done, he wouldn't know anything to tell the police. I still can't wrap my mind around John staying with Patsy if she killed JonBenet - why would he? Did she have something on him? Sexual abuse or something more....something to do with the company that he didn't want made public?

BDM doesn't fit this crime for so many reasons - the one that comes to mind right away is that he wanted young women to marry - this was his stated goal. Nothing about the crime fits BDM's MO. During 1996 he and Barzee were looking for money to make a trip to Hawaii, right? There was plenty to take from the Ramsey's house that night to pawn or sell for a couple of tickets. Nothing was missing....not even the child.

Vlpat, one reason that Nedra may not have fingered John, would be if the rumors concerning possible abuse of Patsy, by Don are true. Maybe when the children stayed with Nedra and Don, or they stayed in Boulder, during Patsy's cancer treatment, Nedra suspected abuse by Don. Maybe not, but it has made me think, as Nedra would have happily thrown John under the bus and tried to take over the company with Don at the helm.

Also, remember the interview of the psychologist who saw Burke? He was also a bed wetter. There were pull ups in the hall closet (or was in JonBenets closet), so if Patsy, being the parent of bed wetters was concerned, she would do what most Moms do. She would make sure the child went potty as late as possible and put pull ups on her if necessary. This would especially be true, after a busy day, late night and having an early flight the next morning.

Out of all the scenarios I can think of, and there are plenty, I would find it very difficult to believe that it was bed wetting rage. Actually it would be last on the list. It could have been another reason, but I don't find bed wetting plausible whatsoever.

As usual, moo only.

 

[vlpate]

Vlpat, one reason that Nedra may not have fingered John, would be if the rumors concerning possible abuse of Patsy, by Don are true. Maybe when the children stayed with Nedra and Don, or they stayed in Boulder, during Patsy's cancer treatment, Nedra suspected abuse by Don. Maybe not, but it has made me think, as Nedra would have happily thrown John under the bus and tried to take over the company with Don at the helm.

Also, remember the interview of the psychologist who saw Burke? He was also a bed wetter. There were pull ups in the hall closet (or was in JonBenets closet), so if Patsy, being the parent of bed wetters was concerned, she would do what most Moms do. She would make sure the child went potty as late as possible and put pull ups on her if necessary. This would especially be true, after a busy day, late night and having an early flight the next morning.

Out of all the scenarios I can think of, and there are plenty, I would find it very difficult to believe that it was bed wetting rage. Actually it would be last on the list. It could have been another reason, but I don't find bed wetting plausible whatsoever.

As usual, moo only.

Also remember, Patsy maintained they carried JonBenet upstairs to bed and she never woke up. I agree with you - if a child is a bed wetter, you make sure to take them potty before bed. It's been so long, but there was also something about Patsy always making sure she took JonBenet potty around midnight every night. I could well be remembering that wrong - I'd have to look it up. I believe the pull-ups were in a hall closet that they found open. The red sweater JonBenet wore the night of the Christmas party was found on the bathroom sink. Patsy could not explain why. Their bathroom was taken apart during the investigation. For a time, I thought the hand-held shower may have been the weapon she was hit in the head with. Patsy tired and mad, washing her off after she peed the bed - JonBenet cranky and mouthing off and squirming so Patsy hits her with the shower head. The expensive ones are very heavy.

Again, it's been 14 years since the case broke and the initial investigation. Since that time so much junk information has muddied the truth, I'm not even sure anymore lol.

 

[DeeDee249]

Also remember, Patsy maintained they carried JonBenet upstairs to bed and she never woke up. I agree with you - if a child is a bed wetter, you make sure to take them potty before bed. It's been so long, but there was also something about Patsy always making sure she took JonBenet potty around midnight every night. I could well be remembering that wrong - I'd have to look it up. I believe the pull-ups were in a hall closet that they found open. The red sweater JonBenet wore the night of the Christmas party was found on the bathroom sink. Patsy could not explain why. Their bathroom was taken apart during the investigation. For a time, I thought the hand-held shower may have been the weapon she was hit in the head with. Patsy tired and mad, washing her off after she peed the bed - JonBenet cranky and mouthing off and squirming so Patsy hits her with the shower head. The expensive ones are very heavy.

Again, it's been 14 years since the case broke and the initial investigation. Since that time so much junk information has muddied the truth, I'm not even sure anymore lol.

Your memory is correct in that Patsy said in one of her interviews that she made it a habit to be sure JB went potty before going to bed.
But as far as the red turtleneck- there is some confusion there. At first, Patsy said that JB wore the red turtleneck to the White's party, because Patsy wanted her to match her own outfit of black velvet pants, red sweater. JB refused to wear it because she wanted to wear the white top that came with the outfit, which Patsy had bought recently at Gap Kids. The outfit consisted of black velvet pants and vest and white top with silver sequin star. LE confronted Patsy with photographs taken at the White's party showing JB wearing the white top, not the red one, with her black pants and vest.
There WAS a red (cotton?) turtleneck in the sink in JB's bathroom. I don't know if it was soaking in water or if it was just wet or dry in the sink. There is some inconsistencies about that. There was also a red JUMPSUIT that JB wore in a dance performance at the local mall- which Patsy mentioned was lying on an ironing board in the laundry area outside JB's bedroom.
The shower head is an interesting thought. I recall seeing some photos of JB's bathroom, but don't recall seeing or hearing about a hand-held shower head. Yes, wielded with enough force, I can see it cracking a skull, but it'd have to be the metal kind, not plastic, which would probably have broken or cracked as well. Was there a metal shower head in JB's bath?

 

[mtwentz]

It's still a far cry from what we have today. We've got our bloody friends Wood and Tracey to thank for that!

Btw, I just finished Steve Thomas's book about the case, and I have to say it was very convincing. I did not realize until I read his book that the police believed Patsy did everything- the murder, the note etc.-and John theoretically only figured out Patsy was the perp when he found JBs body in the basement. That actually sounds more plausible- in theory- than the theory of a kidnapper/pedophile bent on revenge against John whilst trying to collect a small ransom at the same time.

The major problem with the book is that Thomas goes overboard in his ripping the D.A.'s office by implying political connections that I don't believe exist. For example, he implies that John Ramsey and the Democratic Party establishment of Colorado were in bed together. But we know for a fact that Ramsey is and always has been a right-wing Republican while Hunter is a New Age, liberal Democrat. And the Governor of Colorado ripping into the Rs does not indicate to me that Democratic politicians and John Ramsey were particularly close. If one assumes Alex Hunter was not aggressive in going after the Rs, I think it is better to say Hunter was an incompetent wimp who did not want to risk a chance of losing a high-profile case and leave it at that.

 

[vlpate]

Your memory is correct in that Patsy said in one of her interviews that she made it a habit to be sure JB went potty before going to bed.
But as far as the red turtleneck- there is some confusion there. At first, Patsy said that JB wore the red turtleneck to the White's party, because Patsy wanted her to match her own outfit of black velvet pants, red sweater. JB refused to wear it because she wanted to wear the white top that came with the outfit, which Patsy had bought recently at Gap Kids. The outfit consisted of black velvet pants and vest and white top with silver sequin star. LE confronted Patsy with photographs taken at the White's party showing JB wearing the white top, not the red one, with her black pants and vest.
There WAS a red (cotton?) turtleneck in the sink in JB's bathroom. I don't know if it was soaking in water or if it was just wet or dry in the sink. There is some inconsistencies about that. There was also a red JUMPSUIT that JB wore in a dance performance at the local mall- which Patsy mentioned was lying on an ironing board in the laundry area outside JB's bedroom.
The shower head is an interesting thought. I recall seeing some photos of JB's bathroom, but don't recall seeing or hearing about a hand-held shower head. Yes, wielded with enough force, I can see it cracking a skull, but it'd have to be the metal kind, not plastic, which would probably have broken or cracked as well. Was there a metal shower head in JB's bath?

I don't know that the evidence from the bathroom has ever been released in total. I'm just home for lunch, but I will definitely look for the notes later this evening ... have a good day!

 

[DeeDee249]

Btw, I just finished Steve Thomas's book about the case, and I have to say it was very convincing. I did not realize until I read his book that the police believed Patsy did everything- the murder, the note etc.-and John theoretically only figured out Patsy was the perp when he found JBs body in the basement. That actually sounds more plausible- in theory- than the theory of a kidnapper/pedophile bent on revenge against John whilst trying to collect a small ransom at the same time.

The major problem with the book is that Thomas goes overboard in his ripping the D.A.'s office by implying political connections that I don't believe exist. For example, he implies that John Ramsey and the Democratic Party establishment of Colorado were in bed together. But we know for a fact that Ramsey is and always has been a right-wing Republican while Hunter is a New Age, liberal Democrat. And the Governor of Colorado ripping into the Rs does not indicate to me that Democratic politicians and John Ramsey were particularly close. If one assumes Alex Hunter was not aggressive in going after the Rs, I think it is better to say Hunter was an incompetent wimp who did not want to risk a chance of losing a high-profile case and leave it at that.

There were connections made between the R's defense law firm and the governor's office. They were said to be political supporters and big contributors. JR's political affiliations really weren't an issue.
Also the DA had personal, business relationships with some of the defense lawyers. Hunter co-owned some property with them, and belonged to the same country club. They also had breakfast together on a regular basis as friends, not professionally. With these connections, Hunter should have recused himself from this case (and I bet he wished he had). I think there were even "hot tub" parties.
The movie PMPT follows the book pretty closely but I think it is easier to see the kind of personal relationships they had and even the animosities that existed between the DA, the chief of police and some LE.

 

[cynic]

There were connections made between the R's defense law firm and the governor's office. They were said to be political supporters and big contributors. JR's political affiliations really weren't an issue.
Also the DA had personal, business relationships with some of the defense lawyers. Hunter co-owned some property with them, and belonged to the same country club. They also had breakfast together on a regular basis as friends, not professionally. With these connections, Hunter should have recused himself from this case (and I bet he wished he had). I think there were even "hot tub" parties.
The movie PMPT follows the book pretty closely but I think it is easier to see the kind of personal relationships they had and even the animosities that existed between the DA, the chief of police and some LE.

see below for details:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/6d/6deg.html

 

[AKWILKS]

NOTE : To mods and members - there are dozens and dozens, going into the HUNDREDS, of threads that discuss the Ramsey Family as suspects. Can we please keep this one thread on topic? This thread is about possible new suspects in the case Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee. Can we please limit discussion to the pros and cons of these suspects? Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH SMART

Viti: Thank you. Ms. Smart, I’d like to turn your attention to on or about ... withdrawn. Did he ever give you a reason why he chose the 23rd and 24th to kidnap Olivia?

Smart: He talked about the 24th because it was a holiday and he talked about it just being a holiday. They would be not as quick to respond.

Viti: I’m sorry, who wouldn’t be?

Smart: The public.

[AK = I wonder if BDM meant the "police", or the public in general. As Doug Oswell noted, JonBenet was killed on a holiday, Christmas night. Also, it appears that Mitchell may have attempted another home invasion abduction of a child from her bed on or about Christmas. He met California Mormon Church official Virl Kemp on December 8th, and Smart testified it was about two weeks later when he tried to abduct her, and it was two tries over a few days, putting the time period at December 22cd to 26th.]

Viti: What holiday is that, for those who might not know?

Smart: It’s the 24th of July. It’s a Utah holiday, Pioneer Day.

----- ----- -----

Brian David Mitchell (BDM) and the ransom note writer also use and spell "POSSESION" with 3 "S" 's, though they leave out a different "S".

BDM and the ransom note writer also use "DIFFICULT", and the word "DEVIATE" to indicate a variance from a plan or idea.

BDM/WB also using words like ADEQUATE, POSSESSIONS, PARTICULARLY, INDIVIDUALS, BEING, INSTRUCTIONS, "am", "southern", DEVIATE, WE REPRESENT, and HENCE, just to name some that also appear in the ransom note.

NEW WORDS AND PHRASES FOUND IN BOTH THE BARZEE MITCHELL JOURNAL AND THE RANSOM NOTE

Barzee Mitchell Journal

"FOR my BURIAL" p. 30; "YE STAND" p. 32; "IN ANY WAY" p. 18; "AS WELL AS" p. 35.

JonBenet Ransom Note

"FOR proper BURIAL" ----- "YOU STAND" ---"IN ANY WAY" ------ "AS WELL AS".

DOUG OSWELL noted the following:

I found a website that contains quite a few exhibits from the Mitchell trial, including samples of Mitchell's writing (still cursive, unfortunately) and transcripts of his first police interrogation:

http://breaking.sltrib.com/mitchell/exhibitslinks.php

A few observations:

(1) As AK pointed out earlier, Mitchell's capital M looks amazingly like the one on the Ramsey "ransom" note. I'm looking at the M in the "letter to Julie" at the site above.

(2) The spacing qualities on all the Mitchell samples are similar if not identical to those on the Ransom note, particularly the running-in of descenders to the line below.

(3) In the interrogation, Mitchell says (part 1, page 5): "You have in your possession The Book of Immanuel
David Isaiah."

(4) In part 1, numerous places, he speaks of having Elizabeth Smart "delivered" to him.

(5) In part 1, page 12, he writes: "Not all laws are righteous, and not all laws come from God. And the Constitution of the United States was founded on righteous principles, and when you read The Book of Immanuel David Isaiah, you'll come to understand that this nation has become the most corrupt and evil nation on the face of the earth." I'm thinking of this in reference to the line from the ransom note which reads "We respect your bussiness but not the country that it serves."

(6) When Mitchell strikes out a word he does it with several circular scribbles, as in the ransom note.

(7) He begins the "Book of Immanuel" with the single word "Hearken!" This word, for all intents and purposes, is exactly the same in meaning as "Listen carefully!"

As a general observation based on the interrogation, Mitchell is truly a crafty and cautious criminal. Nothing was going to save him in this case, but he handled himself, I think, only slightly worse than if he had shut up and said nothing at all.

AK WILKS: These are the images referenced by Doug Oswell.

Both the Ransom Note Writer and Brian David Mitchell strike out words by making circular loops.

And both the Ransom Note Writer and Brian David Mitchell do capital "M" 's in a similar way, with near identical finishing flourishes that come down like a ski slope and become nearly flat.