Things that are Plaguing Me

[BBB167893]

I'm confused as to the date/time of death, on JBR's headstone it is 25th of december, but as death is declared by the medical examiner it should read 26th of december. I always thought given the digestion of the pineapple and state of decomposition, actual time of death would be after midnight and therefore the 26th.

Maybe a subconscious declaration?

 

[BBB167893]

Didn't know where to put this .I didn't really follow the Karr fiasco but I was watching a documentary the other days,an old one,not sure if it was produced by courttv,discovery,etc,but I think it was made shortly after they found out Karr's DNA didn't match.(oh btw the doc was pretty biased,Tracey and Lou Smith were the little stars in it )

Sadly, madeleine, the Ramseys have conducted a campaign of legal terrorism (no other word for it) to make sure that happens.

I was pretty confused.I thought LE established that Karr WASN'T in the US when Jonbenet was killed.Am I wrong?

He was in the US, but he was a few thousand miles away in Georgia at the time.

Cause it wasn't mentioned in the doc.It was said that they let him go because the DNA didn't match and I thought I wouldn't release someone solely based on some DNA testing in THIS case. (reminds me also of the Ramsey's being cleared)

They didn't. The fact that his DNA didn't match isn't why they let him go. I'm sure if they thought they could have gotten away with it, they'd have framed him for it regardless. They had to let him go because his story had too many holes in it to be plausible. It was so pat, that everything would HAVE to match up to make it true. It didn't, because it wasn't.

Did Karr have an alibi?And where exactly was he when Jonbenet was killed?

Thanks.

He was in Georgia, as I said.

Incidentally, I notice you've moved to the bottom of the sea. Does that mean you're hanging out with Andrew Ryan and Frank Fontaine now? LOL

 

[ShesElectric]

QUOTE BY JMO8778:
"Have you ever read Cherokee's analysis?worth considering,it's one of the most thorough ones ever done,in every aspect of handwriting and linguistics analysis.be sure to read through all 3 pages.."


Actually, I have read through that analysis.
I found it to be very informative and thought compelling.
It inspired me to try and do one of my own, and see what
conclusions I could form as well.


QUOTE BY JMO8778:
"Douglas had his own agenda.I'm sure someone can tell you about that."


Yes, SuperDave was kind enough to elaborate on that one.
I still believe, though, that John Douglas had no ulterior motive
other than to try and find the truth.



QUOTE BY JMO8778:
" 'Slow and meticulous' are not how criminals enter private homes.They come PREPARED,not knowing or who or what might be on the horizen,and that they may have a limited amt of time in which to execute a plan.They get in and out as quickly as possible."


I still entertain the idea that the intruder came with the
ransom note already written,(So does John Douglas so that is a sign of preparation.
And, considering that this person has never been identified,
that's not doing bad considering how he/she never got in and out
as fast as lightning, so to speak.


QUOTE BY JMO8778:
"The sheer number of pages missing indicates someone took their time,and wasn't worried about anyone returning anytime soon."


Very true.
However, we don't know for sure if this was done the night of
Dec.26th, or Christmas day when the Ramsey's were at the Whites'
Christmas party.

Even the Ramsey's themselves entertain this idea in their book.:crazy:





Connor

 

[DeeDee249]

It makes no sense that the "intruder" brought the note with him. Also, it was written with a black Sharpie pen that was found in the home. The "intruder" would have had to remove the pen from the home, then return it. As well as the pad, or at least some pages. Before you mention the "missing" pages, remember that the "practice note" was still in the pad, and PR admitted writing the practice note. The handwriting of the ransom note matched the practice note. The pad contained NO fingerprints other than those belonging to Patsy, one of the police officers, and one lab worker.

 

[ShesElectric]

QUOTE BY DEEDEE249:
"It makes no sense that the "intruder" brought the note with him."


It makes no sense that the intruder didn't bring the note with him,
and instead searched around the home for a pad of paper, pen, and
then write out a long detailed ransom note in the darkness.


QUOTE BY DEEDEE249:
"Also, it was written with a black Sharpie pen that was found in the home. "

Yes, I know.


QUOTE BY DEEDEE249:
"The "intruder" would have had to remove the pen from the home, then return it. As well as the pad, or at least some pages."

Not if the intruder had entered the home during the day,
found the pad of paper and Sharpie pen, composed the note
with plenty of time to spare(this includes the "draft(s)"),
put the Sharpie pen back in it's cup and sealed the lid,
and preceded to exit with that ransom note.

QUOTE BY DEEDEE249:
"Before you mention the "missing" pages, remember that the "practice note" was still in the pad, and PR admitted writing the practice note."


Yes, I know the practice note was still in the pad.

As for Patsy admitting to writing the practice note,
I did a Google and found next to nothing relating to that,
except guess where? Webslueths.
Oh, and if you suggest reading Steve Thomas' book,("JonBenet:
Inside The Murder Investigation", 2000, 356 pgs),
I already have.
In fact Thomas is the only one who seems to mention this" confession."
Douglas never mentions it in his book, or Henry Lee.

Can't be that pertinent to the case, if you have to look online until your
eyeballs fall out before you,until you find it.



QUOTE BY DEEDEE249:
" The handwriting of the ransom note matched the practice note. "


Yes, I know.
It was written by the same person, after all.


QUOTE BY DEEDEE249:
"The pad contained NO fingerprints other than those belonging to Patsy, one of the police officers, and one lab worker. "


Yes, I know.
Those were probably the only people that touched the note without
gloves on.
And gloves are common in December,...




Connor

 

[DeeDee249]

A kidnapper would have brought a note, not needing to use materials in the home to write it. If it was truly a ransom note, there was no need to try to source the note to the family home. Pointing blame towards the family because the victim ended up dead would have to mean the kidnappers intended to kill her, or they wouldn't have needed to source the note to the home. If it was a kidnapping that went wrong, they couldn't have known this in advance. If the note was written with materials from the home for the purposes of blaming the family for the death, that would mean it wasn't a real kidnapping. Like I said.
But aside from all that. PR wrote the note. And that pretty much says it all. No matter how hard you (or any IDIs) try, you'll never convince me she didn't. Just as I may never convince you she did. I have seen the handwriting samples, just as you probably have. I guess we see different things.

 

[BBB167893]

QUOTE BY JMO8778:
"Douglas had his own agenda.I'm sure someone can tell you about that."

Yes, SuperDave was kind enough to elaborate on that one. I still believe, though, that John Douglas had no ulterior motive other than to try and find the truth.

Believe me, Connor, what I showed you was just the tip of the iceberg. Maybe he STARTED with no ulterior motive, I'll grant that. But once he made his declaration, which just about every member of his profession reamed him out over, he adopted his "me against the world" attitude which has been his trademark ever since Wayne Williams. Allow me to quote one of them, Mr. Brent Turvey:

"First, Douglas was not given access to the police reports, the physical evidence, the crime-scene photos, the autopsy report, or the autopsy photos. The basis for any insight into offender behavior with the victim was elicited from the 4 1/2 hour interview conducted by Douglas with the parents, and their recollection. This breaks many of the rules of criminal profiling, which include his own, regarding the need for reliance on physical evidence and access to adequate inputs.
"Second, Douglas broke an inviolable rule of suspect interview strategy. He interviewed the parents together, as opposed to separately. As any interviewer will explain, it is important to interview suspects separately, not jointly, for any evaluations, and subsequent profiling work, to be valid. Conducting independent interviews of suspects allows the investigator to compare responses for inconsistencies and determine the veracity of each suspect's responses. Douglas did not do this.
"And finally, Douglas went on national television and endorsed the innocence of his client based upon this poorly rendered, almost boilerplate profile. This breaks the most important ethical rule of criminal profiling, which is that criminal profiles alone should not be used to address the issue of guilt. And even if they were, what Douglas feels in his heart about a case is not relevant. What is important is what the facts of the case suggest, behaviorally. As Douglas did not have the facts of the case at his disposal, it is the opinion of this author that he had no business rendering any opinions on the case whatsoever."

Which brings up a very interesting question: what's your take on the other profilers and their findings on the case?

I still entertain the idea that the intruder came with the
ransom note already written,(So does John Douglas so that is a sign of preparation.

That's funny, because Lou Smit (I have an entire CHAPTER devoted to him!) actually said it would make MORE sense NOT to have one prepared, just in case he got pulled over by the cops on the way and they found it. No BS.

It makes no sense that the intruder didn't bring the note with him,
and instead searched around the home for a pad of paper, pen, and
then write out a long detailed ransom note in the darkness.

Tell HIM that!

As for Patsy admitting to writing the practice note,
I did a Google and found next to nothing relating to that,
except guess where? Webslueths.
Oh, and if you suggest reading Steve Thomas' book,("JonBenet:
Inside The Murder Investigation", 2000, 356 pgs),
I already have.
In fact Thomas is the only one who seems to mention this" confession."

Considering that, out of all the other people who wrote about this case, he was deepest in it, it's not surprising that he'd know things they didn't.

Douglas never mentions it in his book,

That's about as surprising as finding out Rick's Cafe allows gambling.

or Henry Lee.

He's a forensics man, not a detective, though.

Can't be that pertinent to the case, if you have to look online until your
eyeballs fall out until you find it.

That strikes me as a very dangerous mindset.

 

[JMO8778]

Brought the note with him?? That would mean he would have had to have stolen Patsy's notepad and pen,and then returned with them.Doesn't make any sense.I don't recall reading that in the R's book,either.(even so,it's their pack of lies,they can say anything they want.and in fact,they did.it's chock full of lies).

It also doesn't make any sense that an intruder would have sat around the R's house and wrote the note,waiting for them to return.Unless he had a crystal ball,intruders are aware that *anything can happen..a child could get sick and they could come back,maybe they forgot something and needed to return,other ppl like the housekeeper might stop by,or maybe they would decide to leave early,for whatever reason.How would an intruder know when and where they were going,and how long they would be gone,anyway? And much less that their dog would not be there??
The FBI says that when items used in a murder come from an occupants own home,that points directly to the occupants themselves.
Did anyone see that crime show last week,where a Dr strangled his wife with a necktie from his closet,then tried to claim an intruder must have done it?? Strike ONE..he used an item from his own home!!

 

[JMO8778]

I thought Patsy's prints were not found on the note? Correct me if I'm wrong.John's should have been on there though,seeing as Patsy said she handed him the note.(IF they were telling the truth,which I don't think they were).

The way Patsy said she found the note doesn't make sense either.It was said she could not have bent down and picked it up the way it was placed,nor could she have stepped over it and turned around to get it on that spiral staircase.

An intruder wouldn't have chosen that spot anyway.It would mean he would have to either step over the note while carrying JB,or he would have had to place her down on the floor,and then turn around to put it there.Either doesn't make sense.
It was found on the floor because that's where the R's put it before showtime began...it was never on the stairs to begin with.

 

[Ames]

I thought Patsy's prints were not found on the note? Correct me if I'm wrong.John's should have been on there though,seeing as Patsy said she handed him the note.(IF they were telling the truth,which I don't think they were).

The way Patsy said she found the note doesn't make sense either.It was said she could not have bent down and picked it up the way it was placed,nor could she have stepped over it and turned around to get it on that spiral staircase.

An intruder wouldn't have chosen that spot anyway.It would mean he would have to either step over the note while carrying JB,or he would have had to place her down on the floor,and then turn around to put it there.Either doesn't make sense.
It was found on the floor because that's where the R's put it before showtime began...it was never on the stairs to begin with.

I don't believe it was ever on the stairs either. Why on earth would an intruder leave it on the floor or stairs anyway? He would have left it in the last place the Ramsey's left JB....on her bed.

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't believe it was ever on the stairs either. Why on earth would an intruder leave it on the floor or stairs anyway? He would have left it in the last place the Ramsey's left JB....on her bed.

Right.

 

[ShesElectric]

QUOTE BY SUPERDAVE:
"Believe me, Connor, what I showed you was just the tip of the iceberg. Maybe he STARTED with no ulterior motive, I'll grant that. But once he made his declaration, which just about every member of his profession reamed him out over, he adopted his "me against the world" attitude which has been his trademark ever since Wayne Williams. Allow me to quote one of them, Mr. Brent Turvey:

"First, Douglas was not given access to the police reports, the physical evidence, the crime-scene photos, the autopsy report, or the autopsy photos. The basis for any insight into offender behavior with the victim was elicited from the 4 1/2 hour interview conducted by Douglas with the parents, and their recollection. This breaks many of the rules of criminal profiling, which include his own, regarding the need for reliance on physical evidence and access to adequate inputs.
"Second, Douglas broke an inviolable rule of suspect interview strategy. He interviewed the parents together, as opposed to separately. As any interviewer will explain, it is important to interview suspects separately, not jointly, for any evaluations, and subsequent profiling work, to be valid. Conducting independent interviews of suspects allows the investigator to compare responses for inconsistencies and determine the veracity of each suspect's responses. Douglas did not do this.
"And finally, Douglas went on national television and endorsed the innocence of his client based upon this poorly rendered, almost boilerplate profile. This breaks the most important ethical rule of criminal profiling, which is that criminal profiles alone should not be used to address the issue of guilt. And even if they were, what Douglas feels in his heart about a case is not relevant. What is important is what the facts of the case suggest, behaviorally. As Douglas did not have the facts of the case at his disposal, it is the opinion of this author that he had no business rendering any opinions on the case whatsoever."

Which brings up a very interesting question: what's your take on the other profilers and their findings on the case?





First off, you do have some good points that were quoted by Brent
Turvey.
I won't deny that.
However, since I believe the Ramsey's to be innocent of this murder,
I wouldn't agree with the opinions of the other profilers who defend
the Ramsey's guilt.
But, I will give their output a second look after reading this.
I am an open minded person, after all.



QUOTE BY SUPERDAVE:
"That's funny, because Lou Smit (I have an entire CHAPTER devoted to him!) actually said it would make MORE sense NOT to have one prepared, just in case he got pulled over by the cops on the way and they found it. No BS."



a) I find it somewhat suprising that I missed that statement that Lou
Smit said, because I have followed his opinion on this case, and agree
with him as well.
I'll look into it, though.
Thanks for mentioning it.

b) This would mean, of course, that the intruder would have been
using a vehicle to(and most likely from), the Ramsey residence.
How do you know the intruder wasn't within walking distance
of their home?
If he/she had help, then the "help" could have carried the ransom note,
thus the note wouldn't have been on the killer.
The note does mention a "foreign faction."





Quote:BY ME
It makes no sense that the intruder didn't bring the note with him,
and instead searched around the home for a pad of paper, pen, and
then write out a long detailed ransom note in the darkness.

QUOTE BY SUPERDAVE:
Tell HIM that!



Actually, even IF i could, I wouldn't
say much of anything to this person(s).
I would let the law and remainder of
the (living) Ramsey family deal with
him.
Anyone that could harm a child like that would
be on my " license to disservice" list.





QUOTE BY SUPERDAVE:
"Considering that, out of all the other people who wrote about this case, he was deepest in it, it's not surprising that he'd know things they didn't."



I agree.






Connor

 

[madeleine]

Sadly, madeleine, the Ramseys have conducted a campaign of legal terrorism (no other word for it) to make sure that happens.



He was in the US, but he was a few thousand miles away in Georgia at the time.



They didn't. The fact that his DNA didn't match isn't why they let him go. I'm sure if they thought they could have gotten away with it, they'd have framed him for it regardless. They had to let him go because his story had too many holes in it to be plausible. It was so pat, that everything would HAVE to match up to make it true. It didn't, because it wasn't.



He was in Georgia, as I said.

Incidentally, I notice you've moved to the bottom of the sea. Does that mean you're hanging out with Andrew Ryan and Frank Fontaine now? LOL

Thanks SuperDave :toast:
(And LOL I was pretty upset when I uploaded the avatar :crazy: )

 

[madeleine]

IMO the note was written so the Ramsey's gain more time.
Why on earth would a psycho child killer leave SUCH a note?

 

[BBB167893]

First off, you do have some good points that were quoted by Brent
Turvey.
I won't deny that.

That STILL wasn't all of it.

However, since I believe the Ramsey's to be innocent of this murder,
I wouldn't agree with the opinions of the other profilers who defend
the Ramsey's guilt. But, I will give their output a second look after reading this.
I am an open minded person, after all.

Go for it. I got plenty in that regard, as well.

a) I find it somewhat suprising that I missed that statement that Lou
Smit said, because I have followed his opinion on this case, and agree
with him as well.
I'll look into it, though.
Thanks for mentioning it.

Don't thank me yet. If you read half of the things in that chapter... If memory serves, he said that in one of the Tracey crockumentaries. The second one, I think it was.

b) This would mean, of course, that the intruder would have been
using a vehicle to(and most likely from), the Ramsey residence.
How do you know the intruder wasn't within walking distance
of their home?

I don't. But it wasn't me who said it.

If he/she had help, then the "help" could have carried the ransom note, thus the note wouldn't have been on the killer.
The note does mention a "foreign faction."

Don't get me started on that one.

Actually, even IF i could, I wouldn't
say much of anything to this person(s).

Actually, I was referring to Lou Smit.

I would let the law and remainder of
the (living) Ramsey family deal with
him.Anyone that could harm a child like that would
be on my " license to disservice" list.

That's just how I feel about him.

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks SuperDave :toast:
(And LOL I was pretty upset when I uploaded the avatar :crazy: )

No sweat.

 

[madeleine]

I just realized that there's another thing that's bugging me.
She ran upstairs before finishing reading the note??!
Put yourself in her shoes.....I know I would have read it all just to make sure it's not a joke or something.The note was full of "she dies"..."she dies"......you would read it all just to make sure there's not more in it,more threats or maybe even to be sure it doesn't end with "you know what,she's already dead...."

 

[Motherof5]

I need some opinions. I've been thinking about JBR being molested and also about BR"s disconnected behavior. Does anyone think that maybe BR was also molested and knew that JBR was too? I was just thinking that if he and JBR had both been molested and then she is murdered, he might have disconnected from the situation due to the fear that he might have the same fate.What do you all think?

P.S. I'm sorry if this was discussed before.

 

[DeeDee249]

I need some opinions. I've been thinking about JBR being molested and also about BR"s disconnected behavior. Does anyone think that maybe BR was also molested and knew that JBR was too? I was just thinking that if he and JBR had both been molested and then she is murdered, he might have disconnected from the situation due to the fear that he might have the same fate.What do you all think?

P.S. I'm sorry if this was discussed before.

I think it could certainly be a possibility.

 

[BBB167893]

I need some opinions. I've been thinking about JBR being molested and also about BR"s disconnected behavior. Does anyone think that maybe BR was also molested and knew that JBR was too? I was just thinking that if he and JBR had both been molested and then she is murdered, he might have disconnected from the situation due to the fear that he might have the same fate.What do you all think?

P.S. I'm sorry if this was discussed before.

Never gave much thought.