The Ramseys are Cleared

[Parmenides]

Is it true Lou Smit's assertion that 'foreign' male DNA was found under JB's fingernails?

If so, that would seem more significant than some 'touch DNA' on her tights, but either way the big question would be whether it matches the tights/panties DNA. The fact that we are hearing nothing about anything like this suggests to me it is a lie.

I go different ways on this. On the one hand, I would say DNA testing is not as reliable as it says on the box -- nothing with humans in the loop ever is. On the other hand, suppose this is correct and there was an intruder, then put it together with the inside info shown in the ransom note and it ought to crack the case. The fact it is not cracking the case may speak volumes in itself.

To some extent, this reminds me of when they did carbon dating on the Turin shroud some years ago and showed it to be medieval not from the time of Christ. The attitude was, "So, it's a fake...next". To me this was totally inadequate as there are so many other strange aspects of the shroud, and just giving it a medieval date does not make those things go away -- for a real explanation you have to account for the whole picture. Ditto with this case. One new piece of information doesn't wipe out everything else.

 

[LinasK]

Her doctor said nothing was unusual.

HTH

Her pediatrician who was paid to look the other way. He had to have seen the signs, they were too obvious to miss, even the frequency of vaginal infections is not normal from bubble baths. If it is, then you stop using that bubble bath, it's that simple. Patsy and the pediatrician knew JB was being sexually abused.

 

[LinasK]

I agree there was a wealth of incompetence associated with this case. At the top of my list, I have Steve Thomas and Linda Arndt.

I'll agree with you about Linda Arndt!

 

[LI_Mom]

Maybe that's what I can't wrap my head around Tex. I just CANNOT believe that someone would murder their child because they wet the bed. Especially a parent that doted on her child. Maybe if there was an another motive, but bed wetting??? That's all Steve Thomas could come up with?? I think it is more likely some sick pedophile killed her then her mother because she wet the bed.

I think what Steve T. was trying to do was come up with ONE reason that MIGHT explain how a loving mother MIGHT snap....

The child DID have a known problem with bed wetting & the cabinet outside her bedroom contained pull ups, didn't it?

You don't have to PROVE motive to win a case but it helps you know how to proceed with your investigation.

And let's not forget, even though Steve T. was a staunch believer in Patsy's part in this... MANY, MANY suspects were questioned & investigated & tested.

 

[LinasK]

There's something else here, as well. If anyone at anytime can prove that the Boulder DA was known for its aggressive conduct toward prosecution, it will just about put me out of busniness. What I mean is, if this were a normally aggressive DA who advised caution, that would mean something. I would liken it to Nixon going to China, even though he was an ardent anti-Communist.

But that's not the situation here. Here you have a DA's office known for having a standard of proof that no one could meet to their satisfaction (it's supposed to be "beyond a reasonable doubt," not beyond ANY doubt), and seeking plea bargains against indigents with taxpayer-provided lawyers. They had no chance against a multi-million dollar law firm which owns half the state. It's like taking on a battleship with a popgun!

I hope LinasK shows up.

I'm here Dave, had a migraine earlier, but do have get a couple of things accomplished this afternoon- glad you are too!:blowkiss:

 

[LI_Mom]

Her pediatrician who was paid to look the other way. He had to have seen the signs, they were too obvious to miss, even the frequency of vaginal infections is not normal from bubble baths. If it is, then you stop using that bubble bath, it's that simple. Patsy and the pediatrician knew JB was being sexually abused.

Is that the same pediatrician who was called to the house the morning of the 911 call?

Another casual friend... with no motive to protect the Ramsey family at all costs?

 

[LinasK]

I don't know Dave....some sicko sees Miss JonBenet dressed up in her pagent stuff or playing outside, gets obsessed with her, perhaps he watches the home, sneaks in after they leave for the party and waits. To me it makes a lot more sense than parents who adored the kid getting mad cause she wet the bed and killing her. People like this ARE among us.:behindbar

I just CANNOT believe that someone would murder their child because they wet the bed. Especially a parent that doted on her child. Maybe if there was an another motive, but bed wetting??? That's all Steve Thomas could come up with?? I think it is more likely some sick pedophile killed her then her mother because she wet the bed.

But that's just it TexMex, they didn't "adore" her or dote on her, they used her. They felt they owned her, she was just property to them. Patsy used her to further her own pageant goals regardless of what JB would have wanted. She never would have let her quit. John saw JB as a minature woman to take as he pleased, especially since Patsy was unavailable to him sexually with her cancer. I think John was the killer in a sex game gone too far accidentally, or that Patsy walked in on them and accidentally bashed her head. The bed wetting is from being sexually abused. But maybe Patsy was that outraged enough to kill her. I know how my daughter can push my buttons, and I'm not a pageant diva mom.

 

[MrsMush99]

Her pediatrician who was paid to look the other way. He had to have seen the signs, they were too obvious to miss, even the frequency of vaginal infections is not normal from bubble baths. If it is, then you stop using that bubble bath, it's that simple. Patsy and the pediatrician knew JB was being sexually abused.

Is that fact or are you speculating that??? If it is a fact I would like to read up on that, so if there is a link? Also, I hope he's not still a practicing Dr. I cannot imagine a pediatrician would look the other way while a child is being abused for money.

 

[MrsMush99]

I think what Steve T. was trying to do was come up with ONE reason that MIGHT explain how a loving mother MIGHT snap....

The child DID have a known problem with bed wetting & the cabinet outside her bedroom contained pull ups, didn't it?

You don't have to PROVE motive to win a case but it helps you know how to proceed with your investigation.

And let's not forget, even though Steve T. was a staunch believer in Patsy's part in this... MANY, MANY suspects were questioned & investigated & tested.

So basically without the bed wetting theory there is no reason why she would kill her???

 

[LinasK]

Is that fact or are you speculating that??? If it is a fact I would like to read up on that, so if there is a link? Also, I hope he's not still a practicing Dr. I cannot imagine a pediatrician would look the other way while a child is being abused for money.

No, I don't have a money trail, but it's obvious, why else would a panel of 9 doctors find vaginal trauma if there was none??? It also explains the frequent vaginal infections. Bubble bath does not.

 

[LinasK]

So basically without the bed wetting theory there is no reason why she would kill her???

Yes there is, my alternate theory- if she walked in on John abusing JB and bashed her head accidentally- aiming for John, or got jealous of JB taking her place with John.

 

[MrsMush99]

But that's just it TexMex, they didn't "adore" her or dote on her, they used her. They felt they owned her, she was just property to them. Patsy used her to further her own pageant goals regardless of what JB would have wanted. She never would have let her quit. John saw JB as a minature woman to take as he pleased, especially since Patsy was unavailable to him sexually with her cancer. I think John was the killer in a sex game gone too far accidentally, or that Patsy walked in on them and accidentally bashed her head. The bed wetting is from being sexually abused. But maybe Patsy was that outraged enough to kill her. I know how my daughter can push my buttons, and I'm not a pageant diva mom.

Steve Thomas doesn't think there is ANY proof that JonBenet was molested by John. I quoted him yesterday with the link somewhere in this thread.

 

[MrsMush99]

Yes there is, my alternate theory- if she walked in on John abusing JB and bashed her head accidentally- aiming for John, or got jealous of JB taking her place with John.

See my response to that.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to wrap my head around the hole thing and see what you guys are seeing. I'm just not.

 

[MrsMush99]

No, I don't have a money trail, but it's obvious, why else would a panel of 9 doctors find vaginal trauma if there was none??? It also explains the frequent vaginal infections. Bubble bath does not.

So it's NOT fact right? Just speculation.

 

[BBB167893]

Using the evidence that LE provided him with and given over a year, Kane could not convince the Grand Jury that probable cause existed. That's why the Ramseys were not indicted.

You say. Come on, Wudge. Show me how aggressive the Boulder DA usually was. That's all. Show me their record of aggressive prosecution vs. weasly plea-bargaining. It can't be that hard.

Not only that, but a lot of evidence wasn't known until after the GJ was disbanded.

BTW, have you read what Michelle Czopek had to say?

As for Kane wanting an indictment, why don't we hear from him:
And anybody involved in this case would say the very fact that my finger was on the trigger, and if I wanted to pull the trigger at the end of the case the Grand Jury would have pulled it.

I don't know Dave....some sicko sees Miss JonBenet dressed up in her pagent stuff or playing outside, gets obsessed with her, perhaps he watches the home, sneaks in after they leave for the party and waits.

It would have been so much easier to grab her when she was alone, though. Coming home from school, playing in the yard, etc. Why put so much work into it? Not only that, but the cases that keep being compared to this one ARE apples and handgrenades: VanDam, Runnion, etc, ALL involved a quick in-and-out snatch by a person who took the children to areas they felt safe, did their awful deeds, then dumped them. That didn't happen here.

To me it makes a lot more sense than parents who adored the kid getting mad cause she wet the bed and killing her.

Not to me, it doesn't. Besides, that's not even the theory I ascribe to, necessarily.

People like this ARE among us

I know. In my home state, we just had to bury a girl killed by the kind of people you describe. So it's not like I'm naive.

I just CANNOT believe that someone would murder their child because they wet the bed.

Oh, no? In guidelines appearing in Pediatrics, it is asserted "more child abuse occurs during toilet training than during any other developmental step..."

Especially a parent that doted on her child

As long as they played by "the rules."

Maybe if there was an another motive, but bed wetting???

Who says there WASN'T another motive?

That's all Steve Thomas could come up with??

He didn't come up with it. Dr. Richard Krugman did, a pediatric expert who called it "textbook toilet rage."

I think it is more likely some sick pedophile killed her then her mother because she wet the bed.

Oh? Then why weren't JB's sexual injuries far greater? That's not just me saying that, either. The FBI jumped on that one immediately:

"The FBI believed the sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." (PMPT pg 306)

MrsMush, I really don't know what more I can say. Look, if you want my personal theory, I'll be happy to give it to you. Just don't assume I'm in lockstep with Det. Thomas, okay?

 

[azwriter]

I agree that it is possible that the Ramseys carried out this crime start to finish, but certain elements just don't make sense to me.

1. She vomited between attacks. I believe she was probably struck in the head first and *then* garroted. The vomit and breathing had to have been obvious, and there was no scalp laceration with the massive head trauma. Patsy couldn't have know the extent of the damage, only that her daughter was severely injured but still alive. Why would she take all that time to stage all the evidence and make the garrote when all the while her daughter was still alive. It just seems like it would be so much easier to make up a BS story about the head injury and call 911. Parents do that sort of crap with frightening frequency.

2. I don't buy the sudden Patsy rage attack, since IMO JonBenet *had* to have been struck on the head by a very heavy blunt instrument. Baseball bat, maglite, or golfclub- they were all at the scene and any one of them could have caused that massive damage. A suddenly enraged parent doesn't search the house looking for the perfect bashing instrument- they slap, push, punch or use whatever is immediately at hand, and personally I think the attack started in the bathroom or JonBenets room. Neither would have had those items present. I don't believe that head trauma was caused by pushing against a tub surround or counter as some seem to. The main area of impact was toward the top of her head and was very focused. Fractures from falls don't tend to have an area of skull that large completely broken out. Unless she was thrown head first at high speed against a sharp projecting point I just don't see it happening. Her head was literally cracked in half from front to back with a large piece completely broken out.

IMO there is no way Burke could have caused that head injury, at least not with a direct blow- he wouldn't have been tall enough or strong enough to focus that much energy at the top of her head. Someone has suggested something being dropped on her head from the top of the stairs and I suppose that is entirely possible, but if that was the case staging a murder as a result would have been overkill x 9000. In addition if Burke was responsible they would have sent him to his room while they carried out the rest and he would not have been heard on the 911 call asking what they had found, and they also wouldn't have sent him to friends after her body was discovered. They would have wanted to keep him close so he didn't give himself away. IMO Burke is entirely innocent

In my mind this was either A. An intruder or B. A *premeditated* murder committed by one or both parents. I think all of the staging would have taken quite a bit of time and couldn't have been done between the head injury and garroting. Someone was working on items and staging for quite some time, and she was still alive when garroted.

I really vacillate between both theories, they both have merit IMO from the evidence that has so far been gathered.

I have a few problems with the idea that the Ramseys did it (their methodology), but I'm thinking from the perspective of a sane parent.

One thing that *really* bothers me about the RDI theory is the violence and *intent* of the garroting. I think everyone can agree on two things:

A. The garrote was constructed solely for the purpose of killing JBR.
B. It was done with intense violence.

Assuming that this was a set-up and she was accidentally injured leading to her murder as a cover-up, why would a garrote be the instrument of choice, and why would there be no indications of hesitation while using the garrote? I would think that if you were grieving and "had to" finish off your kid, it would be difficult to put that garrote around her neck and start tightening it with no hesitation, with such force that it sunk that far into her skin. IMO the garroting was also done in violence and anger. If you have seen the pics you will know what I mean. I don't believe a grieving parent who was acting out of self interest would be able to do this. I would imagine there would be hesitation or "practice" marks, much like we often see on suicides- unless of course somebody was acting out at the time in rage and intense aggression. Another indication of this rage and intensity is the fact that the garrote trapped multiple hunks of her hair which would speak to it being placed swiftly about her neck with no regard for her appearance or "comfort". It seems that her body was only treated with "care" and "tenderness" after the killing was completed, and we *know* the killing was in 2 stages and took some time. Sudden rage theory just doesn't cut it IMO, and I can't think of any parent motive that would have led to premeditated murder...

Gosh this turned out long, sorry

Any thoughts?

Thoughtful post. You might consider that the garrote was placed around her neck in order to hide previous strangle marks made that evening.
JMO

 

[Wudge]

Her pediatrician who was paid to look the other way. He had to have seen the signs, they were too obvious to miss, even the frequency of vaginal infections is not normal from bubble baths. If it is, then you stop using that bubble bath, it's that simple. Patsy and the pediatrician knew JB was being sexually abused.

Just so you know what you are doing, you are factually claiming that JonBenet's doctor, Dr Beuf, was paid off by the Ramseys.

 

[MrsMush99]

You say. Come on, Wudge. Show me how aggressive the Boulder DA usually was. That's all. Show me their record of aggressive prosecution vs. weasly plea-bargaining. It can't be that hard.

Not only that, but a lot of evidence wasn't known until after the GJ was disbanded.

BTW, have you read what Michelle Czopek had to say?

As for Kane wanting an indictment, why don't we hear from him:
And anybody involved in this case would say the very fact that my finger was on the trigger, and if I wanted to pull the trigger at the end of the case the Grand Jury would have pulled it.



It would have been so much easier to grab her when she was alone, though. Coming home from school, playing in the yard, etc. Why put so much work into it? Not only that, but the cases that keep being compared to this one ARE apples and handgrenades: VanDam, Runnion, etc, ALL involved a quick in-and-out snatch by a person who took the children to areas they felt safe, did their awful deeds, then dumped them. That didn't happen here.



Not to me, it doesn't. Besides, that's not even the theory I ascribe to, necessarily.



I know. In my home state, we just had to bury a girl killed by the kind of people you describe. So it's not like I'm naive.



Oh, no? In guidelines appearing in Pediatrics, it is asserted "more child abuse occurs during toilet training than during any other developmental step..."



As long as they played by "the rules."



Who says there WASN'T another motive?



He didn't come up with it. Dr. Richard Krugman did, a pediatric expert who called it "textbook toilet rage."



Oh? Then why weren't JB's sexual injuries far greater? That's not just me saying that, either. The FBI jumped on that one immediately:

"The FBI believed the sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." (PMPT pg 306)

MrsMush, I really don't know what more I can say. Look, if you want my personal theory, I'll be happy to give it to you. Just don't assume I'm in lockstep with Det. Thomas, okay?

I would like your personal theory. And I was just pointing out what Steve Thomas said since a lot of posters seem to admire him. I wasn't putting you ANYWHERE with Thomas.

 

[LinasK]

Just so you know what you are doing, you are factually claiming that JonBenet's doctor, Dr Beuf, was paid off by the Ramseys.

Okay, better if I add "In My Opinion"??? Because that's what had to have happened. I do believe the Ramseys paid Dr. Beuf to look the other way.

 

[Ames]

I'm not saying it's not subjective, Tex. It's not a science. But you're forgetting a few important things with that comparison, most notably that the Karr "experts" were not involved with this case in any fashion, and did who knows how little actual analysis on this case.

Karr is just crazy enough...that he could have studied that RN....goodness knows he was obsessed with the case. He could have even practiced writing it like the RN author...which IMO is Patsy. But, I don't think that is too far fetched, especially since he "confessed" to the crime. He would have had to have known that they would make him give a handwriting sample.