Tricia's Tease

[KoldKase]

shotgunhomicide,
It is likely to be both. It may have started as an accident, but ended with JonBenet's premediated and deliberate asphyxiation. In a prior accident JonBenet was rushed to hospital, on this occasion, not so, she was denied medical assistance. Suggesting someone wished her to remain silent, to never speak about who had assaulted her, either acutely or chronically!


The R's knew full well if JonBenet was given medical assistance, she might recover and relate what had occurred that night and before. So what to do, cover it all up with a ransom note and fake garrote!


.

If the head blow was in fact struck accidently--and while I consider this likely, I'm by no means unable to imagine something more sinister after watching the Ramseys operate for 15 years--I agree lack of medical attention was to keep medical personnel from discovering the sexual abuse.

But I'm not sure if that was to keep her from talking, as I think whoever struck that blow clearly heard what would have been a chilling, mortal crack to her skull. While there was no visible evidence because of her hair and scalp, as well as the lack of a scalp laceration, unless it was Burke, who would have been frightened, no doubt, but wouldn't have known this was certain death for his sister, I think the person who attacked the child knew immediately it was all over for her.

Of course, it could be that person wanted to be sure, which led to the strangulation. There also had to be a cover up, a blame put upon "an intruder," as well, to tie in all the elements of the crimes committed against the child.

But you know all this.

The point I do want to make is that I'm not entirely convinced the blow to the head and the strangulation weren't done simultaneously. Without expert medical testimony examined and argued at trial, we have differing "media" opinions about the time between this head blow and strangulation, not to mention the order of these injuries.

I do think the argument the head blow came first is strong because of the lack of defense wounds. But if there were a way someone could have put the cord around the child's neck without her resisting, that's a consideration. I'm not convinced there was some kind of sexual game going on, per Dr. Wecht's theory--because I can't imagine any adult trying erotic strangulation on a child like JonBenet, who was on very public display all the time, especially not without some kind of cushion/padding under the cord, which is commonly used by people who practice this kind of sex game to prevent detection on themselves. Also I cannot see any evidence in the bruising on the neck indicating there was a repeated tighten/release of the cord.

Yet the cord was clearly applied successfully and with fatal results, and the question of timing with the head blow is, like everything else in this case, arguable, as Dr. Meyer's autopsy report is ambiguous on this issue at best. So I can say that I haven't completely ruled out some sibling revenge gone wrong, or worse, someone deciding that the sexual abuse of JonBenet was going to come out and deciding to stop or control the inevitable fallout, protecting the abuser.

Maybe JonBenet had a teacher or psychologist tell her class or maybe even her specificallly about "bad touches," etc. Patsy said in the '98 interview she talked to JonBenet about that, so clearly it was something of which the child could have been aware by Dec. 25th. Maybe Patsy didn't talk to her about it in that way--we have to consider Patsy's stories very carefully, of course, because of her many lies to LE and the public. But someone could have, and that could have led to a blow up. Pam Archuleta, the pilot's then wife, said in a pro-Ramsey interview a couple of years ago that Patsy was concerned about JonBenet acting inappropriately in a sexual way with people--"flirting" and "too friendly" were the words Mrs. Archuleta said Patsy used. The Dec. 17th after hours calls to Dr. Beuf which have never been explained, as Patsy "didn't remember"; the precocious pageant training and dress; Det. Tom Haney on record in the '98 interview telling Patsy flat out there was evidence of prior sexual assault--I can't imagine how anyone can deny the obvious evidence on this.

Yet denial is strong in humans. I recently looked at the poll here asking if people thought JB had been molested prior to the night of the murder. I was astonished that over 30 people who answered still haven't been able to accept that those chronic vaginal injuries were no coincidence when the child was sexually assaulted on the night she was murdered, as well.

These are the questions I'd love to see addressed by someone inside the case, with evidence in hand to lay these issues to rest once and for all. At least for reasonable, sane people.

Sorry to go on and on. It's my curse. :banghead:

 

[UKGuy]

If the head blow was in fact struck accidently--and while I consider this likely, I'm by no means unable to imagine something more sinister after watching the Ramseys operate for 15 years--I agree lack of medical attention was to keep medical personnel from discovering the sexual abuse.

But I'm not sure if that was to keep her from talking, as I think whoever struck that blow clearly heard what would have been a chilling, mortal crack to her skull. While there was no visible evidence because of her hair and scalp, as well as the lack of a scalp laceration, unless it was Burke, who would have been frightened, no doubt, but wouldn't have known this was certain death for his sister, I think the person who attacked the child knew immediately it was all over for her.

Of course, it could be that person wanted to be sure, which led to the strangulation. There also had to be a cover up, a blame put upon "an intruder," as well, to tie in all the elements of the crimes committed against the child.

But you know all this.

The point I do want to make is that I'm not entirely convinced the blow to the head and the strangulation weren't done simultaneously. Without expert medical testimony examined and argued at trial, we have differing "media" opinions about the time between this head blow and strangulation, not to mention the order of these injuries.

I do think the argument the head blow came first is strong because of the lack of defense wounds. But if there were a way someone could have put the cord around the child's neck without her resisting, that's a consideration. I'm not convinced there was some kind of sexual game going on, per Dr. Wecht's theory--because I can't imagine any adult trying erotic strangulation on a child like JonBenet, who was on very public display all the time, especially not without some kind of cushion/padding under the cord, which is commonly used by people who practice this kind of sex game to prevent detection on themselves. Also I cannot see any evidence in the bruising on the neck indicating there was a repeated tighten/release of the cord.

Yet the cord was clearly applied successfully and with fatal results, and the question of timing with the head blow is, like everything else in this case, arguable, as Dr. Meyer's autopsy report is ambiguous on this issue at best. So I can say that I haven't completely ruled out some sibling revenge gone wrong, or worse, someone deciding that the sexual abuse of JonBenet was going to come out and deciding to stop or control the inevitable fallout, protecting the abuser.

Maybe JonBenet had a teacher or psychologist tell her class or maybe even her specificallly about "bad touches," etc. Patsy said in the '98 interview she talked to JonBenet about that, so clearly it was something of which the child could have been aware by Dec. 25th. Maybe Patsy didn't talk to her about it in that way--we have to consider Patsy's stories very carefully, of course, because of her many lies to LE and the public. But someone could have, and that could have led to a blow up. Pam Archuleta, the pilot's then wife, said in a pro-Ramsey interview a couple of years ago that Patsy was concerned about JonBenet acting inappropriately in a sexual way with people--"flirting" and "too friendly" were the words Mrs. Archuleta said Patsy used. The Dec. 17th after hours calls to Dr. Beuf which have never been explained, as Patsy "didn't remember"; the precocious pageant training and dress; Det. Tom Haney on record in the '98 interview telling Patsy flat out there was evidence of prior sexual assault--I can't imagine how anyone can deny the obvious evidence on this.

Yet denial is strong in humans. I recently looked at the poll here asking if people thought JB had been molested prior to the night of the murder. I was astonished that over 30 people who answered still haven't been able to accept that those chronic vaginal injuries were no coincidence when the child was sexually assaulted on the night she was murdered, as well.

These are the questions I'd love to see addressed by someone inside the case, with evidence in hand to lay these issues to rest once and for all. At least for reasonable, sane people.

Sorry to go on and on. It's my curse. :banghead:

KoldKase,

The point I do want to make is that I'm not entirely convinced the blow to the head and the strangulation weren't done simultaneously. Without expert medical testimony examined and argued at trial, we have differing "media" opinions about the time between this head blow and strangulation, not to mention the order of these injuries.

Although the forensic evidence suggests PDI, Patsy's fibers etc. It may not be as straight forward as we think. Its entirely possible for someone else to have strangled JonBenet with the cord upstairs, to which, down in the basement, Patsy added the paintbrush handle?

I reckon whichever way you cut it, however you sequence events, the bottom line is someone deliberately, with premeditation, killed JonBenet.

I think the main difficulty in this case is comprehending how two parents colluded to stage their daughters death, whilst denying any involvement.

Which makes me wonder if it was BDI, with the R's making some early moring phone calls, scoping out the likely consequences, and finding out Burke was beneath the age of criminal responsibility. They proceed to engineer an abduction scenario, all with the tacit approval of the DA's office, since subsequently, discretion would be guaranteed? With no results relating to Ramsey DNA being released, could Burke's touch-dna have been found on JonBenet?

Since JonBenet's death was a sexually motivated homicide, there are obviously two main suspects. Assuming this with a high probability, then another scenario is BDI but as the direct result of an accident. Yet unknown to Burke, a short period before, another person had sexually assaulted JonBenet.

Patsy was concerned about JonBenet acting inappropriately in a sexual way with people--"flirting" and "too friendly" were the words Mrs. Archuleta said Patsy used.

When I was six I never knew the meaning of sexual anything intimate was the subject of giggles and childish laughter. So I find it astonishing that Patsy should consider it normative for JonBenet to be behaving in a sexual way, albeit inappropriately?

Its obvious Patsy knew what was going on in her own house!


.

 

[KoldKase]

KoldKase,

Although the forensic evidence suggests PDI, Patsy's fibers etc. It may not be as straight forward as we think. Its entirely possible for someone else to have strangled JonBenet with the cord upstairs, to which, down in the basement, Patsy added the paintbrush handle?

I reckon whichever way you cut it, however you sequence events, the bottom line is someone deliberately, with premeditation, killed JonBenet.

I think the main difficulty in this case is comprehending how two parents colluded to stage their daughters death, whilst denying any involvement.

Which makes me wonder if it was BDI, with the R's making some early moring phone calls, scoping out the likely consequences, and finding out Burke was beneath the age of criminal responsibility. They proceed to engineer an abduction scenario, all with the tacit approval of the DA's office, since subsequently, discretion would be guaranteed? With no results relating to Ramsey DNA being released, could Burke's touch-dna have been found on JonBenet?

Since JonBenet's death was a sexually motivated homicide, there are obviously two main suspects. Assuming this with a high probability, then another scenario is BDI but as the direct result of an accident. Yet unknown to Burke, a short period before, another person had sexually assaulted JonBenet.

There it is. Without those phone records subpoenaed early on, without the BPD having full investigative powers and the backing of the DA, WITH the DAs--both Hunter and Lacy--obstructing the BPD investigaiton, there are still possiblities we can't rule out with the evidence we know about.

When I was six I never knew the meaning of sexual anything intimate was the subject of giggles and childish laughter. So I find it astonishing that Patsy should consider it normative for JonBenet to be behaving in a sexual way, albeit inappropriately?

Its obvious Patsy knew what was going on in her own house!


.

Exactly. Well done, UKGuy. You've expressed the issues I've had with what Pam Archuleta said since I read it.

In the context of all the other evidence in this case, all else we know, how can anyone take that as some unrelated concern of Patsy's? To express it to basically JR's employee's wife--though they were close and Mrs. Archuleta did organize and coordinate various Christmas Parade entries which Burke and JB participated in, as well--is just plain creepy. It expresses what Patsy was thinking about, what she was worried about and how she translated JB's behavior.

Which brings one to the question: what did Patsy see?

 

[sandover]

The new info has to both reveal "the truth" from Tricia's POV but also not lead to any arrests, as on the radio show Tricia speaks as if the case will never be solved.

This leads me to believe that a friend of the Ramseys will speak out and claim that it is their BELIEF based on post-crime behavior that the Ramseys are responsible for the murder of JonBenet.

Anything stronger than that could lead to charges; anything weaker than that wouldn't reveal "the truth." No?

 

[wonderllama]

"Another voice" will enter the arena...

Cryptic? Another voice on the 911 tape perhaps?
The voice of BR?????


This fits in with the "no arrests" but does catch them out in a lie.
A very important lie.
A lie that would then be used by any self-respecting journo when interviewing JR.

And now that he's done his book tour, he'd feel no obligation to discuss anything more with anyone.

This has got to be it in my books.

 

[azwriter]

shotgunhomicide,
It is likely to be both. It may have started as an accident, but ended with JonBenet's premediated and deliberate asphyxiation. In a prior accident JonBenet was rushed to hospital, on this occasion, not so, she was denied medical assistance. Suggesting someone wished her to remain silent, to never speak about who had assaulted her, either acutely or chronically!

The R's knew full well if JonBenet was given medical assistance, she might recover and relate what had occurred that night and before. So what to do, cover it all up with a ransom note and fake garrote!

******************************************************************************

I have never viewed this case in that light. I've mostly gone the accident route and the parents not fully aware she was near death and not dead when the strangling device was applied. I figured it, the garrote, was needed for shock value and to make officials believe parents would never do this to their own child.

However after reading you post, it's a new light bulb in my head: It's as if she had to die in order not to tell who was abusing her. Well, duh. Where have I been? Great post for new thought.

 

[UKGuy]

shotgunhomicide,
It is likely to be both. It may have started as an accident, but ended with JonBenet's premediated and deliberate asphyxiation. In a prior accident JonBenet was rushed to hospital, on this occasion, not so, she was denied medical assistance. Suggesting someone wished her to remain silent, to never speak about who had assaulted her, either acutely or chronically!

The R's knew full well if JonBenet was given medical assistance, she might recover and relate what had occurred that night and before. So what to do, cover it all up with a ransom note and fake garrote!

******************************************************************************

I have never viewed this case in that light. I've mostly gone the accident route and the parents not fully aware she was near death and not dead when the strangling device was applied. I figured it, the garrote, was needed for shock value and to make officials believe parents would never do this to their own child.

However after reading you post, it's a new light bulb in my head: It's as if she had to die in order not to tell who was abusing her. Well, duh. Where have I been? Great post for new thought.

azwriter,
Thanks, I've had a few aha moments myself. I think its the staging that messes stuff up. It, quite properly, allows people to develop theories, whilst consistent, eventually constitute a forest of WDIs, leading to brain-death lol.

This is why I have termed her death a Sexually Motivated Homicide, it highlights the probable motive, and questions the staging. The R's biggest mistake was the staging, no staging and we would all likely be looking for an intruder?

I figured it, the garrote, was needed for shock value and to make officials believe parents would never do this to their own child.

The garrote is, IMO, pure staging. Enter C Wecht with his EA theory, an example of someone, adding to the forest of theories. The trick is to consider the crime-scene and ask, is there anything unusual here. Think about the serial killer who has been dumping bodies on Long Beach, how might you expect his sites to look, and possibly deviate from a location where the person was actually murdered at that location?

With JonBenet, her person has been staged, size-12's, longjohns applied, body wiped clean etc, then wrapped in a blanket, all neat and tidy. Now contrast this with the wine-cellar itself, what do we have simply the contents of some obscure storage facility. There are no blood spatters, stains etc, remnants of binding, EA tools, no extraneous footprints, or even multiple strange footprints, simply nothing!

All this suggests JonBenet was simply dumped into the wine-cellar after she was killed, along with the partially opened Christmas Gifts. So if you believe C. Wecht's theory, why go to the bother of staging JonBenet but leave your EA Device hanging from her neck?

The obvious answer is that the garrote is staging to mask something else just as her size-12's and longjohns are present to mask another thing. This is also consistent with the evidence that the garrote is not particularly well constructed to act as an EA Device.

So the forensic evidence leads straight to Patsy's front door, her fibers are on the garrote and the underside of the duct-tape, whilst this is not proof that Patsy asphyxiated JonBenet, it places her at the crime-scene.



.

 

[UKGuy]

There it is. Without those phone records subpoenaed early on, without the BPD having full investigative powers and the backing of the DA, WITH the DAs--both Hunter and Lacy--obstructing the BPD investigaiton, there are still possiblities we can't rule out with the evidence we know about.



Exactly. Well done, UKGuy. You've expressed the issues I've had with what Pam Archuleta said since I read it.

In the context of all the other evidence in this case, all else we know, how can anyone take that as some unrelated concern of Patsy's? To express it to basically JR's employee's wife--though they were close and Mrs. Archuleta did organize and coordinate various Christmas Parade entries which Burke and JB participated in, as well--is just plain creepy. It expresses what Patsy was thinking about, what she was worried about and how she translated JB's behavior.

Which brings one to the question: what did Patsy see?

KoldKase,
I reckon Patsy knew JonBenet was being molested, possibly by more than one person, and she was worried JonBenet might reveal this by whatever Patsy considered flirting was for a six-year old girl? So Patsy was attempting some form of damage limitation.

If you add in all the other circumstantial evidence, e.g. JonBenet requesting to be wiped down, playing doctor with Burke, her pageant dance routines incorporating erotic movements etc.

That Patsy knew is consistent with the assumption that Patsy asphyxiated JonBenet. Otherwise we have, say John doing it, but Patsy's fibers are on the garrote?

On the surface it appears someone sexually assaulted JonBenet, then Patsy asphyxiated her, possibly redressed her, dumped her in the wine-cellar, wrote the ransom note, then dialled 911?

Which all suggests to me that JonBenet was killed because she would have revealed that she was being sexually molested!


.

 

[rashomon]

The obvious answer is that the garrote is staging to mask something else just as her size-12's and longjohns are present to mask another thing. This is also consistent with the evidence that the garrote is not particularly well constructed to act as an EA Device.

So the forensic evidence leads straight to Patsy's front door, her fibers are on the garrote and the underside of the duct-tape, whilst this is not proof that Patsy asphyxiated JonBenet, it places her at the crime-scene.

Absolutely.
Since crucial evidence (fibers, ransom note) is linked to Patsy, she must have played a key role at least in the staging, if not in the killing as well.
Maybe Patsy's touch DNA has been detected on the ligature that was around JonBenet's neck? Or her (or John's) touch DNA has been found on the oversized Bloomies, or on the longjohns?
Whatever the truth is - I'm convinced that it is linked to the forensic evidence we already know about, with additional evidence probably confirming that which is already known.

Speaking of sourced evidence: It would interest me whether what is going to be revealed addresses and explains all the physical evidence that could be sourced, like e. g. the fibers from John's black shirt that were found in the victim's size 12-underwear.
These fibers place John at the crime scene too.

 

[UKGuy]

Absolutely.
Since crucial evidence (fibers, ransom note) is linked to Patsy, she must have played a key role at least in the staging, if not in the killing as well.
Maybe Patsy's touch DNA has been detected on the ligature that was around JonBenet's neck? Or her (or John's) touch DNA has been found on the oversized Bloomies, or on the longjohns?
Whatever the truth is - I'm convinced that it is linked to the forensic evidence we already know about, with additional evidence probably confirming that which is already known.

Speaking of sourced evidence: It would interest me whether what is going to be revealed addresses and explains all the physical evidence that could be sourced, like e. g. the fibers from John's black shirt that were found in the victim's size 12-underwear.
These fibers place John at the crime scene too.

rashomon,

Since crucial evidence (fibers, ransom note) is linked to Patsy, she must have played a key role at least in the staging, if not in the killing as well.

Nice to see you posting. Yes, the evidence supports Patsy's direct involvement, my only doubt is whether she actually asphyxiated JonBenet or simply added the garrote? The latter even makes sense since she was the painter/artist not John.

Maybe Patsy's touch DNA has been detected on the ligature that was around JonBenet's neck? Or her (or John's) touch DNA has been found on the oversized Bloomies, or on the longjohns?

Assuming they never wore gloves, the R's touch dna will be all over JonBenet, but since we assume the size-12's and longjohns were clean on her, only touch dna from specific persons should be attached? Its also notable that the DAs office has released information relating to stranger touch dna, but nothing regarding the locations of any Ramsey touch dna, why so? If they are so innocent, publish and be damned! e.g. Could Burke Ramsey's touch dna appear on the size-12's?

the fibers from John's black shirt that were found in the victim's size 12-underwear.
These fibers place John at the crime scene too.

I agree, yet with nearly everyone thinking Patsy redressed JonBenet, size-12's etc, they seem to be an anomaly. Which of course they are not. Its simply our theory is wrong somewhere.

I suspect John wiped down and redressed JonBenet upstairs or at least someone did, maybe Patsy took over from here, applying the size-12's? That is John may have been present at another crime-scene?

It appears to me the more you look, the more you find Patsy's fingerprints, metaphorically at least, all over the crime-scene. Its as if she took charge at one point, then fabricated an entire abduction scenario, complete with oscar winning rendition on the 911 call?

If you also assume Patsy was present at the pineapple snack then Patsy's involvement runs like a thread, with only what is unknown missing?


So if it was PDI, why would John get involved to wipe JonBenet down? Why should an innocent John expose himself to the real risk that someone elses crime might come back to bite him?

If it was JDI why should Patsy go to such lengths as attaching a garrote to her daughters neck, then dumping her in the wine-cellar?

Either they are both culpable or they are protecting a third party e.g Burke Ramsey, I can see no other option.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

Patsy's "flirting" comment sounds like she is trying to "excuse" the sexual abuse by blaming JB's behavior. Classic behavior, by the way, in many cases of abuse where the mother, instead of protecting the child, blames the child for "encouraging" it.

 

[BBB167893]

Interesting guesses, everyone. At this point, I'd be glad to hear something uncensored and based in fact from ANYONE. Having said that, we know we'll never get the un-spun truth from Team Ramsey.

I will say I think whoever Tricia's "source" is, the big reveal is going to be in the form of a book. The movable timeline, with no definite dates being shared, tells me that it's all being done rather under the radar and the person in question, not to mention the publisher, is involved in a lengthy production process. Most books have release dates well in advance, though. So it makes me wonder if this book will be self-published.

SuperDave? Are you going to amaze us with your efforts soon? :wink:

Fast as I can, KK!

 

[BBB167893]

Absolutely.
Since crucial evidence (fibers, ransom note) is linked to Patsy, she must have played a key role at least in the staging, if not in the killing as well.
Maybe Patsy's touch DNA has been detected on the ligature that was around JonBenet's neck? Or her (or John's) touch DNA has been found on the oversized Bloomies, or on the longjohns?
Whatever the truth is - I'm convinced that it is linked to the forensic evidence we already know about, with additional evidence probably confirming that which is already known.

Speaking of sourced evidence: It would interest me whether what is going to be revealed addresses and explains all the physical evidence that could be sourced, like e. g. the fibers from John's black shirt that were found in the victim's size 12-underwear.
These fibers place John at the crime scene too.

Rashomon! It's been too long.

 

[azwriter]

azwriter,
Thanks, I've had a few aha moments myself. I think its the staging that messes stuff up. It, quite properly, allows people to develop theories, whilst consistent, eventually constitute a forest of WDIs, leading to brain-death lol.

This is why I have termed her death a Sexually Motivated Homicide, it highlights the probable motive, and questions the staging. The R's biggest mistake was the staging, no staging and we would all likely be looking for an intruder?


The garrote is, IMO, pure staging. Enter C Wecht with his EA theory, an example of someone, adding to the forest of theories. The trick is to consider the crime-scene and ask, is there anything unusual here. Think about the serial killer who has been dumping bodies on Long Beach, how might you expect his sites to look, and possibly deviate from a location where the person was actually murdered at that location?

With JonBenet, her person has been staged, size-12's, longjohns applied, body wiped clean etc, then wrapped in a blanket, all neat and tidy. Now contrast this with the wine-cellar itself, what do we have simply the contents of some obscure storage facility. There are no blood spatters, stains etc, remnants of binding, EA tools, no extraneous footprints, or even multiple strange footprints, simply nothing!

All this suggests JonBenet was simply dumped into the wine-cellar after she was killed, along with the partially opened Christmas Gifts. So if you believe C. Wecht's theory, why go to the bother of staging JonBenet but leave your EA Device hanging from her neck?

The obvious answer is that the garrote is staging to mask something else just as her size-12's and longjohns are present to mask another thing. This is also consistent with the evidence that the garrote is not particularly well constructed to act as an EA Device.

So the forensic evidence leads straight to Patsy's front door, her fibers are on the garrote and the underside of the duct-tape, whilst this is not proof that Patsy asphyxiated JonBenet, it places her at the crime-scene.



.

Sexually Motivated Homicide is an on target title, UK.
I have always had difficulty with Dr. Wecht's idea of how the garrott was used and for what reason. I just can't buy that.

And yes, the garrott ( a lame title for this murder weapon) was done absolutely for staging purposes. Agree with you there 100 percent.

As a former journalist, I look at the ransom (letter) with a different pair of eyes. I see the layout of the letter, use of certain words and puncutation very familiar to my former career as a newspaper reporter. Whoever printed this note was trained to writing for publications and press releases and uses much of the AP style used by newspapers across the country. After 22 plus years in that occupation, those clues jump out at me when I see this ransom note (letter).

jmo

 

[UKGuy]

Sexually Motivated Homicide is an on target title, UK.
I have always had difficulty with Dr. Wecht's idea of how the garrott was used and for what reason. I just can't buy that.

And yes, the garrott ( a lame title for this murder weapon) was done absolutely for staging purposes. Agree with you there 100 percent.

As a former journalist, I look at the ransom (letter) with a different pair of eyes. I see the layout of the letter, use of certain words and puncutation very familiar to my former career as a newspaper reporter. Whoever printed this note was trained to writing for publications and press releases and uses much of the AP style used by newspapers across the country. After 22 plus years in that occupation, those clues jump out at me when I see this ransom note (letter).

jmo

azwriter,
Yes, with the Ransom Note having such a layout, along with all the other items that are staged, which link directly to Patsy. It looks to me as if she was responsible for most of the staging.

I used to think it was John who was the major force behind the staging, but that was when I thought JonBenet was killed in the basement. I now think she was simply dumped into the wine-cellar, after all the staging.

The plan was probably to dump JonBenet somewhere outdoors away from the house, hence the blanket. For some reason this was abandoned, or possibly it was an undoing mechanism, and they were just playing for time?

IMO Patsy was a major player in the death of JonBenet, she also knew JonBenet was being molested, e.g. flirting, so you have to wonder just what was going on in that house?



.

 

[KoldKase]

KoldKase,
I reckon Patsy knew JonBenet was being molested, possibly by more than one person, and she was worried JonBenet might reveal this by whatever Patsy considered flirting was for a six-year old girl? So Patsy was attempting some form of damage limitation.

If you add in all the other circumstantial evidence, e.g. JonBenet requesting to be wiped down, playing doctor with Burke, her pageant dance routines incorporating erotic movements etc.

That Patsy knew is consistent with the assumption that Patsy asphyxiated JonBenet. Otherwise we have, say John doing it, but Patsy's fibers are on the garrote?

On the surface it appears someone sexually assaulted JonBenet, then Patsy asphyxiated her, possibly redressed her, dumped her in the wine-cellar, wrote the ransom note, then dialled 911?

Which all suggests to me that JonBenet was killed because she would have revealed that she was being sexually molested!

When it comes right down to it, all the evidence does lead to Patsy. John's shirt fibers found on the genitalia could have been transferred, accidently or deliberately, as he certainly had contact with JB at the White's and at home later that night, even if it were to put her to bed or carrying her upstairs, etc. It's very common for children to straddle a parent's torso while being carried.

I've long believe the on-going sexual abuse was in fact the motive, or at least the precipitating stressor and catalyst that led to the murder. Most of us would be shocked to learn how many parents blame the victim, how many families conspire to cover up abuse rather than protect the abused.

 

[UKGuy]

When it comes right down to it, all the evidence does lead to Patsy. John's shirt fibers found on the genitalia could have been transferred, accidently or deliberately, as he certainly had contact with JB at the White's and at home later that night, even if it were to put her to bed or carrying her upstairs, etc. It's very common for children to straddle a parent's torso while being carried.

I've long believe the on-going sexual abuse was in fact the motive, or at least the precipitating stressor and catalyst that led to the murder. Most of us would be shocked to learn how many parents blame the victim, how many families conspire to cover up abuse rather than protect the abused.

KoldKase,

When it comes right down to it, all the evidence does lead to Patsy. John's shirt fibers found on the genitalia could have been transferred, accidently or deliberately, as he certainly had contact with JB at the White's and at home later that night, even if it were to put her to bed or carrying her upstairs, etc. It's very common for children to straddle a parent's torso while being carried.

I agree. If it were a Columbo movie, then Patsy would be who we saw in the opening scenes, down in the basement, writing the ransom note, attaching the paintbrush handle to the ligature, dialling 911 etc. Yet for the viewers there might be a twist, in that, although we thought we saw Patsy asphyxiate, then stage JonBenet's death, followed by an Oscar winning performance, before and after dialling 911. When actually all she was doing was fabricating a staged crime-scene, complete with her fibers etc.

But good ole Columbo he notes there are fibers where fibers should not be. He looks up at the ceiling, tapping his forehead, and says she was wiped down, so there should be no fibers on her! Does this mean John's shirt was used to wipe down JonBenet, I reckon so. Did Patsy sneak into John's room for his shirt, then return it later, I doubt it. Remember John's evidence about leaving the redressing of JonBenet to Patsy, he really wanted to distance himself from any JonBenet contact!

Then there are the bloodstains on JonBenet's underwear why so? Is this staging or the result of some sexual asault? Then there is the evidence, so far, yet to be released, e.g. how many pairs of size-6 Bloomingdales were in JonBenet's underwear drawer, and was there a missing Wednesday pair; were any of the partially opened gifts intended for Jenny; what was left inside JonBenet; where is the missing piece of the painbrush; what was the purpose of the barbie doll and the pink nightgown?

So I reckon Columbo would have a lot of one more question Sir for John, he would work out everything that looked as if Patsy had killed then staged JonBenet's death was done with a particular motive in mind, e.g. to hide that she had been sexually molested. Otherwise you just leave JonBenet wearing her size-6 Bloomingdales, including bloodstains, and simply redress her in the longjohns and wrap her in the white blanket, voila, molestation gone.

In JonBenet's case a proper staging was attempted, but either they were so successful that we believe some of the staging is evidence, e.g. the bloodstains as molestation, or there was an acute sexual assault, which was intended to be wiped and cleaned away, hence the application of the size-12's, a detail in the staging that Columbo would note is superfluous.

So Columbo would reason the Wednesday detail mattered to the stager, but not to us, since what could we infer if JonBenet had been found wearing a Tuesday pair of size-6 Bloomingdales?

So Columbo would likely arrive at the conclusion that JonBenet was sexually assaulted then killed either accidentally or deliberately because she would have talked? And that all this took place prior to Patsy's actions in fabricating a crime-scene.

So did Patsy act alone? The black woolen fibers and acute sexual assault suggest not. So why would the parents collude to stage a homicide crime-scene, well only if they both had something to hide?

Patsy, was to pardon the pun, no patsy, she was complicit in the death of JonBenet. She was no domestic violence victim, not subject to grinding poverty, or a deprived background redolent of past notorious killers.

So what was she attempting to hide, patently not JonBenet's actual demise, her passing would have been self evident, and no amount of staging could magic that away. So it must be the sexual abuse, this is what was being hidden, with an attempt to wipe down and cleanup JonBenet, all unneccessary of course, since she was a victim of a pedophile with an EA fetish and size-12 Bloomingdales?

I've long believe the on-going sexual abuse was in fact the motive, or at least the precipitating stressor and catalyst that led to the murder. Most of us would be shocked to learn how many parents blame the victim, how many families conspire to cover up abuse rather than protect the abused.

Yes I agree, the death of JonBenet was a Sexually Motivated Homicide, which was staged as that of a bedtime abduction, so to reduce the evidence of any prior sexual abuse. For me the only unknown is which person in the Ramsey household abused JonBenet that fateful night?


.

 

[Limaes]

The Ramsey's representations about the facts and the evidence that have supported their intruder theory in this crime will soon face a greater public scrutiny.

I'll have a guess and say either a documentary (wouldn't that be great ) or a book. Since Tricia stated "voice" rather than "voices" then it must be a solo crusade by someone who is actually privy to the real evidence and possesses the necessary qualifications to speak about it.

Whoever it is, I would just like to say GOOD ON YOU for having the courage that so many in this case have lacked, to stand up for what is right and attempt to clear the very muddied waters in this case. And to those loyal people, who for over 15 yrs, have not let this case go and continue to post against the injustices...if it wasn't for you, JR would sleep better at night haha so I am also happy for you guys that finally something positive is coming your way. Woohoo!...can't wait :woohoo:

 

[madeleine]

KoldKase,
I reckon Patsy knew JonBenet was being molested, possibly by more than one person, and she was worried JonBenet might reveal this by whatever Patsy considered flirting was for a six-year old girl? So Patsy was attempting some form of damage limitation.

If you add in all the other circumstantial evidence, e.g. JonBenet requesting to be wiped down, playing doctor with Burke, her pageant dance routines incorporating erotic movements etc.

That Patsy knew is consistent with the assumption that Patsy asphyxiated JonBenet. Otherwise we have, say John doing it, but Patsy's fibers are on the garrote?

On the surface it appears someone sexually assaulted JonBenet, then Patsy asphyxiated her, possibly redressed her, dumped her in the wine-cellar, wrote the ransom note, then dialled 911?

Which all suggests to me that JonBenet was killed because she would have revealed that she was being sexually molested!


.

your post made me think of something (re PDI)I never thought of before....so we know that for PR it was all about image,reputation (even JB being a beauty queen was about that)....now JB was already starting to talk,telling ppl about Santa's secret visits (we know the cops found a santa suit in the R home,who was playing Santa,JR,JAR?).....maybe JB was killed to prevent her from talking,to be silenced,to prevent her from ruining the "perfect" family from the "perfect" town....maybe it's just that simple....you don't have to be very smart to realize that a molested child can't keep that a secret (be fooled) forever....and JB being killed at Xmas time....maybe someone thought this would be the perfect "gift"for everyone involved.getting rid of "the problem" (it's obvious to me that PR was never too attached to JB,"THAT child....",the beauty queen,etc)

 

[UKGuy]

your post made me think of something (re PDI)I never thought of before....so we know that for PR it was all about image,reputation (even JB being a beauty queen was about that)....now JB was already starting to talk,telling ppl about Santa's secret visits (we know the cops found a santa suit in the R home,who was playing Santa,JR,JAR?).....maybe JB was killed to prevent her from talking,to be silenced,to prevent her from ruining the "perfect" family from the "perfect" town....maybe it's just that simple....you don't have to be very smart to realize that a molested child can't keep that a secret (be fooled) forever....and JB being killed at Xmas time....maybe someone thought this would be the perfect "gift"for everyone involved.getting rid of "the problem" (it's obvious to me that PR was never too attached to JB,"THAT child....",the beauty queen,etc)

madeleine,
I do not think anyone chose Christmas, in particular, to kill JonBenet. But I do think she was killed because medical assistance would bring her internal injuries to the attention of medical professionals, and she would have told them what had been taking place.

It was not planned since the staging is so amateurish and there were some pretty obvious errors, e.g. size-12's, pineapple snack, fibers, etc.

Where JonBenet was initially assaulted, the clothes she was wearing, have I reckon been removed and disguised. I think there was another crime-scene, one we know nothing about, from which JonBenet was relocated to the wine-cellar.

My money would be on one of the bedrooms, for this location, and I would select the neatest bedroom for close inspection.



.