What's eating you alive re this case?

[questfortrue]

Needing money can be a very powerful motivator. You don't know who did or didn't murder this child, the Ramseys were cleared too, but a lot of people think they did it.

I agree no one knows for a certainty who committed the crime; we're just theorizing about what the evidence shows us.

However, the ”clearing” of the Rs was done by a DA in 2006 (ML) not the BPD. Scattered throughout the threads of this forum and the FFJ forum is evidence of that DA’s confirmation bias, her knowledge of the True Bills which she did not acknowledge to a judge who was ruling on a lawsuit between Boulder and LHP, her supposed unaware stance of other different samples of TDNA at the crime scene, and her notorious arrest of a confessor to the homicide who wasn’t even in Colorado at the time of the crime. The current DA has publicly indicated that no one in the home is cleared, in spite of what the former DA did. Essentially current DA SG "un-exonerated" the Rs.

As far as others like the housekeeper, the Ws, an employee of Access Graphics etc., all have been cleared by the BPD who currently control all evidence and investigation of this cold case.

This touches on one of the sad issues with this case (to me anyway). It's the innuendos and accusations against people who have already been cleared by the BPD. While there is no new evidence to warrant a further review of any of those who've been cleared, these innuendos seem to perpetually return.
MHO

 

[DeeDee249]

Needing money can be a very powerful motivator. You don't know who did or didn't murder this child, the Ramseys were cleared too, but a lot of people think they did it.

The then-DA Mary Lacy said it herself- NO ONE can really be cleared of a murder until there is a conviction. There has to be a NAMED killer for someone, even the Ramseys, to be "cleared". Her "clearing" was lip service, nothing more, and has no legal weight. When the new DA took over, he claimed that as far as he was concerned, no one was cleared. This is especially true for the 3 people who were in the house at the time JB was killed.

 

[tweezybird]

This is what I found on the Enquirer website
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/true-crime/exclusive-new-jon-benet-ramsey-evidence
no mention of Edwards

Question for Tricia, can you ask Kolar if the Apple Dumpling Gang is real?

 

[cynic]

This is what I found on the Enquirer website
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/true-crime/exclusive-new-jon-benet-ramsey-evidence
no mention of Edwards

Question for Tricia, can you ask Kolar if the Apple Dumpling Gang is real?

The ADG is real, have a look at FFJ; the "revelations" from both the Enquirer and Globe are addressed.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10342-Lou-Smit-lives-on

 

[887sMtreme]

It has bothered me for years that nobody seems to have looked into the possibility that JR and PR wrote the RN together -- perhaps with John dictating at first, then Patsy adding her loopy embellishments. (Please forgive me if this idea has been offered in the past. I'd love to have a link to such a discussion, if there is one.) Linguists have pointed out stylistic consistencies between the RN diction and both of the Ramseys known speech and writing.

I think if it could be proven that both of them contributed to the note, then it would be easier for me to construct a scenario in which some God-awful loss of control on the part of one or more other Ramseys in the house that night resulted in JBR's death, followed by a communal ("What do you want me to do?") coverup.

 

[UKGuy]

It has bothered me for years that nobody seems to have looked into the possibility that JR and PR wrote the RN together -- perhaps with John dictating at first, then Patsy adding her loopy embellishments. (Please forgive me if this idea has been offered in the past. I'd love to have a link to such a discussion, if there is one.) Linguists have pointed out stylistic consistencies between the RN diction and both of the Ramseys known speech and writing.

I think if it could be proven that both of them contributed to the note, then it would be easier for me to construct a scenario in which some God-awful loss of control on the part of one or more other Ramseys in the house that night resulted in JBR's death, followed by a communal ("What do you want me to do?") coverup.

887sMtreme,
Conventionally a PDI theory assumed only Patsy authored the RN and similarly for a JDI theory. BDI assumes, however you arrive there, that Patsy and John co-authored the RN. Once you accept the evidence for collusion on part of all three remaining R's, then co-authorship is a necessity, otherwise they sing from different hymn sheets.

IMO the primary crime-scene was located upstairs with the latter crime-scene abandonded in favor of a new one, e.g. a kidnapping that required a RN. We can speculate about the motive but that the wine-cellar is staging is accepted by nearly everyone except IDI and those with outlying theories.

Linguists have pointed out stylistic consistencies between the RN diction and both of the Ramseys known speech and writing.

Its available somewhere particularly where some favor PR and others JR as the sole author, but co-authorship with input from both parents seems the most likely, since either parent will want to assess the final draft, regardless of which one you think authored it manually?

.

 

[887sMtreme]

Thank you for your response. Since I'm new at posting here, I especially appreciate a cordial reception

I tend to agree with your opinion about an upstairs crime scene (and possible initial staging), with a downstairs finale. I'll continue to monitor these discussions to absorb more ideas while letting my own simmer a bit.

 

[icedtea4me]

I wonder if Patsy would have had any menstruation following her stage 4 ovarian cancer?

 

[DeeDee249]

I wonder if Patsy would have had any menstruation following her stage 4 ovarian cancer?

If she had a total hysterectomy, she would obviously never have another period because there would be no uterine lining to shed. Almost certainly, both ovaries would have been removed. But even if she still retained her uterus, the ovaries' cyclic release of a egg which then is not fertilized is what triggers the uterine lining to shed. With no egg release, there should be no uterine shedding (aka period). Women undergoing treatment and chemotherapy for cancers like ovarian, uterine, or breast are usually placed in menopause, either surgically (by removing the ovaries, which produce estrogen) or by chemically suppressing estrogen production. Either way, the result is cessation of menses.

I think what you are getting at is the "missing period" after the letter "C" is a euphemism for Patsy no longer getting her period. Frankly, I think that is a bit of a stretch for me. We can try to read many clues into that odd acronym, but I don't think that is one of them. I don't think she was consciously making a statement about no longer getting periods.

 

[icedtea4me]

If she had a total hysterectomy, she would obviously never have another period because there would be no uterine lining to shed. Almost certainly, both ovaries would have been removed. But even if she still retained her uterus, the ovaries' cyclic release of a egg which then is not fertilized is what triggers the uterine lining to shed. With no egg release, there should be no uterine shedding (aka period). Women undergoing treatment and chemotherapy for cancers like ovarian, uterine, or breast are usually placed in menopause, either surgically (by removing the ovaries, which produce estrogen) or by chemically suppressing estrogen production. Either way, the result is cessation of menses.

I think what you are getting at is the "missing period" after the letter "C" is a euphemism for Patsy no longer getting her period. Frankly, I think that is a bit of a stretch for me. We can try to read many clues into that odd acronym, but I don't think that is one of them. I don't think she was consciously making a statement about no longer getting periods.

Based on the size of the preceding letters (i.e. S.B.T.), is the C the big C or the little c?

What about subconsciously?

 

[BeckyJacks]

Perhaps I'm just being a strange form of optimistic, but I believe that knowing the correct answer to any one of those questions would fill in the blanks for the rest.

 

[DeeDee249]

Based on the size of the preceding letters (i.e. S.B.T.), is the C the big C or the little c?

What about subconsciously?

I suppose you can't rule out anything subconscious, but I still think it's a stretch. There is some hidden meaning behind that acronym, to be sure. Those letters weren't just random choices. But it is certainly "insider" information, and the specific letters chosen may not actually have anything to do with the crime or any person(s) intended to be a focus of the investigation. It could just be something the RN author was familiar with and decided to use. Patsy was documented as frequently using acronyms, and specifically, putting a period between the letters, which is not always done. In seeing copies of her Christmas newsletter and some other writings, she used them to describe herself, too, signing her letters with an acronym consisting of her initials and college degree(s). example- P.P.R.B.A.M.A. -something like that. Translation- Patsy Paugh Ramsey Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts.

 

[Intheamadhouse]

I don't know if this is the best place to post this, but since I can not post a new thread (maybe my post count is not high enough?), I'm going to stick it in this one.

I keep circling back to the strangulation. I know that some people think that the garrotte is evidence of staging, but why is it needed at all? It seems to unneeded.

I assume that it was a quick way to explain her death, but why not just leave the body in the WC? That seems to be just as easy. "Oh No! JB must have come down here playing a game/to look for the unopened presents/as a joke/sleepwalking/who knows why 6 year olds do what they do and been trapped! What if our baby froze to death in our own basement! What if she panicked and had a heart attack!"

What would that have changed? JR could have still snatched her up and carried her upstairs, disturbing evidence. All LE would have had then was a dead little girl, who could have died of anything, including natural causes. By strangling her and leaving the ugly rope on her neck, they instantly knew that they had a murder. True, the head injury would have still been found at autopsy, even without the strangulation, but that wouldn't happen for hours, giving both sides time to figure out what to do.

I just don't get why she was strangled at all. They had to have known she was dying and would be gone before the police were ever called, or even thought that she was already dead. Why not just wrap her little body in that blanket and leave it in the WC? Was the act of strangulation itself important?

For the record, I do think that Pansy hit her in an act of rage, and she and JR staged the scene together. I go back and forth about whether the previous vaginal trauma was from an outside person (not an intruder that night) or innocent play with her brother.

 

[BOESP]

Well, Intheamadhouse, I'm old-school and still believe that Patsy grabbed JonBenet by the neck of her clothing (for instance, the red turtleneck sweater and/or JonBenet's necklace), twisting it, and man-handling JonBenet into the bathroom prior to the head trauma. I think the ligature was used to disguise the mark made from this reckless behavior.

 

[OliviaG1996]

I don't know if this is the best place to post this, but since I can not post a new thread (maybe my post count is not high enough?), I'm going to stick it in this one.

I keep circling back to the strangulation. I know that some people think that the garrotte is evidence of staging, but why is it needed at all? It seems to unneeded.

I assume that it was a quick way to explain her death, but why not just leave the body in the WC? That seems to be just as easy. "Oh No! JB must have come down here playing a game/to look for the unopened presents/as a joke/sleepwalking/who knows why 6 year olds do what they do and been trapped! What if our baby froze to death in our own basement! What if she panicked and had a heart attack!"

What would that have changed? JR could have still snatched her up and carried her upstairs, disturbing evidence. All LE would have had then was a dead little girl, who could have died of anything, including natural causes. By strangling her and leaving the ugly rope on her neck, they instantly knew that they had a murder. True, the head injury would have still been found at autopsy, even without the strangulation, but that wouldn't happen for hours, giving both sides time to figure out what to do.

I just don't get why she was strangled at all. They had to have known she was dying and would be gone before the police were ever called, or even thought that she was already dead. Why not just wrap her little body in that blanket and leave it in the WC? Was the act of strangulation itself important?

For the record, I do think that Pansy hit her in an act of rage, and she and JR staged the scene together. I go back and forth about whether the previous vaginal trauma was from an outside person (not an intruder that night) or innocent play with her brother.

This is a very good question, Intheamadhouse, and I have thought about this before also. James Kolar's book spells it out perfectly:


From Foreign Faction- Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? by James Kolar:

Dr. Werner Spitz, forensic medical examiner for Wayne County, Michigan, had conducted extensive studies on the wounds caused by the application of force and was considered a leading expert on the topic.

He offered an opinion on the sequencing of injuries that had been inflicted upon JonBenet during her murder:

1. This first injury sustained by JonBenet was believed to have been the constriction marks on the sides and front of her throat. He believed that her assailant had grabbed her shirt from the front and twisted the collar in their fist. The cloth from the edge of the collar had created the discolored, striated bruising and abrasions on the sides of her neck, and the knuckles of the perpetrator had caused the triangular shaped bruise located on the front side of her throat.


The other events include the head bash and strangulation with cord. To me, this implies that the reason for the strangulation with cord was to cover up the marks of the first technical "strangulation". The person who committed the first strangulation (or anything having to do with the murder) is up for debate, but it's my understanding that James Kolar (and I) believes BR is the one who grabbed JBR by her collar, leaving the marks of the first strangulation.

 

[tovarisch]

This is a very good question, Intheamadhouse, and I have thought about this before also. James Kolar's book spells it out perfectly:


From Foreign Faction- Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? by James Kolar:

Dr. Werner Spitz, forensic medical examiner for Wayne County, Michigan, had conducted extensive studies on the wounds caused by the application of force and was considered a leading expert on the topic.

He offered an opinion on the sequencing of injuries that had been inflicted upon JonBenet during her murder:

1. This first injury sustained by JonBenet was believed to have been the constriction marks on the sides and front of her throat. He believed that her assailant had grabbed her shirt from the front and twisted the collar in their fist. The cloth from the edge of the collar had created the discolored, striated bruising and abrasions on the sides of her neck, and the knuckles of the perpetrator had caused the triangular shaped bruise located on the front side of her throat.


The other events include the head bash and strangulation with cord. To me, this implies that the reason for the strangulation with cord was to cover up the marks of the first technical "strangulation". The person who committed the first strangulation (or anything having to do with the murder) is up for debate, but it's my understanding that James Kolar (and I) believes BR is the one who grabbed JBR by her collar, leaving the marks of the first strangulation.[/QUOT

Olivia, do you know if LE identified so called "shirt" that was a primary weapon? Which one was it, and how badly was it (if) stretched and dis-formed? Were any fibers from this "shirt" left on JB`s throat? Have LE made any lab tests on the "shirt" and issued reports, how Spitz based his opinion it was "a shirt", upon what findings?

 

[OliviaG1996]

Olivia, do you know if LE identified so called "shirt" that was a primary weapon? Which one was it, and how badly was it (if) stretched and dis-formed?

James Kolar has theorized that the shirt worn by JBR while the first strangulation had possibly been taking place was the red turtleneck later found balled up on the floor of JBR's bathroom. I personally believe she was wearing the pink Barbie nightgown, but there's no way to know for sure.

Were any fibers from this "shirt" left on JB`s throat?

I haven't heard of fibers from any of JBR's articles of clothing found anywhere on her body, so her neck is no exception.

Have LE made any lab tests on the "shirt" and issued reports, how Spitz based his opinion it was "a shirt", upon what findings?

I'm not a medical expert like Dr. Werner Spitz is, but I believe he would be able to tell whether the mark left on her neck was left by the collar of a shirt or, for example, a scarf, based on the different textures of the items. In addition, I don't think Dr. Werner Spitz had an opinion on which shirt/article of clothing was worn during this attack.

 

[tovarisch]

James Kolar has theorized that the shirt worn by JBR while the first strangulation had possibly been taking place was the red turtleneck later found balled up on the floor of JBR's bathroom. I personally believe she was wearing the pink Barbie nightgown, but there's no way to know for sure.



I haven't heard of fibers from any of JBR's articles of clothing found anywhere on her body, so her neck is no exception.



I'm not a medical expert like Dr. Werner Spitz is, but I believe he would be able to tell whether the mark left on her neck was left by the collar of a shirt or, for example, a scarf, based on the different textures of the items. In addition, I don't think Dr. Werner Spitz had an opinion on which shirt/article of clothing was worn during this attack.

Scarf is not the shirt. Dr. Spitz claimed the shirt. If shirt had an impact on the throat vise versa the shirt would show an impact of it use for the assault . You have said that Kolar offered PERFECT opinion of Dr. What you, Olivia find perfect in this theory ? Red turtleneck? Why not yellow raincoat?

 

[OliviaG1996]

Scarf is not the shirt. Dr. Spitz claimed the shirt. If shirt had an impact on the throat vise versa the shirt would show an impact of it use for the assault .

Not necessarily. Who says you can't grab someone by the collar and not leave a scratch on the shirt/clothing in question? Certainly it can leave the area it was grabbed a little wrinkly, and who's to say the article of clothing in question wasn't? I haven't heard anything stating the Barbie nightgown/red turtleneck sweater was left in pristine condition, have you?

You have said that Kolar offered PERFECT opinion of Dr. What you, Olivia find perfect in this theory ?

I found Kolar's reasoning behind why the cord was used in the cover-up perfect because if JR and PR found JBR unconscious with marks indicating strangulation on her neck, there's no way they could tell police that this was an accident. What better way to show police that this crime wasn't an accident? Cover-up what their other child (in my opinion) had done and make it look like an intruder had done everything.

Red turtleneck? Why not yellow raincoat?

A yellow raincoat was not found balled up on JBR's bathroom floor. It wasn't next to her body in the wine cellar, either.

 

[tovarisch]

Not necessarily. Who says you can't grab someone by the collar and not leave a scratch on the shirt/clothing in question? Certainly it can leave the area it was grabbed a little wrinkly, and who's to say the article of clothing in question wasn't? I haven't heard anything stating the Barbie nightgown/red turtleneck sweater was left in pristine condition, have you?



I found Kolar's reasoning behind why the cord was used in the cover-up perfect because if JR and PR found JBR unconscious with marks indicating strangulation on her neck, there's no way they could tell police that this was an accident. What better way to show police that this crime wasn't an accident? Cover-up what their other child (in my opinion) had done and make it look like an intruder had done everything.



A yellow raincoat was not found balled up on JBR's bathroom floor. It wasn't next to her body in the wine cellar, either.

Not found? Oh, they disposed of it! As well they disposed of grandma Nedra`s puple galoshes. That left the high tech print in the basement. Oh, you say I do not bring the fact to my opinion. Wait a minute, LE was asking Patsy if she had pink/purple gloves. It was purple galoshes!