The REAL target?

[Nehemiah]

Originally posted by Toth
Same bed, same room, actually awake, percipient witness.

Exactly; I agree.

On the morning that Patsy called 911--perhaps Burke had some of that same info as MK Smart had about Elizabeth's abduction. After all, his bedroom was not far from JB's; he could have been awake in the night; he could have even actually witnessed something. To sweep him up and out of the house w/out being questioned extensively by police is a red flag to me. For all the Rs knew, it could have meant the difference between life and death for their daughter.

 

[lannie]

Thanks Nehemiah, I totally agree, I can not even think I would not Q. all of my other children if one turned up missing, even if they were sleeping ,I would still awake them ,did the rams not think that J B's life was more important than Little burke getting his ZZ"S ,what a great big lie they told & still try to convince us they care, money is all they care about .

 

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Toltec
No need to be condescending....should I call you MR. KNOW IT ALL???? Bundy and Dahmer were not insane....just sick in the head. An insane person does not know AT THE TIME of what he/she is doing and will not be thinking about evidence left behind.

That is the legal definition of insanity, what we base insanity on in a court room. Both of the killers were organized which means they had the know how and reasoning abilities to know what they were doing was wrong. They just did not care....sociopathic personalities, ring a bell? If you seriously think that someone that eatrs parts of peoples bodies and has corpses on his bed is not insane, then maybe YOU need a head check.

And, es, I agree, someone that knows what they are doing at the time of the crime is not insane.

Now, look at someone like William Heirens, he would be legally insane. He did not cover his tracks and was literally walking around with the blood all over him!

And, you can call me Ms. Know It All.....I do not know everything, I was just correcting you.

 

[Maxi]

:waitasec: Hey, I thought we'd agreed that Ms.or Mr. Bossy Boots was the name du jour for us know-it-alls.

What is confusing is the legal definition of insanity vs. the psychological diagnosis of mental illness vs. our intuitive sense that anyone who eats other people is crazy.

IMO, the legal and legislative folks have been too busy playing to public outrage and sympathy for victims to catch up to modern understandings about mental illness. Just because someone knows society disapproves of his or her actions doesn't mean they can make rational decisions. As the law stands in most states, even quite delusional people are considered "sane" if they function adequately in other parts of their lives.

 

[Toth]

Insanity is a legal term. It is solely a legal term. It is not a medical term.

Being a cannibal does not make you insane. Particularly if a jury doesn't want you to get off the hook.

The McNaughton Rule is the older test: At the time the defendant had to be incapable of knowing right from wrong.

the more modern rule requires the existence of a disease of defect which rendered him incapable of knowing his act was wrong or incapable of conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law.

But these are legal constructs, not medical ones and not the ones that would be used by a layman going about their ordinary affairs.

 

[Imon128]

Guilty first, crazy later?

 

[Maxi]

Toth, the problem comes in the interpretation of the phrase "know right from wrong". Does that mean in the moral sense, in the social sense, or what? Many states interpret it to mean that the defendant knows society would disapprove of his actions. But if you think you have secret knowledge that gives you the ability to make a better judgement than the rest of society, that definition makes no sense.

What I'd like to see is a guilty by reason of insanity plea. Some states have the equivalent in their "guilty but insane" plea. I'd also like to see the rules for determining legal sanity broadened to include the many variations of mental defect that can impair judgement.

In the JBR case, there are lots of possible metal defects that could have affected the killer. My fav for an intruder perp is borderline personality disorder. My fav for a Ramsey perp is brief psychotic disorder.

 

[Britt]

Originally posted by Maxi
In the JBR case, there are lots of possible metal defects that could have affected the killer. My fav for an intruder perp is borderline personality disorder. My fav for a Ramsey perp is brief psychotic disorder.

Interesting, Maxi. Why borderline personality disorder for an intruder perp?

 

[Maxi]

My family had a situation develop with a woman who had Borderline Personality Disorder with subclinical paranoia that rose to the surface under stress. That's how my shrink described her, anyway. She became so fond of my daughter that it became obsessive. When we tried to back off the relationship a bit, she became very angry, and did the classic BPS "switch" -- my daughter, who had been an angel in her eyes, suddenly became a devil out to destroy her life. My shrink said this woman could be physically dangerous to my daughter.

 

[BloodshotEye]

Something that has always stayed with me, about this case - was the peculiar "disconnect" between the crime/crime scene and that ridiculous ransom letter.
A notion that seems to plague a number of you as well.

The only way I could connect these two pieces of evidence, was to create the scenario where there were TWO intruders. One who wanted to abduct the child for ransom, and the other who wanted to exact their anger/revenge on the child. For some, the suggestion of an "intruder" is ridiculous; and the thought of TWO intruders, who can't seem to agree - is almost laughable if not merely stupid. Is the answer to this conundrum, that there were "two" people, but neither was an intruder? Can't figure it out.

JB's Body Hidden - Like a Young Person/Teenager Might Hide an Accident or Mess
In my mind's eye, I am imagining this to be a peculiar crime scene. The death seems as though it was an accident. Possibly the result of not knowing how easily one could shut off the air-way with a garot. Unexpected. As if the intent was to scare or exact some revenge, but never to kill her. And there was a hurried attempt to hide it; and a door latch fastened. Like a young person or teenager hiding a mess.

Garot Knot
I can't help feeling that this has some connection to some weird interaction or "play" at the White party. Like (humor me) one of the boys (an older boy?) showing another, how to make a peculiar garot knot. The garot cord may have fiber from PR's coat, if she used the cord to wrap a gift, or for some other purpose, and it was then picked up by someone else. The fibers do not mean much to me.

Evidence of Stun Gun marks
If this is true, it's the wild card, that keeps me from making presumptions about BR. A Stun gun is not a typical toy or find, for a very young person. But a teen or young adult? Quite possibly.

My "latest" take/opinion on this case, is that someone at the White party, is involved. Possibly a teen or young adult, with whom BR interacted.

 

[Maxi]

How about a young adult with whom JAR interacted at college?

 

[Nehemiah]

Yes, Maxi, that would be my choice if an intruder is involved.

 

[Ivy]

Originally posted by Bloodshot Eye
Something that has always stayed with me, about this case - was the peculiar "disconnect" between the crime/crime scene and that ridiculous ransom letter.

Same here, Bloodshot Eye. The only way they connect for me is in a Burke-did-it theory. I believe Burke unintentionally killed JonBenet during sexual play, and that John and Patsy staged the coverup. The phony ransom note was necessary, because without it, there would have been no evidence whatsoever of an Intruder. I think J&P probably wrote it (imo Patsy penned it) with the intention of removing JonBenet's body from the house, but then changed their minds for any of a variety of reasons, and decided to leave the body in the house for one of their friends or the police to find. Whether they removed the body or left it in the house, the note was absolutely essential, even if it didn't jibe with the crime scene. (When I read the note from the perspective that it was written with the idea of removing the body from the house, it makes more sense...but time was of the essence, and the Rs probably couldn't spare the time to rewrite it.)

The Ramseys had a boat, and the whole family (well, maybe not Patsy) could probably tie knots, including Burke. He was also in scouts, where knot-tying is taught. Anyway, the garotte knot was actually a simple one, not the complex knot the RST would have us believe it was.

I'm not convinced a stun gun was used. In fact, I think that's likely just Ramsey bs.

 

[Imon128]

IMO, that ransom note was written by a family member. We need to know more intricate details as to the family's interworking at the time. I say JAR was a bottleneck....IN THE GRAND SCHEME of things.

 

[BloodshotEye]

I know what you mean about these "stun gun marks", Ivy. There are a few people who have already spoken about how this conculsion, was based on faulty reasoning.

The primary objection to this conclusion, about the "bluish line", that was supposed to suggest a stun gun "arc". I had to agree; when does an arc or burn, cause a blue mark? I for one, can't recall one. But I am trying to keep an open mind. A well defined blue line, sounds more like very thin transfer of ink or paint. In the past, I have used a pen, and touched the printing, only to transfer the ink on my wrist or hand. I then transfered this ink, to the envelope or my shirt. Very interesting how evidence "transferrs".

There is an article that I have been trying to locate, to reference a theory. I recall reading an L.A. Times newspaper, while on a plane. Trying to recall when I was traveling, so that I can search the archives. The article was written about a person (young woman) who knows the White family. Without going into detail, this is an article you will want to read. I am narrowing my archive search to the year 2002, somewhere between January and September. I am hoping I can find it. Some very compelling stuff.

 

[BloodshotEye]

I think one of the targets for the on-going investigation, will likely focus on someone that JAR loves enough, to "forgive". Either family, or someone he considers/treats as family.

In a Vanity Fair article (October 1997), there was an account of the interview with police. JAR was asked by police, what type of punishment should JonBenet's killer receive. JAR replied, "Forgiveness". The police then gave JAR details of the crime, and what was done to JonBenet; and asked JAR again, what should be done with such a person who did this. Again, JAR responds with, "Forgiveness". This account is my recollection of the article, not intended to be an exact transcription.

The point is, I believe that the target or the focus of the on-going investigation, will be someone that JAR loves enough to "forgive". Even for committing such a horrid act upon his little girl. Who might that be?

IMO, the investigation would be targeting males; young and young-adult. Males? Because the nature of this crime, appears to be vengeful and retaliatory, involving submission and sex. This type of acting out, is by and large, aberrant male behavior.

I agree, Maxi, the JAR angle, is a curious one. JAR (JR's son from first marriage) is supposed to be one of the three people that have officially been cleared. Okaaaay. I'll go along with that for now. But again, I am keeping an open mind. To this day, there is still some contradiction in whether or not he was in Atlanta or Denver when this occurred. And yea, I know that JAR and daughter Melinda were supposed to have flown in, when JR informed them that JonBenet was missing. Perhaps I would be willing to eliminate JAR, if I knew of the corroborating info that excludes him.

The other targets, should include very close personal/long time friends that attended the White party. And of course, the obvious one, BR.

Just my opinion of course...but I have been known to be right once or twice..

Edit Notes:
I have edited to correct my mix-up of JAR and JR initials. Thanks Toth, for pointing that out.

Also adding, that it was reported that Attorney Dave Heckenbach, who ran grand juries for the Denver District Attorney's office from 1986 to 1992, said that this exchange between JAR and police, could be one of the issues the jury wanted to ask him about.

Not sure that both the magazine, and Attorney Dave Heckenbach would refer to a police interview that did not exist, but I guess strange things have happened.

 

[Toth]

I think one of the targets for the on-going investigation, will likely focus on someone that JR loves enough, to "forgive". Either family, or someone he considers/treats as family.

In a Vanity Fair article (October 1997), there was an account of the interview with police. JR was asked by police, what type of punishment should JonBenet's killer receive. JR replied, "Forgiveness". The police then gave JR details of the crime, and what was done to JonBenet; and asked JR again, what should be done with such a person who did this. Again, JR responds with, "Forgiveness".

I believe that the target or the focus of the on-going investigation, will be someone that JR loves enough to "forgive".

Would this belief that you have change if you were informed that despite your faith in Vanity Fair no such comments were made. Incidentally, its not John Ramsey who is alleged to have made those comments, its JAR. John Andrew Ramsey, but he did not make them. He did not say forgiveness.

 

[Ivy]

Toth, you are WRONG. JAR did say he thought the appropriate punishment for JonBenet's killer would be forgiveness. It is on videotape in the police files.

 

[BloodshotEye]

Thanks for pointing that out, Toth. I think I got to posting too quickly, and mixed up my JR and JAR. I'll have to go up there, and sort it out. Thanks.

 

[Imon128]

Toth, you are WRONG. JAR did say he thought the appropriate punishment for JonBenet's killer would be forgiveness. It is on videotape in the police files.

This is true, Ivy, you are correct.