Possible NEW Suspects In JonBenet Ramsey Case?

[SunnieRN]

For newcomers to this thread, I strongly advise reading my first post, and read all the posts after, or you will not understand the evidence.

"Why would he kill his new wife before he ever got her out of the house? I believe he molested his children, but I don't recall reading he strangled or duct taped them or Elizabeth Smart."

Smart awoke with a knife against her throat - had she jumped up or resisted, she would have been killed. It was also reported Mitchell picked up one of his children and threw the child into the bed headboard.

Smart was bound with cord, as was JonBenet. Smart testified Mitchell said if she made noise he would "duct tape my mouth shut." JonBenet was found with duct tape over her mouth.

The Ramsey home was within a half mile of both the UC campus and Chautauqua Park. Beyond that were the foothills of the front of the Rocky Mountains. Mitchell and Barzee had stayed on the campus of Stanford Univeristy, and parks, and the Santa Cruz mountains.

I understand the theories about Burke. But the new DNA evidence shows male DNA in a blooddrop on JonBenet's panties, and the same male DNA on both sides of her longjohns. on the sides, where a hand would go to pull them down. That male DNA on two garments in three places is not from any Ramsey. I don't dismiss theories of Ramsey involvement but I say intruder theories should not be dismissed without examination.

You are not correct about the male DNA. If you read all of the posts on these threads, there are experts who have said, that if the blood samples are mixed DNA samples, they could be from more than one Ramsey, which in turn, rules out no one. That of course includes intruders, fixers or Ramseys.

As for new posters, I say bring it on!! I may not see eye to eye with anyone, but their opinions often challenge me to look deeper, reason more strongly and try to be more open. Heck, being female, I will often change my mind, only to find more research and figure I was closer to the truth the first time.

Opinions, if presented on a forum are just that. Opinions. We've all got them, and if others don't agree, we can state as much. How can we hope to solve this case, or any other one, without a give and take of opinions in a manner of being able to agree, disagree and substantiate or call error to those opinions?

I remember a while back, when some refused to believe that size 12 undies were too large for JonBenet, or that a MAAM was at the heart of this murder. Theories come and go, but the facts remain constant.

 

[vlpate]

I don't understand what the purpose of your visit to this forum is.

I'm sorry, I missed the section in the rules that state posters are to make it clear to you why they are visiting particular forums. Hopefully this will not land me in yet another time out :loser:

First, you tell us that, "No one cares about this case anymore". Did you ignore the thousands of posts about this case? That's a direct contrast to your "No one" claim.

As I wrote on another post, I wasn't clear, I stated "No one (I meant 'in her family and the public in general'), cares anymore. Of course there are still a few people who still care - I will always care. I have three boxes of documents and forum transcripts in my storage room filled with how involved in this case I once was. Do not presume to know me or my feelings on this case or JonBenet Ramsey - you haven't a clue. There came a point in time I had to stop for my own good. I didn't sleep, I hardly ate, I lived and breathed this case for many years. There are people from back then who still post almost daily, they never stopped, and I am so proud of them and they make me feel small for coming back only when there is news - but come back I do. The misinformation from all the "new" evidence and "new" theories only muddle the "real" evidence and the "theories" that make sense.

There was and still is a poster whose real name is Susan Bennet. She's a housewife from Hickory, North Carolina. She's had nothing better to do for the past 14 years than repeat her support of the Ramseys wherever she can - even on Wickipedia. The last time I read her entry it was cleaned up a bit, but there are still half-truths. An example is the basement window was broken and not reported for one year. True, but she completely leaves off the FACT that it was John who broke the window when he was locked out before the death of JonBenet. It's hard to find the real facts anymore - they're buried so deep and so skillfully you wonder if anyone will ever unearth them again.

Then you said that, "JonBenet has moved on. Why not let her go in peace?" You have no idea how JonBenet is feeling, wherever she is. If JonBenet has moved on, as you claim, then she is at peace.

I believe in God, and I believe he took her to a peaceful place the moment her life here was snuffed out. Justice for JonBenet will never happen here on earth, in my opinon. Justice for JonBenet, and the people who care, will happen when the person who killed her has to face his maker....or has faced her maker.

No one here cares if this case isn't in the news everyday anymore, if it might not ever be solved, or that the family doesn't talk about it anymore. None of those factors is going to stop us from discussing this case.

I'm still at a loss - where did I tell anyone to stop discussing this case? I don't think this case should ever stop being discussed - thank God for those with the stamina and the time. My feeling is that the theories should stop being discussed which do not appreciate the real facts of the case, or that skews the real facts of the case. I read something this morning that referenced Carnes over and over. Please, really??

 

[eileenhawkeye]

When you make a post saying that: "I'm sure that JonBenet has moved on. Why not just let her go in peace?" you're basically saying that JonBenet has moved on, so why don't we? And that we're somehow stopping her from being in peace by continuing to discuss her case.

No case should be abandoned simply because the general public doesn't care about it anymore. No victim should have their case abandoned simply because their family members don't care anymore. The Ramseys were most likely involved in JonBenet's death so they are obviously not going to be seeking justice for her.

We're discussing a case where a 6-year-old was murdered, and justice has never been served. We don't need any more pessimism. I come to this forum to share my theories, not to sulk about how CNN didn't mention the case on their broadcast last night.

And you don't have to have three boxes of transcripts about this case to show that you care about a 6-year-old who was murdered.

 

[vlpate]

When you make a post saying that: "I'm sure that JonBenet has moved on. Why not just let her go in peace?" you're basically saying that JonBenet has moved on, so why don't we? And that we're somehow stopping her from being in peace by continuing to discuss her case.

No case should be abandoned simply because the general public doesn't care about it anymore. No victim should have their case abandoned simply because their family members don't care anymore. The Ramseys were most likely involved in JonBenet's death so they are obviously not going to be seeking justice for her.

We're discussing a case where a 6-year-old was murdered, and justice has never been served. We don't need any more pessimism. I come to this forum to share my theories, not to sulk about how CNN didn't mention the case on their broadcast last night.

And you don't have to have three boxes of transcripts about this case to show that you care about a 6-year-old who was murdered.

:chillout:

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Yeah, I was definitely foaming at the mouth as I wrote that message. Isn't it obvious by how I wrote it all in CAPS and used exclamation points at the end of every sentence? I was just replying to the posts you've made here. Isn't that a forum works?

 

[UKGuy]

For newcomers to this thread, I strongly advise reading my first post, and read all the posts after, or you will not understand the evidence.

"Why would he kill his new wife before he ever got her out of the house? I believe he molested his children, but I don't recall reading he strangled or duct taped them or Elizabeth Smart."

Smart awoke with a knife against her throat - had she jumped up or resisted, she would have been killed. It was also reported Mitchell picked up one of his children and threw the child into the bed headboard.

Smart was bound with cord, as was JonBenet. Smart testified Mitchell said if she made noise he would "duct tape my mouth shut." JonBenet was found with duct tape over her mouth.

The Ramsey home was within a half mile of both the UC campus and Chautauqua Park. Beyond that were the foothills of the front of the Rocky Mountains. Mitchell and Barzee had stayed on the campus of Stanford Univeristy, and parks, and the Santa Cruz mountains.

I understand the theories about Burke. But the new DNA evidence shows male DNA in a blooddrop on JonBenet's panties, and the same male DNA on both sides of her longjohns. on the sides, where a hand would go to pull them down. That male DNA on two garments in three places is not from any Ramsey. I don't dismiss theories of Ramsey involvement but I say intruder theories should not be dismissed without examination.

AKWILKS,

But the new DNA evidence shows male DNA in a blooddrop on JonBenet's panties

Well maybe it is Mitchell DNA, then again maybe it arrived there via JonBenet's hand because she shook a male boy's hand or touched something he had just touched e.g. a toilet seat?

Who knows, also this DNA in a blood drop has never been typed, we do not know biological type, it can never be used in court, ever!


.

 

[vlpate]

Yeah, I was definitely foaming at the mouth as I wrote that message. Isn't it obvious by how I wrote it all in CAPS and used exclamation points at the end of every sentence? I was just replying to the posts you've made here. Isn't that a forum works?

I've answered you twice, at length - my opinions are not personal, and I am entitled to them. If they upset you, maybe you should just not read them.

 

[vlpate]

AKWILKS,

Well maybe it is Mitchell DNA, then again maybe it arrived there via JonBenet's hand because she shook a male boy's hand or touched something he had just touched e.g. a toilet seat?

Who knows, also this DNA in a blood drop has never been typed, we do not know biological type, it can never be used in court, ever!


.

I know she used to ask for help going to the bathroom - I seem to remember a big deal was made of it right at first.

Interesting, why hasn't it been biologically typed....and why can't it be used in court? Chain of evidence?

 

[AKWILKS]

COMPARISON OF WORDS AND STYLES IN JONBENET RAMSEY RANSOM NOTE AND THE JOURNAL OF CHILD KINDNAPPERS BARZEE AND MITCHELL

By AK Wilks, Douglas Oswell and Zander Kite

Common words and styles in both the ransom note and the Barzee Mitchell Journal include:

"Hence"
"Individual's"
"We Represent"
"At this time/At the time"
Use of an editors caret
"am" without periods and not capitalized
"Possession"
"Instructions"
"Adequate"
"Particularly"
"Being"
"Difficult"
"southern" not capitalized

And others as well

Also found this on page 9 of the Barzee Mitchell journal. The ransom note also starts a sentence by using "At this time" and there is also use of an editors caret.

When we speak of the "South" as a distinct region of the country it is generally proper to capitalize it. "Southern Rock", "Southern cooking", etc. Thus I do find it interesting that both the ransom writer and journal writer do not capitalize "southern".

Both ransom writer and journal writer make the unneeded designation that a group consists of "individuals". Ransom note writer says we are a "group of individuals." Several writers commented on how this was odd - as opposed to a group of what, plants? All that was needed to say was "we are a group representing a small foreign faction". Similarly, the Mitchell Barzee Journal says "On occasion transported by individuals using their truck or trailer." Again, all that was needed was to say "transported by motorists using truck or trailer" or "transported by drivers". Not needed is the designation that the drivers are "individuals", as they are not going to be animals. Also, "persons" or "people" are more common that "individuals". And both ransom nore writer and journal writer include an unneeded and improper apostophre so that it appears as "individual's".

In the context of messages from God, people usually speak of "commands", "commandments", "messages" or "orders". The journal writer speaks of "instructions". Similarly, in the context of a kidnapping ransom note, we usually see "demands", or sometimes "orders, but here we see "instructions".

"Hence" is a very old and seldom used term, used by both the ransom note writer and the journal writer.

In the journal, the word DIFFICULT is used, apparently referring to kidnapping wives. Here it is on page 35: (....when we will obtain our wives, the first wife being the most DIFFICULT. In succession of taking one young woman at a time, between 10 and 14 years of age, though each experience will seemingly become easier, in all reality, each wife will be as DIFFICULT as the first but for which we will have become stronger...) The ransom note writer says: You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be DIFFICULT.

The journal seems to use BEING a lot. It's almost like a style of writing. The use of the word BEING almost seems awkward and not needed at times. Here are 2 examples from the journal: (I reflected upon my righteous desire of BEING cleansed and healed...) Bottom Page 10. (...but telling him of our BEING directed by the Lord to go to Alaska..)Page 16. The writer from the ransom note says: Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter BEING beheaded.

Both the journal and the note state "we represent."

Other common words include ADEQUATE, POSSESSIONS, PARTICULARLY and several others.

The ransom note speaks of the wealthy John Ramsey as a "fat cat". The journal writer speaks of their mission to the poor and homeless, how they travel in areas that are "wealthy, upper class" (p. 10) and "high class neighborhood" (p. 24-25), that the rich value money over God, and that they must rescue by force their "sister wives", the "daughters of God", out of "Babylon".

Stylistics of both Barzee Mitchell Journal and JonBenet Ramsey Ransom Note:

(1) wordspacing is even throughout

(2) there is double-spacing after a period

(3) the abbreviation "a.m." contains no periods

(4) paragraphs are set off with large indents

(5) line spacing is even but tight, with the descenders of one line allowed to run directly into ascenders of the next line.

PS: I know this point is hotly debated, if a stun gun might have been used on JonBenet, with both sides presenting evidence for and against. Elizabeth Smart's sister says that the man who took her had a "gun", and when her parents were looking for Elizabeth she again said they won't find her because a "man with a gun" took her. From all available information, testimony and evidence, Brian David Mitchell did not own a firearm. Could he have had a stun gun? Some models like this "Air Taser" would indeed look like a "gun" to a child in the dark. Jaycee Dugard tells of a stun gun being used on her to control and subdue her, also causing her to urinate. I mention this in regards to the urine stains found on JonBenet's clothes, though she did have a problem with bedwetting, could this be a possible explanation to both the urine stains and the two marks that Detective Lou Smit thought were from a stun gun?

 

[Whaleshark]

Posted by AKWILKS: "PS: I know this point is hotly debated, if a stun gun might have been used on JonBenet, with both sides presenting evidence for and against. ...... Jaycee Dugard tells of a stun gun being used on her to control and subdue her, also causing her to urinate. I mention this in regards to the urine stains found on JonBenet's clothes, though she did have a problem with bedwetting, could this be a possible explanation to both the urine stains and the two marks that Detective Lou Smit thought were from a stun gun?"
____

AK, I just wrote about reconsidering the possibility of the stun gun in the other thread about stun guns a moment ago.... it has its own thread....
looks like we are thinking the same thing on that... although I think it can still apply to Ramseys and not just IDI....

Some think a stun gun use would exonerate Ramseys.... but I don't... and there have also been many parents, schools, etc. over the past twenty years who have used stun guns as a means of discipline, so it is not a valid argument to say that if there was a stun gun used it definitely would not be a Ramsey....it could easily be a non-intruder using a stun gun to incapacitate JBR as well as an intruder. Obviously Garrido used it for Jaycee in order to kidnap her, as well as control her for raping, etc.... If someone was regularly molesting JBR, why couldn't the stun gun have been previously used on her for that as well...which I was saying might explain the frequent bedwetting, etc....

 

[AKWILKS]

Yes I got the idea from you. I agree a stun gun could have been used by a member of the Ramsey family or from their circle of friends and associates, though I think it more likely to have been used by an intruder.

I am fine with discussing the pros and cons of the stun gun possibility in your thread. I just mentioned it here because of the statement from Elizabeth's sister that Brian Mitchell had a "gun", when it seems he did not own a firearm.

Hopefully in this thread we can discuss what I presented on the common words, styles and phrases in both the Barzee Mitchell Journal and the JonBenet Ransom Note.

I find it interesting that both the journal and the ransom note use words like "Hence", "We Represent", "Individuals", "Particularly", "Difficult", "Adequate", not capitalizing "southern", no periods in "am", etc.

What is "new" here, and what I have never before seen discussed in the Ramsey case is the following:

* Brian David Mitchell is a pedophile, rapist, child molestor and child abductor, who abducted children from their bed.

* He selected as targets beautiful and talented children, blonde hair, angelic looks.

* He came equipped with rope cords and duct tape to cover the mouth of the child if she made noise.

* From 1995 to 1997 his last known location was "Colorado".



* He had a female accomplice Wanda Barzee, and their are almost two dozen matching words, styles and phrases from her journal and the ransom note, many of the words being rarely used, like "Hence", "We Represent", etc.



* Elizabeth awoke with a knife against her throat. Had she jumped up or resisted, she may have died of a cut throat. Smart testified Mitchell told her if she made noise, he would "duct tape my mouth shut". Could an intruder have duct taped the mouth of JonBenet to silence her, and unintentionally suffocated her? Or used the neck rope to control and silence her, unintentionally killing her?

* The night of her abduction, they dressed Elizabeth in white, washed her body, bound her with rope cord, and "consumated" the "marriage" (i.e., raped her) so that she would be Mitchell's eternal wife in this life and after death. JonBenet was found in a white blanket and their was evidence of sexual penetration.

* The journal of Mitchell and Barzee indicates prior "failed attempts" to get a "wife", i.e., child sex slave, prior to the Smart kidnapping and Wright/Kemp attempted kidnappings. What were these "failed attempts"?

 

[Linda7NJ]

My quick and random thoughts so far.......

"Hence" was used correctly in the journal and incorrectly in the "ransom" note.

The penetration with Jon Benet wasn't penile. There wasn't any consummation of a "marriage."

The duct tape was too short to actually silence Jon Benet, it was applied when she could no longer scream, even if she wanted to.

Why bash a six year olds skull in? Surely, she couldn't put up that much of a fight.

 

[DeeDee249]

And lets not forget that a videotape user manual for a stun gun was found in the R home. It was in Spanish, and that was JR's claim as to why they couldn't have watched it. There was no stun gun, but that is a small item and could easily have been snuck out of the house. None of the R were searched when they left, all wearing winter coats and/or carrying handbags or overnight bags. And then, too, Patsy's sister made a "raid" on the house (with police approval!) and emptied three patrol cars filled with things from what was still an active crime scene. These included JR's golf bag, which he specifically asked for (in Colorado in WINTER) and which is seen in crime photos right outside the wineceller door behind which was JB's dead body. Plenty of room in that bag to hold a stun gun, the original panties JB wore, tape roll, cord, and much else.
Police waited outside the R home and did not see what Patsy's sister took, nor did they search through what she took. They also gave her a police jacket to wear (this is actually illegal- for anyone not in law enforcement to wear garments indicating that they are law enforcement) and waited outside. They gave her the jacket so as not to provoke an outcry. Later, when there was a big to-do about it, police said they HAD searched the items, but this was not true for the most part.

 

[Agatha_C]

I never found it odd that the stun gun manual/video was in spanish...

1) JR traveled all over the world, it wouldnt be surprising to know that he was bilingual.

2) Though both Rs may have at times appeared idiotic, neither of them really were. Either they figured it out on their own or the clerk demonstrated how too use it. It was a stun gun not the space shuttle....

 

[vlpate]

Yes I got the idea from you. I agree a stun gun could have been used by a member of the Ramsey family or from their circle of friends and associates, though I think it more likely to have been used by an intruder.

I am fine with discussing the pros and cons of the stun gun possibility in your thread. I just mentioned it here because of the statement from Elizabeth's sister that Brian Mitchell had a "gun", when it seems he did not own a firearm.

Hopefully in this thread we can discuss what I presented on the common words, styles and phrases in both the Barzee Mitchell Journal and the JonBenet Ransom Note.

I find it interesting that both the journal and the ransom note use words like "Hence", "We Represent", "Individuals", "Particularly", "Difficult", "Adequate", not capitalizing "southern", no periods in "am", etc.

What is "new" here, and what I have never before seen discussed in the Ramsey case is the following:

* Brian David Mitchell is a pedophile, rapist, child molestor and child abductor, who abducted children from their bed.

* He selected as targets beautiful and talented children, blonde hair, angelic looks.

* He came equipped with rope cords and duct tape to cover the mouth of the child if she made noise.

* From 1995 to 1997 his last known location was "Colorado".

* He had a female accomplice Wanda Barzee, and their are almost two dozen matching words, styles and phrases from her journal and the ransom note, many of the words being rarely used, like "Hence", "We Represent", etc.

So would the night go something like this.... Mitchell crept into the house through the already broken window, and he knew the house because....why? I forget, anyway, he knew the layout of the house and where JonBenet's room was. He knew where to find Patsy's note pad and Patsy's pen - of course he had his own stun gun, rope, and duct tape in his pedo-bag. He found JonBenet and took her downstairs, they stopped for some pineapple (taking off gloves for a sec) , because JonBenet was hungry. Retrieving the maglite flashlight from the kitchen counter, he escorted her into the basement in order to take her out the window. Suddenly Mitchell was overcome with the urge to do pedophile stuff RIGHT THEN!!! He tried the Immanuel prophet spiel on her but she retorted that she wuddin' no sister wife, was the reigning Little Miss Christmas!...so he stunned her finding her insolence not fitting a man of ...whatever he was back then.

She stumbled but fought, so he dropped the stun gun, picked the maglite flashlight back up and bashed her in the head, she slowed down considerably, but STILL gave him trouble -- what to do, what to do...Ah! He spotted Patsy's paint brush, broke it in half, fashioned a nifty garrote and strangled her - finally she stopped fighting! Without her fierce opposition, he is then able to remove her leggings and panties to penetrate her, just a titch, with the paintbrush --- then, omg, she starts waking up again, so he takes the rest of his rope and slightly ties her wrists. He then takes off his gloves (have you ever tried to tear duct tape with gloves on, oy vey), and tears a piece of duct tape off and places it lightly it over her mouth. Frustrated from all the fighting he gives up, even though she had stopped moving completely. Mitchell may have been a lot of things, but he was no necrophiliac!

Before leaving, Mitchell puts her leggings and panties back on and covers her. He finds his own red pen and draws a heart on her hand - the symbol of your kinder gentler bungling pedophile intruder. Whew! He's tired, this feisty six year old had taken a lot out of him. He then took one boot off and put it in his bag...he smears the one boot print to throw off investigators. Mitchell returned to the spiral staircase and quickly jotted down the epic ransom note on Patsy's pad with Patsy's pen - remembering all the really classy words Wanda had instructed him to use. Done, he leaves the ransom note spread nicely on the stairs, grabs his goodie bag and slides back up through the window and into the night.

Dadgummit, he forgot something....he went back into the house, side-stepped the note, and climbed the stairs to put the pad and pen back where Patsy had them, cleaned the batteries in the maglite flashlight and returned it to the counter.

Wanda was none too happy with Mitchell when he finally returns without the new baby sister wife, but she understood the little girl tried to fight him and she just proved to be too much. He went ahead and left the ransom note, he explained, to throw 'em off and make everyone think the parents did it! Wanda and Mitchell left Boulder that night never to return.....

_____
No doubt you will think that was me being a smarty, but I assure you...ok, it is - but I am just trying to point out in an absurd way the absurdity of any theory that lends credence to the use of a stun gun, a garrote, duct tape, and a blunt weapon to cause a 6" gash in a small childs skull only to barely penetrate her, dress her, leave a ransom note and never be heard from again. I'm not calling anyone absurd, just the scenario that made so little sense it couldn't really be anything BUT staging to cover up for someone who never left the house that night. Seriously, what else explains all the unnecessary drama?

 

[Agatha_C]

So would the night go something like this.... Mitchell crept into the house through the already broken window, and he knew the house because....why? I forget, anyway, he knew the layout of the house and where JonBenet's room was. He knew where to find Patsy's note pad and Patsy's pen - of course he had his own stun gun, rope, and duct tape in his pedo-bag. He found JonBenet and took her downstairs, they stopped for some pineapple (taking off gloves for a sec) , because JonBenet was hungry. Retrieving the maglite flashlight from the kitchen counter, he escorted her into the basement in order to take her out the window. Suddenly Mitchell was overcome with the urge to do pedophile stuff RIGHT THEN!!! He tried the Immanuel prophet spiel on her but she retorted that she wuddin' no sister wife, was the reigning Little Miss Christmas!...so he stunned her finding her insolence not fitting a man of ...whatever he was back then.

She stumbled but fought, so he dropped the stun gun, picked the maglite flashlight back up and bashed her in the head, she slowed down considerably, but STILL gave him trouble -- what to do, what to do...Ah! He spotted Patsy's paint brush, broke it in half, fashioned a nifty garrote and strangled her - finally she stopped fighting! Without her fierce opposition, he is then able to remove her leggings and panties to penetrate her, just a titch, with the paintbrush --- then, omg, she starts waking up again, so he takes the rest of his rope and slightly ties her wrists. He then takes off his gloves (have you ever tried to tear duct tape with gloves on, oy vey), and tears a piece of duct tape off and places it lightly it over her mouth. Frustrated from all the fighting he gives up, even though she had stopped moving completely. Mitchell may have been a lot of things, but he was no necrophiliac!

Before leaving, Mitchell puts her leggings and panties back on and covers her. He finds his own red pen and draws a heart on her hand - the symbol of your kinder gentler bungling pedophile intruder. Whew! He's tired, this feisty six year old had taken a lot out of him. He then took one boot off and put it in his bag...he smears the one boot print to throw off investigators. Mitchell returned to the spiral staircase and quickly jotted down the epic ransom note on Patsy's pad with Patsy's pen - remembering all the really classy words Wanda had instructed him to use. Done, he leaves the ransom note spread nicely on the stairs, grabs his goodie bag and slides back up through the window and into the night.

Dadgummit, he forgot something....he went back into the house, side-stepped the note, and climbed the stairs to put the pad and pen back where Patsy had them, cleaned the batteries in the maglite flashlight and returned it to the counter.

Wanda was none too happy with Mitchell when he finally returns without the new baby sister wife, but she understood the little girl tried to fight him and she just proved to be too much. He went ahead and left the ransom note, he explained, to throw 'em off and make everyone think the parents did it! Wanda and Mitchell left Boulder that night never to return.....

_____
No doubt you will think that was me being a smarty, but I assure you...ok, it is - but I am just trying to point out in an absurd way the absurdity of any theory that lends credence to the use of a stun gun, a garrote, duct tape, and a blunt weapon to cause a 6" gash in a small childs skull only to barely penetrate her, dress her, leave a ransom note and never be heard from again. I'm not calling anyone absurd, just the scenario that made so little sense it couldn't really be anything BUT staging to cover up for someone who never left the house that night. Seriously, what else explains all the unnecessary drama?

:goodpost::silly:

 

[Whaleshark]

a couple observations...

the caret in the Ramsey note is pointing downward, and all the carets in the Wanda writings are pointed upwards.

I would think that Wanda's writings of the Ransom note would have some sort of religious overtones after reading her writing comparisons...would think she would use justification for taking JBR along the lines of what is written in her writings, not in movie themes, esp. since they were literal bible followers who traveled and stayed in tents, lived simply.

Upon further observation I think the ransom note combines both JR and PR handwriting. I really do. Pull up close up of JR handwriting sample with note as well as PR sample. I think it's a combo of both handwritings as well as a combo of both contributing to the story.

I'm trying to visualize Brian Mitchell doing this and what we know about him and his MO and fit into what we have as evidence for JBR's situation....just seeing if it makes sense still...

 

[SunnieRN]

The most important element is time. How would someone who was not a family member, not truly totally familiar with the house and basement, feel comfortable enough to write this epic length ransom note?

I would imagine that most robbers, kidnappers or pedophiles, have one plan of action. Get in quick and quiet, get the job done, again, quick and quiet and GET OUT and AWAY from the scene of the crime, as QUICKLY as humanly possible.

Who in heavens name would take that long, while they're in a frenzy, in a strange environment, knowing that at any moment someone in the house could wake up and find them, after killing a 6 year old girl, to write a stupidly random and lengthy manuscript? Kind of like my post here, it went on and on and on.

Mitchell didn't even take the time to tie up the witness, before walking out of the house with her Elizabeth. Yet you really think it is probable that he would take that much time to write the ransom note? Or even have Barzee do it? That would mean they had to be talking, lending even more of a threat of someone hearing something and finding them.

This is the one thing above all others that causes me to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ramseys were involved in the death and staging of JonBenet. They were known to be there for certain and they had the time to orchestrate the crime.

 

[Mariah]

This all sounds a little out there for me. But i do find it interesting that this guy being so poor and living in the woods has been all over the world traveling and has more milage on his feet then i do on my car.

Sorry, no disrespect but I really laughed when I read your post. I do agree with you ..BTW

 

[AKWILKS]

<modsnip> Can you give us the scenario for Burke Ramsey killing JonBenet?

How did that go?

A 9 year old boy gets his sister in the basement for a sex game? Then suffocates her? And fractures her skull?

When there is no prior evidence of sexual abuse or violence from Burke to JonBenet? But the day after Christmas he decides to rape and kill her?

The parents find out and decide to cover it up? This is what you believe right? So Patsy and/or John wrote the ransom note? Why then did they buy advertising space in the newspaper, and publish parts of the note to see if anybody recognized the writing?

Why did they agree - when they legally could have refused - to give handwriting samples, and blood, hair and saliva samples from Patsy, John and Burke?

Why did they agree to let Burke be interviewed without an attorney? Boy they were really confident he wouldn't leak anything about the big event!

Why did they let him go to school, when police and FBI said that a boy participating in such an event would likely tell friends, and that parents would not let him go to school for a term or two if they were dependent on his silence?

If the parents included the "$118,000" as a way to cast suspicion on an "insider", a current or former Access Graphics employee who knew of John's bonus, why then did they make the ransom note tell John to use his "southern" common sense, when he is from Michigan?

Why is there an unknown palm print, not from the Ramsey's or any of their friends on the wine cellar door? Two unknown boot prints? An unknown pubic hair on the blanket? An unknown partial fingerprint on the ransom note? Scuff marks under the basement window?

Did you know police reported one of the doors to the house was unlocked that morning?

Did you know Patsy kept a key outside, and that key was missing?

What did the Ramsey's do with the duct tape? The police took 800 items of evidence, but found no duct tape matching what was used on JonBenet. Where is it?

How do you explain three spots of male DNA, NOT from a Ramsey, or any friends, or any of JonBenet's friends or playmates, on two items of clothing? One of them is a 9 marker DNA spot, idicating a rough pull on the longjohns. Why did the DA state that such new DNA results clear the Ramsey's? Oh, I forgot, the DA office is also part of the conspiracy and cover up, the Ramsey's being rich and all.

The fact is there are hundreds of questions you can ask for any Ramseys did it scenario, with no good answers, and hundreds of questions you can ask for any intruder scenario, with no good answers.

<modsnip> Mitchell did have a bag with his kidnap tools in it, thats what Elizabeth Smart said, and you mocked that as silly. Have you read anything about Mitchell? About Jaycee Dugard? Child kidnapping in general?

I was a military policeman in the Army, I was a juvenile probation officer, I have been a criminal defense attorney. I have a BA in Political Science with minors in criminal justice and sociology, and a law degree. I have been involved in over 1,000 criminal cases, including over a dozen murder cases. How many crime scenes have you been to? How many murder cases have you been involved in? How many criminals have you arrested? How many cases have you tried?

As a true crime researcher and writer, my information led the FBI to seek a court order to get the DNA of a suspect (Ted Kaczynski) in a major unsolved murder case (the Tylenol Murders). See http://dailyherald.com/article/20110519/news/705199967/ . That information was developed in my investigation which lasted about three years, in which no theory was rejected, no suspect was rejected and no theory or suspect was viewed as pre-ordained. We are awaiting the results of a DNA comparison. Please tell us about the cases in which your research led the FBI to consider a new suspect and seek DNA.

Did Burke, John or Patsy Ramsey kill JonBenet? Perhaps. For years I thought it likely that they did. But the new DNA evidence has caused me to take another look. Brian David Mitchell threw his child against a bed headboard. Brian David Mitchell wanted a child sex slave alive, yet he put a knife against Elizabeth Smart's throat, and had she moved an inch, she would have died in her bed. Does that make sense? No, not really, but that is what happened. Mitchell also told Elizabeth he was taking her hostage for ransom. He lied. Why? I don't know. Maybe he thought it would make her more compliant, or that the sister would tell the parents and it might delay calling plice. He also has serious mental illness.

But you think it so impossible an intruder killed JonBenet, if Elizabeth Smart had been found dead in her bed, no sign of an intruder, would you be telling us how her parents or sister must have killed her? After all, it doesn't make sense for a kidnapper to kill his victim before taking her!

The bottom line is that you don't solve cases by declaring someone guilty, igoring DNA and other evidence that points to someone other than your suspect and attacking anyone who offers a different veiwpoint. That will not solve the case. But I think at this point you seem more worried about being proven wrong than solving the case. After all, we should just move on right? You know for a fact that JonBenet has moved on, and she does NOT want anyone to try to identify her killer, thats what you said, right?

<modsnip>