What's eating you alive re this case?

[BBB167893]

You're on the right track, SD. Both that store and McGuckin's, a local hardware store carried the Stansport cord. Thomas found that Patsy had purchased an item from the sporting goods section of McGuckin's on 12/02/96 for the same price as the Stansport - $2.29. (from ST's book)

I knew I wasn't failing yet!

 

[TeaTime]

Stansport utility cord shows up on outdoorsy, sporty sites. For tents, boats, etc.

JBR played with her bike that day, sat on it and rode it a little bit. All that foreign tDNA under her nails came off of that bike. There is no telling how many people touched it. And if JBR was trying to sit on her bike in giant panties on Christmas, it may explain the foreign DNA in other spots. IMO

 

[Annapurna]

M


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mhenry1]

The ransom note and the staging tell two different stories. The ransom note implies a vendetta against John specifically. The staging implies an assault by a deranged child pedophile. To this day, the Ramsey's publicly say they believe a child predator killed JonBenet. So which is it? Why would Patsy write a ransom note that insinuated a personal hatred toward John in the form of a "foreign faction," yet they promote the narrative of a child predator obsessed with JonBenet, who brutally and slowly killed her for erotic pleasure? The ransom note makes no sense if written by a predator. It tells the tale of a disgruntled employee or business associate that seeks to punish John. If Patsy wrote the note, why didn't they stage the scene to implicate a disgruntled employee? Or why didn't she write the note to imply a sexual predator (maybe mentioned JonBenet's pageant performances, instead of John). Why would the Ramsey's promote the sexual predator story if the ransom note's aim was to frame a business associate? This really bothers me!

 

[buggiegirl]

Just for clarification, was it 9 or 10 that they got home? I always thought it was 10, but I could be wrong.

Anyways, I mean, in a way I can understand a 6 year old being tired after a long day like that and having to be carried to bed by a parent -- and this wasn't just some ordinary day, it was Christmas day, where you're pretty much going nonstop as a kid, playing with your toys every chance you get from the minute you wake up, then going to a party and playing/running around with all your friends there. In addition, I imagine a 6 year old's bedtime would be around 10 ordinarily. At face value, I don't find the story of her being carried upstairs suspicious. It could have not played out as JR said -- granted -- but the story in and of itself is believable at face value.

It's the exact sequence of events (that I outlined in my post above) that I find the most suspicious.

Whoa, my kids are just 5, but they go to bed at 630pm usually! I don't think they have ever stayed up until 10pm without falling asleep. Every kid is different of course, but being carried upstairs after being in the car strikes me as completely normal for that age. My kids fall asleep on the 30 minute drive to preschool pretty much everyday and that's at noon.

 

[SecretaryGal]

:giggle:

Whoa, my kids are just 5, but they go to bed at 630pm usually! I don't think they have ever stayed up until 10pm without falling asleep. Every kid is different of course, but being carried upstairs after being in the car strikes me as completely normal for that age. My kids fall asleep on the 30 minute drive to preschool pretty much everyday and that's at noon.

 

[what-did-YOU-find]

This is a great site and i'm pretty sure I'm asking questions that have already been asked but unfortunately even the advance search does not show the specific posts related to my search term

I have seen and understand it to be a genuine crime scene video that shows a white pillow on the kitchen counter. In earlier crime scene photos the pillow is not there.

I believe in either Kolar's or Steve Thomas's book they mention items not appearing how they did on the morning?

Has it been established if the pillow was up or downstairs as then one seems to be photographed at the top of her bed?

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=DCnNV4-rEKeC8QeH2Y_gAw#q=zonked+definition

verb
past tense: zonked; past participle: zonked

• 1.
  hit or strike.
  "Charley really zonked me"
  
  
  
  

That makes me think of Princess Bride and Vizzini

"Inconceivable!"

https://youtu.be/Z3sLhnDJJn0


JonBenet might very well been "zonked" and carried to bed when they got home, but sometime after that she was awake and eating pineapple.

 

[AlGx]

The fact that this little girl suffered such a horrible & gruesome death and no-one knows who or why so.
And also what bugged me was the way the mum and dad acted- refusing to talk to police straight after JB was murdered but going on live TV a week after?? :thinking: Just my opinion- but why did they not try their hardest to find out who killed their daughter??

 

[UKGuy]

This is a great site and i'm pretty sure I'm asking questions that have already been asked but unfortunately even the advance search does not show the specific posts related to my search term

I have seen and understand it to be a genuine crime scene video that shows a white pillow on the kitchen counter. In earlier crime scene photos the pillow is not there.

I believe in either Kolar's or Steve Thomas's book they mention items not appearing how they did on the morning?

Has it been established if the pillow was up or downstairs as then one seems to be photographed at the top of her bed?

what-did-YOU-find,
If the case is BDI All, then BR knew what could be found, and if he is in on the staging, he does not need to ask that.

From memory there was a pillow in the kitchen on the table. Some have speculated it was used to comfort JonBenet after she was whacked on the head?

This might be why Kolar thinks, it all started in the breakfast bar?

Yet the pillow is patently portable, so could have been anywhere on its travels?

During the period between the blunt force trauma and the asphyxiation, I can imagine JonBenet with her head lying on a pillow?

If so you might think it would yield some forensic evidence ?

.

 

[AlGx]

what-did-YOU-find,
If the case is BDI All, then BR knew what could be found, and if he is in on the staging, he does not need to ask that.

From memory there was a pillow in the kitchen on the table. Some have speculated it was used to comfort JonBenet after she was whacked on the head?

This might be why Kolar thinks, it all started in the breakfast bar?

Yet the pillow is patently portable, so could have been anywhere on its travels?

During the period between the blunt force trauma and the asphyxiation, I can imagine JonBenet with her head lying on a pillow?

If so you might think it would yield some forensic evidence ?

.

Did they ever find this pillow? if so, was JB's DNA on it?

 

[AlGx]

I have always wondered where JB's body was when the ransom note was being written (Whether it was written after she had been struck on the head)??

 

[BoldBear]

This is a great site and i'm pretty sure I'm asking questions that have already been asked but unfortunately even the advance search does not show the specific posts related to my search term

I have seen and understand it to be a genuine crime scene video that shows a white pillow on the kitchen counter. In earlier crime scene photos the pillow is not there.

I believe in either Kolar's or Steve Thomas's book they mention items not appearing how they did on the morning?

Has it been established if the pillow was up or downstairs as then one seems to be photographed at the top of her bed?

JB's pillow was on the end of her bed. It had a Beauty and the Beast pillowcase on it.

There was a pillow with a white pillowcase on the kitchen counter in the area described as the breakfast bar. That was moved in later photos.

 

[Springrain]

I picked "how did it happen", as in, what happened directly before the sequence of events, and what time did it happen?

 

[AndHence]

The ransom note and the staging tell two different stories. The ransom note implies a vendetta against John specifically. The staging implies an assault by a deranged child pedophile. To this day, the Ramsey's publicly say they believe a child predator killed JonBenet. So which is it? Why would Patsy write a ransom note that insinuated a personal hatred toward John in the form of a "foreign faction," yet they promote the narrative of a child predator obsessed with JonBenet, who brutally and slowly killed her for erotic pleasure? The ransom note makes no sense if written by a predator. It tells the tale of a disgruntled employee or business associate that seeks to punish John. If Patsy wrote the note, why didn't they stage the scene to implicate a disgruntled employee? Or why didn't she write the note to imply a sexual predator (maybe mentioned JonBenet's pageant performances, instead of John). Why would the Ramsey's promote the sexual predator story if the ransom note's aim was to frame a business associate? This really bothers me!

Good post with some really great questions. If we do a careful reading of the Ramseys statements within the first year after the crime, they make no effort to emphasize the sexual abuse angle -- they know it only points towards someone with frequent access to JonBenet (i.e., a family member). Patsy acts surprised to learn there was evidence of JonBenet being sexually abused during her interview, but is strangely incurious about it. Patsy even downplays the pageants she made JonBenet perform in, which is odd since it would make JonBenet an open target for a pedophile and thus explain some of the forensic evidence. The Ramseys spent most of the formative months of the investigation attempting to implicate either the housekeeper or one of John's business associates. It is only after Lou Smit changed the direction of the case with his intruder theory that we begin to see the Ramseys incorporate the pedophile/intruder angle into their beliefs about what happened that night.

 

[CircuitGuy]

The ransom note and the staging tell two different stories. The ransom note implies a vendetta against John specifically. The staging implies an assault by a deranged child pedophile. To this day, the Ramsey's publicly say they believe a child predator killed JonBenet. So which is it? Why would Patsy write a ransom note that insinuated a personal hatred toward John in the form of a "foreign faction," yet they promote the narrative of a child predator obsessed with JonBenet, who brutally and slowly killed her for erotic pleasure? The ransom note makes no sense if written by a predator. It tells the tale of a disgruntled employee or business associate that seeks to punish John. If Patsy wrote the note, why didn't they stage the scene to implicate a disgruntled employee? Or why didn't she write the note to imply a sexual predator (maybe mentioned JonBenet's pageant performances, instead of John). Why would the Ramsey's promote the sexual predator story if the ransom note's aim was to frame a business associate? This really bothers me!

We have had years to mull this over. The architects of the coverup had less than eight hours on Christmas night to put something together. They were probably shocked, distraught, and debating whether to cover it up, how to cover it up, and who was to blame. Once they decided to put together a coverup, they had limited time and no modern Internet to search for facts. They weren't serial criminals or criminologists, so they had to draw everything from what they remembered from films and books. Given the limited time, I suspect one person handled the note (probably PR) and one person handled the body (probably JR). It would take a long time just to transcribe the note. It could easily take hours to formulate content and disguise the handwriting.

In this theory, the person doing the staging focused on making it look like a sex crime. This approach makes sense since JBR did pageants and photos dressed as an adult woman, which might get the attention of sexual predators. The person writing the note drew heavily from recent films and put a smattering of ideas that pointed to a disgruntled employee, political enemy, or an angry friend/lover. The idea with this approach was to point to anyone outside the house. It pointed to different types of perpetrators, either because of of the difficulty in putting together something coherent under these circumstances or in the hope that law enforcement would find some evidence consistent with at least on possibility and that would draw attention outside the house. Police did not seize on one of the possibilities in the RN. The sexual predator scenario was more likely. In retrospect they should have forgone the RN and just reported her missing. I don't think the RN worked at confusing the police; I think they got lucky.

Bigger than these flaws is the flaw that they wrote a RN when the body was in the house. Maybe there was some plan to take it to some exhausting location, but I think this was just an extremely poorly thought-through plan. After thinking about it a few days, they probably thought of so many things they could have done differently.

Having given this so much thought, it's almost impossible to put myself in the shoes of someone who just heard about it for the first time. Someone here suggested maybe the thought process was "We'll write a RN that emphasizes if you call anyone she dies. We'll call everyone, saying we didn't read that far. Then they kill her because of it." This in no way explains the body in the basement, but it's a plan hatched by people who are tired, upset, possibly blaming one another, and who have hours to come up with something. I think they came up with something complicated but that makes no sense, and they got lucky in getting away with it despite the inept coverup.

 

[CircuitGuy]

If I wake up in the mornin and find a note in my livin room from a stranger saying " I helped myself to a blogna sandwich and took a nap on your couch" I'm searchin the house from top to bottom. I'm lookin in every room. I'm lookin in the closets, I'm lookin under the beds. Then I'm going to look around in the yard.
What eats me alive the most is the insult to our intelligence.

This is so true. I don't understand why even the police didn't think this first. Why did they assume the perpetrator had left the house? They called the police at 6am the day after Christmas. It's easy to imagine the perpetrator didn't plan for them to get up that early and had to duck into a hiding place. I completely agree with your idea of searching the house even if I found a note with an odd but benign message. I would search the house even if it appeared to be an everyday crime like someone ran in and grabbed a portable TV set or something to sell for a day's or two worth of drug fix.

 

[UKGuy]

We have had years to mull this over. The architects of the coverup had less than eight hours on Christmas night to put something together. They were probably shocked, distraught, and debating whether to cover it up, how to cover it up, and who was to blame. Once they decided to put together a coverup, they had limited time and no modern Internet to search for facts. They weren't serial criminals or criminologists, so they had to draw everything from what they remembered from films and books. Given the limited time, I suspect one person handled the note (probably PR) and one person handled the body (probably JR). It would take a long time just to transcribe the note. It could easily take hours to formulate content and disguise the handwriting.

In this theory, the person doing the staging focused on making it look like a sex crime. This approach makes sense since JBR did pageants and photos dressed as an adult woman, which might get the attention of sexual predators. The person writing the note drew heavily from recent films and put a smattering of ideas that pointed to a disgruntled employee, political enemy, or an angry friend/lover. The idea with this approach was to point to anyone outside the house. It pointed to different types of perpetrators, either because of of the difficulty in putting together something coherent under these circumstances or in the hope that law enforcement would find some evidence consistent with at least on possibility and that would draw attention outside the house. Police did not seize on one of the possibilities in the RN. The sexual predator scenario was more likely. In retrospect they should have forgone the RN and just reported her missing. I don't think the RN worked at confusing the police; I think they got lucky.

Bigger than these flaws is the flaw that they wrote a RN when the body was in the house. Maybe there was some plan to take it to some exhausting location, but I think this was just an extremely poorly thought-through plan. After thinking about it a few days, they probably thought of so many things they could have done differently.

Having given this so much thought, it's almost impossible to put myself in the shoes of someone who just heard about it for the first time. Someone here suggested maybe the thought process was "We'll write a RN that emphasizes if you call anyone she dies. We'll call everyone, saying we didn't read that far. Then they kill her because of it." This in no way explains the body in the basement, but it's a plan hatched by people who are tired, upset, possibly blaming one another, and who have hours to come up with something. I think they came up with something complicated but that makes no sense, and they got lucky in getting away with it despite the inept coverup.

CircuitGuy,
With respect, I doubt the R's thought as you describe above.

Their motivation was to hide another crime, they were not attempting crime-scene 101 for dummies.

They were creating a fake crime-scene that looked consistent with JonBenet's prior injuries.

1. She was ligature asphyxiated.

2. She was assaulted with the paintbrush

3. She was wiped down, q.v. Meyer.

4. She was moved into the wine-cellar.


The plan was plausible denial via obfuscation of the forensic evidence.

They obviously had a desired outcome which failed to be realized, so they ended up colluding with Lou Smit and his intruder theory, i.e. not a kidnapper, there is a difference.

Moving JonBenet from the primary crime-scene to the basement probably prompted the RN, as everything else could be done at any other location.

.

 

[Ambitioned]

They were creating a fake crime-scene that looked consistent with JonBenet's prior injuries.

.

Absolutely!

Good Gawd, are people still entertaining intruder theories? :maddening:

 

[BoldBear]

Absolutely!

Good Gawd, are people still entertaining intruder theories? :maddening:

:devil: In my world that would be a challenge, but I know too much about this and am drawing a blank. There is a sub reddit that is nothing but intruder.

I just spent the last month going over the party on the 23rd. On the surface, you'd think there wasn't much to it. This party has a story all to itself and somehow it seemed to get buried.