Questions that I have

[sissi]

Let's consider Burke for a moment,just as an exercise.
He is angry at his sister,gives her a wallop to the head.
He calls his mom,"Mom,I killed Jonbenet",mom panics,and
A. calls an ambulance
B.decides to cover up by staging an accident
C.decides to create an elaborate staging of murder by
crazed pedophile that's into bondage

Is anyone really comfortable with C?
And in reply to the question ,I have raised sons, and certainly a mother knows if her son is capable of causing severe damage to a sibling. With children,as well as with adults,there would be a history of temper episodes, it would be a highly unlikely scenario to have an incident this severe without that history.
Accidents happen, as with a baseball bat and a swing,a golf club and a swing,if an accident occurs,parents call for an ambulance.

JMO IMO

 

[Maxi]

Blaze, please edit your post above so that it has some excerpts from the original story and a link for those who want to read the whole thing. Thanks.

 

[Barbara]

Welcome MrsMush99,

You will find a variety of opinions on this forum. I admit, most of the opinions stated here are of the "one of the Ramseys did it".

To form one for yourself, the best suggestion I can give you to become more familiar with many of the details would be to read the books written. My suggestions would be to read PMPT, and Steve Thomas' book. AFTER reading those books, I suggest you read DOI (if you have a strong stomach).


And most important, ALWAYS ask for a source to back up ANY statements. If the poster cannot provide that, take it with a grain of salt.

You should also know about A Candy Rose. She has a site that has so much information and background on this case, you could almost skip the books, but be prepared to spend some time there.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/acandyrose2/start

You will have to register with delphi, but that is quite simple.

Again, welcome

 

[sissi]

Toth;Some fibers were found in the immediate area of the crime that were found no where else in the house, giving rise to a suspicion they may be from the intruder, but this is not known.

Among these fibers were beaver hairs,one found on the tape covering the child's mouth,and others found in her hands.
No beaver items were ever found in the home,not in vacuuming,not in a closet,and certainly not in "boots" that have become one of the legends surrounding this case.

JMO

 

[Maxi]

Barbara, please remove the two paragraphs about Toth in your post. No attacking the general credibility of other posters. It's too much of an argument ad hominem.

 

[sissi]

Barbara ,what the heck kind of disclosure was that? No offense,but Toth's information is no different than anyone's on this forum,it is a forum of opinion based on what we have read. We all have access to the same sources and the same information we just use our own logic to decide what sources seem more valid than others.
IMO

If we are to believe the Ramseys did it,we first must believe they are the world's best liars.

 

[Jayelles]

Sissi:-

Among these fibers were beaver hairs,one found on the tape covering the child's mouth,and others found in her hands.

I am aware that a beaver hair was found at the scene, but could you please cite your source for the beaver hairs in her hands? It is my understanding that the 'animal hairs' found in her hands were not identified as belonging to a particular animal.

 

[Jayelles]

Sissi:-

We all have access to the same sources and the same information we just use our own logic to decide what sources seem more valid than others.

I think we all have a responsibility to provide information that can be backed up.

I happen to think the Ramseys are innocent, but I think it does them no favours to paint them as paragons of virtue. They have made mistakes and they have acted in ways that many people find distasteful. To pretend otherwise will only serve to make people more suspicious. Most folks aren't daft and when John Ramsey is repeatedly caught out in lies, it serves no purpose to insist that he is an honest man. The person who does will only be perceived by others as terribly naive ... or a liar himself.

It is my belief that the Ramseys will only rescue their public image when they, and their supporters start to acknowledge their mistakes (and I am NOT talking about 'sleeping too soundly that night').

 

[Barbara]

Originally posted by sissi
Barbara ,what the heck kind of disclosure was that? No offense,but Toth's information is no different than anyone's on this forum,it is a forum of opinion based on what we have read. We all have access to the same sources and the same information we just use our own logic to decide what sources seem more valid than others.
IMO

If we are to believe the Ramseys did it,we first must believe they are the world's best liars.

No offense taken, but Toth's information is quite different than anyone else, in that he presents a statement or his opinion as fact and refuses to back it up. I understand that it can sound like a personal attack, but it is not. It was a piece of advice that someone brand new should heed. I also stated that ALL statements should be backed up unless it is clearly stated that it is an OPINION. Most posters do just that.

Believe it or not, I think Toth is an intelligent poster with a very strong and respectable opinion, but it should be based, like all opinions on their "interpretation" of the evidence and not present "facts" without the proper documentation. Facts aren't based on things like "unramseylike", or "they wouldn't do that".

As far as the Ramseys being the world's best liars, no, I don't believe that for a minute. Liars, yes, world's best, no.

Believing the Ramseys are involved and are not in jail, is based NOT on their ability to lie; I base that on the corruption in the DA's office (I believe it continues to this day), combined with initially poor police work.

Again, no offense meant and none taken

 

[sissi]

Jayelles...could you please cite your source for the beaver hairs in her hands? It is my understanding that the 'animal hairs' found in her hands were not identified as belonging to a particular animal.

Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Yet, nothing in defendants' home matches the hair (SMF 183; PSMF 183.), thereby suggesting either that the duct tape had been obtained from outside the home or that it had been carried outside the home at some point. Dark animal hairs were also found on JonBenet's hands that have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF 184; PS

the animal hairs are described as "alleged beaver",doesn't mean they were.. The way I read it,is hairs,not two different kinds of hair,this is JMO as it didn't say, "and"different animal hairs

 

[Ivy]

sissi, one fact you failed you mention in your exercise is that JonBenet had incurred vaginal injury right before she died, and the opinion of at least several experts is that she was also the victim of chronic sexual abuse. The Ramseys had no choice but to try to point the finger at someone outside the family. Otherwise, how would they explain the vaginal trauma?

I believe that JonBenet and Burke were playing a sexual exploration game that included a cord being placed around JonBenet's neck, perhaps as a lead-the-prisoner device, and that the segment of the broken art brush found tied on the end of the cord was used as a handle. I believe that the acute vaginal injury happened when Burke inserted another portion of the broken art brush into JonBenet's vagina. Crying out in pain, she tried to get up. Afraid she would tell, Burke panicked, and in a knee-jerk reaction, yanked on the neck cord. With his free hand, he immediately grabbed up the Maglite and struck her on the head, then yanked the neck cord again and kept pulling.

John and/or Patsy may have been awakened by the commotion. When they discovered the body (or were led to it by Burke) they too panicked. They sent Burke to his room and set about staging the coverup.

Btw, sissi, the entire house was not vacuumed. Also, the hairs were never positively identified as beaver hairs. I wonder if hairs from the bristle end of the art brush were ever examined to see if they matched the mystery hairs.

 

[sissi]

Ivy
I wonder if hairs from the bristle end of the art brush were ever examined to see if they matched the mystery hairs.


That sounds like a logical explanation for the hairs,however the statement said they didn't match anything in the house.


I do not believe there was prior abuse,

so many,including Meyers,who were involved in the scientific findings never suggested this. There was no chronic damage,the damage was acute and current,the mention of chronic inflamation matches to the reports of vaginitis.

IMO this was no child's play

 

[Ivy]

sissi, the fact remains that there was definitely acute vaginal injury. How would the Rs be able to explain away that in an accident scenario?

 

[Jayelles]

Sissi:-

Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Yet, nothing in defendants' home matches the hair (SMF 183; PSMF 183.), thereby suggesting either that the duct tape had been obtained from outside the home or that it had been carried outside the home at some point. Dark animal hairs were also found on JonBenet's hands that have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF 184; PS

the animal hairs are described as "alleged beaver",doesn't mean they were.. The way I read it,is hairs,not two different kinds of hair,this is JMO as it didn't say, "and"different animal hairs

Thank you. You have confimed what I believe to be the case - that there has been no official statement saying that the hairs on her hands were beaver and that it is just your assumption that they were.

 

[sissi]

IVY:How would the Rs be able to explain away that in an accident scenario?

Why would they need to explain something that didn't happen?
First one would have to assume the Burke did it theory,then one would have to guess the mother decided JonBenet would be better off dead so she hit her on the head to finish her off...I can't buy into this,this was a brutal murder committed by a brutal adult IMO

 

[sissi]

Jayelles,it wasn't my assumption it was said they were "alleged" beaver hairs. If you choose to think dark animal hair on tape was from a beaver,and dark animal hair on hands was from a bear,that would be your assumption. No where did it say,as it seemed no more than an effort to not repeat "alleged beaver",that the hairs were from a different animal.
As I said,we all take in the same information,my logic tells me one thing,yours another,does this prove one of us is wrong? We don't have enough information to determine that.
IMO

It doesn't matter to me at all what kind of animal hair was on her,it only suggests that there was an intruder,as none of these hairs has been identified elsewhere in the home. The "alleged" beaver is another blunder by the BPD,they can't source hairs and provide us with a definitive answer?

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by sissi
A. calls an ambulance
B.decides to cover up by staging an accident
C.decides to create an elaborate staging of murder by
crazed pedophile that's into bondage

How can you go with A or B if Burke was playing sexual games with his sister BEFORE he bashes her head in? How do you explain that? What if he also strangled her and there were marks on her neck that would have to be explained?

At that point John Ramsey had lost two daughters, do you think he was going to take the chance of losing a son to "the system"? How would Burke then be known for the rest of his life, as the "sex crazed kid who murdered his beauty queen sister"? Sounds like great fodder for decades of tabloid articles.

What you don't realize sissi, is that if Burke was the perp, and the parents staged the elaborate coverup to save him. They effectively pulled the wool over the eyes of thousands of people like you who bought into their outlandish scheme.
The job they set out to do that night worked perfectly, didn't it...

IMO

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by sissi
Toth's information is no different than anyone's on this forum,it is a forum of opinion based on what we have read.

Not so sissi. Toth gets most of his information from the Swamp, where lies and false information are fabricated almost daily and fed to mindless twits. False case information such as the pineapple actually being "lemon", and the mystery DNA being "caucasian" are just a couple examples of the lies the *advertiser censored* has come up with. That kind of crap needs to say where it was born and not propagated to this forum by any of the *advertiser censored*'s stooges.

 

[Ivy]

sissi, your last post has me scratching my head. It doesn't appear to make sense.

I asked you how the Ramseys could explain away the acute sexual trauma in an accident scenario. Although there are differences of opinion as to whether JonBenet had been abused before that night, there is NO doubt she suffered vaginal trauma that night. The damage was minimal, with little bleeding, but it was there and it was obvious. How would they explain it away in an accident scenario? Answer: They couldn't. That is why they invented the Intruder.

I see you didn't bother to read the rest of my post in which I explained my BDI theory. If you had, you would know that in my opinion, Burke was responsible for everything that was done to JonBenet. I do not believe Patsy or John struck her or strangled her before or after her death. Nor do I believe that John or Patsy sexually assaulted JonBenet before or after her death. I believe Patsy wrote the note with John's input, and that they staged the crime scene in various ways, but they did not abuse JonBenet or her dead body in any way.

 

[TLynn]

Personally, I slide right by Toth's posts. They are always stated as fact and too many times WRONG. The posts are a waste of my time as they are never sourced.

Did the White's have any animal? Also, wasn't Patsy wearing beaver hair boots (lining?) that evening - or is that a rumor?

I would sure love to see the pictures from the White's that night. One thing I truly wish would be revealed.