Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[eileenhawkeye]

Thats exciting! It sounds like it might be mostly about the media circus though :/

Yeah, it doesn't sound like it is going to investigate the case but I like that it is being done by an independent filmmaker rather than a big media company. This is the first documentary on the case that has been sent to film festivals instead of just being on TV.

 

[Anti-K]

Merry Christmas to everyone!! Happy Holidays!

…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Sorry about snipping before, I didn't know that was wrong. The post was long so I thought I'd leave the reference link there but not take up space on the forum. I'll just leave it then and take up space.

It seems like you don't really have a speculation then. From everything I have read from you, this is how it seems to me. Please tell me if I'm wrong. Right now it looks like you are just stating facts that both sides see, and then just simply stating an intruder did this for unknown reasons. For example, instead of saying why the pen and pad were placed back, you just say "they were put there by an intruder." And there you stop. No reason, no name of possible intruder, no nothing but an established fact and then you saying an intruder was responsible.

I don't know how this is helpful or useful for discussions on this forum.

Don’t worry about the snipping. I’d just never seem someone snip everything before.
.

You’re a little bit right.
My suspect is DNA-man (CODIS/tDNA). No one knows who this is; so, of course, I don’t name him. My suspect is a stranger to the Ramseys. He has not been investigated.

This “theory” is years and years old. Much of what is missing from it has been presented elsewhere in one form or another. You’ve seen an outline without detail.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I'm not saying it was a preconceived plan to put the threats in there. But think about. Stressed out Patsy, sitting there alone all night writing that academy award winning ransom note. The it's time to call the police and she thinks "I put those threats in there about calling the police ". So what does she do? Just deny ever having read the note, simple as that.

I never said John definitely had nothing to do with the crime pre-911 call, I said it's a possibility. I say "Ramsey's " because I believe Burke and Patsy are definitely involved and John either was or would eventually become involved.

"And, for all RDI, why do you think the Ramseys didn’t simply say, “We went in her room. She was gone, there was a note. We read it, panicked and called 911.”

That's essentially what they did isn't it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Having it both ways is okay. You don’t have to explain. It is sensible. Maybe Ramsey participated, maybe he didn’t. If RDI, we don’t know.
.

AK: "And, for all RDI, why do you think the Ramseys didn’t simply say, “We went in her room. She was gone, there was a note. We read it, panicked and called 911.”
Andreww: That's essentially what they did isn't it?


Sort of, but not really. I mean, “We went in her room. She was gone, there was a note ON HER BED. We read it, panicked and called 911.”
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I didn't read more than the first few lines because you are sapping my energy, and everyone else's.

Bottom line, if you don't think your make believe intruder had OCD, then stop writing it in your posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, but I never once wrote that he had OCD.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

:hypno:
AK...
Perhaps you have repeated the above utter nonsense to yourself too many times. It might be wise to consider the possibility that your "made-up phrase" only makes sense to YOU. And that by repeating it or trying to explain it in a public forum, you could be diminishing your credibility even more THAN your intruder theory itself.

No more explanations please, certainly not for my benefit. I no longer care. period.

With respect, I think it is your turn to admit that you were wrong:
BBM

Difference Between Motive and Intention
• Categorized under Words | Difference Between Motive and Intention
Motive vs Intention
Motive and intention are both aspects in the field of law and justice. They are also associated with a suspect with the particular purposes of proving or disproving a particular case or crime.

“Motive” refers to the reason or the “why” the crime was committed. It is often the background of the suspect in committing the alleged crime. As a background, motive comes before intent. Unlike intent, motive can be determined, but its existence doesn’t exactly prove guilt. It can be refuted by evidence or an alibi on a suspected person’s part (often referred to as “a person of interest” in criminal jargon). A motive is often based on the probability that the person has reason to commit the crime but no supporting evidence that the motive was carried out in the action. Motive is an initial factor but not a conclusive action to link a person to the crime.

Motive is also based in the realm of psychology. Motive, as a psychological term, is also known as the drive and is often classified into two main types – the physiological motives and the psychological or social motives.

“Intent,” on the other hand, is the supposed action or purpose of the crime. It is the result of the motive and has a higher level of culpability since a harmful action was committed. Intent is characterized as a deliberate action and conscious effort to break the law and commit the offence. Intent resides in the field of law where it is defined as the planning and longing to perform an act. It is present in both criminal law and tort law.

To be specific, a scenario of intent in criminal law often involves the prosecutor in a court of law filing a charge of a crime against a suspect with veritable motive and intent. Since the intent is the final goal of the motive, it needs to be proven in order to prove that the suspect did to commit the crime. Intent has more legal standing and weight compared to motive in a court of law and is a requirement to make a case along with the means and opportunity.

As for criminal intent, there are four levels as described in the Moral Penal Code:
(1) Purposely – At this level, the suspect expresses his purpose to commit a specific crime against a particular person.
(2) Knowingly – The suspect has knowledge and consciousness that his actions will be considered a crime in the eyes of the law. However, the suspect can inflict a crime on a person who is not his intended victim.
(3) Recklessly – The suspect knows the risks involved in his actions and the situation but disregards the risk and continues to perform the crime regardless.
(4) Negligently – The suspect does not take into account various possible scenarios that will happen during the action of the crime which often leads to losing control of the situation and probably causing more casualties.

Summary:
1.Motive and intent are very closely related to each other. Motive precedes intent in terms of action.
2.Motive is mainly in the field of psychology whereas intent is nestled in the field of law.
3.Motive is the reason behind the intent while intent is the background of the committed crime.
4.Both motive and intent should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but intent has a weightier standing and bearing in a court of law compared to motive.
5.Intent is part of the three aspects to prove the crime (with means and opportunity) while motive can stand for itself.
6.Motive applies to all persons of interest which can include the suspect. However, intent can be solely focused on the suspect.
7.Motive is very arbitrary. It cannot prove or justify guilt or the actions pertaining to the crime. A person with a motive can be eliminated or solidified with the help of the evidence or alibi. In the case of intent, the evidence or alibi solidified the case against the suspect.
http://tinyurl.com/j7zsmgn

…

AK

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

I believe nothing R said..:violin: My thought those 12 size panties ( could be 10-12 ) are JB's not present for the niece.. They probably were used when she put diapers on.. size 6-8 dont fit over diapers imo. Just an opinion of course....
so I have to think on a scenario accordigly :detective:

 

[Anti-K]

Yeah the coroner was sloppy, probably irritated to be called away from christmas. He did not do any of the tests that would determine cause of death at the scene.

The hand bindings are strange. The length between them seem to suggest they were put on after rigor had set in. I believe that the length could also be explained by someone using up all of the remaining cord. Then there is no cord to have to dispose of. Additionally the tape may have been ripped off of something. It was only the one piece, and one less thing to get rid of. Then the only remaining evidence to hide/dispose of is her panties and the tip of the brush. Simple enough to throw into the furnace. No plastic or nylon which wouldn't burn well.


About Domestic Violence:

I think the whole house was dysfunctional. It's possible that PR was the aggressor, not JR. She seems more unstable.
She's not the victim type. She seems very "take charge" by stories of her event planning and as class mom and all that. We usually assume the male must be the perpetrator (as stats support) but female perpetrated domestic violence is underreported.

PR was clearly controlling with her children. It's possible she used her children against JR, to control him too. Its also possible she used her children against each other (your sister would never do that! etc.) That would cause rivalry and be specifically harming to BR as he was older and likely to be less compliant. I believe PR may have had Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This can cause some really toxic households. I think her mother Nedra shows some signs as well. If this kind of controlling behavior was normalized in her upbringing, she would probably mirror it with her own children. Frequently away from home, JR may have not known the extent of her behavior. NPD can cause a great deal of anxiety in the children of someone with it. I remember the housekeeper said BR's bedwetting stopped when he stopped being the target of PR's attention.

I think the Paughs show symptoms of being an enmeshed family, which is often comorbid with an NPD parent. The way PR and her sister were part of pageants and the way Nedra pushed for JB to be Miss America show signs of them trying hard to please their mother. PR is very much a people-pleaser

I know this is out of left field, but I have some sneaking suspicions about some sexual abuse going on in PR's family home. If she grew up with this, it again might normalize certain behavior. If the SA was never acknowledged in her family and she never got any help dealing with it, she may have just repressed it or stayed in denial. Trauma at a young age can cause a kind of "compartmentalization" in people. If PR had that, it may have contributed to her reasoning for staging the scene. She would have wanted to hide and deny the problem more than maybe she would have already. In doing this she also allowed herself to deny that it even really happened. To lie to herself much more easily. Perhaps to the point where she believes herself.

To continue the idea of PR experiencing SA at a young age, I have another idea (completely without evidence other than knowing what happens in other families). Perhaps (big perhaps) BR was being molested by PR's father Don Paugh (I don't feel like looking up if that's his name, correct me if I'm wrong). JB was clearly molested. She was molested on an ongoing basis. It seems likely that BR was involved. PR and JR don't seem like molesters (I know that means less than nothing). If BR was molested, he would have learned that behavior of predation and could have inflicted in on JB. It seems like if JR was molesting JB, they probably wouldn't have stayed together. Same sex maternal sexual abuse is somewhat rare and tends to happen under different circumstances.



Anyhow, all totally conjecture. Ignore if you like.


.........

Merry Christmas everyone. Non-denominational prayers and positive energy to all, especially to the memory of the one who brings us all together.

I hope the Ghost of Christmas Past visits one of us and brings us to Boulder, 1996. Full Moon tonight too. Any witches out there? A powerful night for magic tonight. Ask the spirits to guide us.

I’ve done a lot of weird experiments and things trying to get a better understanding of what happened here. This is what I learned about the wrist ligatures.

IMO, the loops are of a fixed size. You cannot tie them around anything. You have to tie the loop first and then you slip them on. Which means that your victim can slip them off, too.

I was tied as jbr was with 17 inches of cord between my wrists. I walked upstairs, out the door, got in my car and drove to the corner store – stick shift – slipped off the ligatures, went into the store, slipped the ligatures back on in the car and drove home. You can do anything tied like this. I showered (you can’t take your shirt off, or put it on). I cooked a meal and ate it. I posted.

The wrist ligatures would not have interfered with the victim’s movements in any meaningful way. She could have easily slipped them off if she had wanted to. So, she must have been tied for some other reason than restraint.

IMO, the person who tied jbr did so solely for the sake of appearance. Perhaps, for personal reason, he liked the way it looked. Or he may have been thinking about how it would look to others. So, how would it look to others? It would look fake.

This fits with the idea of staging. I see the tape, and the ransom note and the hands tied and I see a fake kidnapping. The note is fake, the tape is fake and the tied hands are fake.
A fake kidnapping contradicts what the Ramseys, if RDI needed to do because the fake kidnapping looks OBVIOUSLY fake; the Ramseys, if RDI, should have made some attempt to make things look real. Even a stupid person would know how to make someone look as if they were tied up.

The ligature around the neck looks real (it IS real!). The person who tied this had no problem with real; but the wrist ligatures look fake.

If investigators had discovered the body (as they should have) what would they have seen? The body, under a blanket with the arms exposed, extended, and raised above the head, loosely bound. Fake. The exposed, raised arms draw attention. Look at me. The ligatures become obvious. Obviously fake.

What did the FBI supposedly say? If this was staging it was unlike any they had seen before. Staging within staging…

My “theory” of intent is that the killer, by “deliberate action and conscious effort,” <1> staged a (OBVIOUS to profilers; and, me! ) fake kidnapping.

He wanted it to be obvious that it was fake. It is not a “theory” of why (motive) he staged a fake (staged) kidnapping. It is a “theory” that says that the killer staged a fake (staged) kidnapping. He wrote the note with intent. He made it “hinky” with intent. He used the notepad and pen with intent. He put the notepad and pen away with intent. He left the so-called practice note in the notepad with intent. He removed pages from the notepad with intent. He placed the notepad and the ransom note in proximity with intent. He used the paintbrush with intent. He broke it with intent. He put the brush end in the paint tote with intent. He tied the handle to the cord with intent. He hid the body with intent. He latched the wc door with intent. He wrapped the body with intent. He used the tape with intent. He tied fixed loops that could slip off with ease with intent. He left enough length between wrists to allow for freedom of movement with intent. He raised the arms above the head with intent. The killer, by “deliberate action and conscious effort,” took steps to prevent, minimize or make ambiguous any evidence of entry/exit. Etc, etc and any idiot could have planned and prepped for this as long as they used JOHN Douglas’ “Mindhunter” (hurting the ones we love chapter) as template.
Every single “deliberate action and conscious effort” (INTENT!) directed towards creating (and, inviting!) a scene for profilers. Look at me!

The killer in this “theory” is of a specific type with specific traits. He is restricted by the “theory.” He is not malleable and I cannot change his nature or knowledge or desires or characteristics to fit any question or objection or scenario.

This “theory” is falsifiable. If the motive was kidnapping, if the motive was sexual. If the killer deliberately left evidence that could be traced back to him. If no unsourced trace evidence existed. If all possibility of entrance/exit could be eliminated. If no note existed. If items used could not be traced to the home. On and on, falsifiable in so many ways.
HOLY COW! I got carried away with this one! Anybody left standing? Good grief.

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY.

<1> http://tinyurl.com/j7zsmgn
…

AK

 

[icedtea4me]

I&#8217;ve done a lot of weird experiments and things trying to get a better understanding of what happened here. This is what I learned about the wrist ligatures.

IMO, the loops are of a fixed size. You cannot tie them around anything. You have to tie the loop first and then you slip them on. Which means that your victim can slip them off, too.

I was tied as jbr was with 17 inches of cord between my wrists. I walked upstairs, out the door, got in my car and drove to the corner store &#8211; stick shift &#8211; slipped off the ligatures, went into the store, slipped the ligatures back on in the car and drove home. You can do anything tied like this. I showered (you can&#8217;t take your shirt off, or put it on). I cooked a meal and ate it. I posted.

The wrist ligatures would not have interfered with the victim&#8217;s movements in any meaningful way. She could have easily slipped them off if she had wanted to. So, she must have been tied for some other reason than restraint.

IMO, the person who tied jbr did so solely for the sake of appearance. Perhaps, for personal reason, he liked the way it looked. Or he may have been thinking about how it would look to others. So, how would it look to others? It would look fake.

This fits with the idea of staging. I see the tape, and the ransom note and the hands tied and I see a fake kidnapping. The note is fake, the tape is fake and the tied hands are fake.
A fake kidnapping contradicts what the Ramseys, if RDI needed to do because the fake kidnapping looks OBVIOUSLY fake; the Ramseys, if RDI, should have made some attempt to make things look real. Even a stupid person would know how to make someone look as if they were tied up.

The ligature around the neck looks real (it IS real!). The person who tied this had no problem with real; but the wrist ligatures look fake.

If investigators had discovered the body (as they should have) what would they have seen? The body, under a blanket with the arms exposed, extended, and raised above the head, loosely bound. Fake. The exposed, raised arms draw attention. Look at me. The ligatures become obvious. Obviously fake.

What did the FBI supposedly say? If this was staging it was unlike any they had seen before. Staging within staging&#8230;

My &#8220;theory&#8221; of intent is that the killer, by &#8220;deliberate action and conscious effort,&#8221; <1> staged a (OBVIOUS to profilers; and, me! ) fake kidnapping.

He wanted it to be obvious that it was fake. It is not a &#8220;theory&#8221; of why (motive) he staged a fake (staged) kidnapping. It is a &#8220;theory&#8221; that says that the killer staged a fake (staged) kidnapping. He wrote the note with intent. He made it &#8220;hinky&#8221; with intent. He used the notepad and pen with intent. He put the notepad and pen away with intent. He left the so-called practice note in the notepad with intent. He removed pages from the notepad with intent. He placed the notepad and the ransom note in proximity with intent. He used the paintbrush with intent. He broke it with intent. He put the brush end in the paint tote with intent. He tied the handle to the cord with intent. He hid the body with intent. He latched the wc door with intent. He wrapped the body with intent. He used the tape with intent. He tied fixed loops that could slip off with ease with intent. He left enough length between wrists to allow for freedom of movement with intent. He raised the arms above the head with intent. The killer, by &#8220;deliberate action and conscious effort,&#8221; took steps to prevent, minimize or make ambiguous any evidence of entry/exit. Etc, etc and any idiot could have planned and prepped for this as long as they used JOHN Douglas&#8217; &#8220;Mindhunter&#8221; (hurting the ones we love chapter) as template.
Every single &#8220;deliberate action and conscious effort&#8221; (INTENT!) directed towards creating (and, inviting!) a scene for profilers. Look at me!

The killer in this &#8220;theory&#8221; is of a specific type with specific traits. He is restricted by the &#8220;theory.&#8221; He is not malleable and I cannot change his nature or knowledge or desires or characteristics to fit any question or objection or scenario.

This &#8220;theory&#8221; is falsifiable. If the motive was kidnapping, if the motive was sexual. If the killer deliberately left evidence that could be traced back to him. If no unsourced trace evidence existed. If all possibility of entrance/exit could be eliminated. If no note existed. If items used could not be traced to the home. On and on, falsifiable in so many ways.
HOLY COW! I got carried away with this one! Anybody left standing? Good grief.

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY.

<1> http://tinyurl.com/j7zsmgn
&#8230;

AK

Not if deep down inside they had the need to cry out "It was us!"

 

[UKGuy]

I’ve done a lot of weird experiments and things trying to get a better understanding of what happened here. This is what I learned about the wrist ligatures.

IMO, the loops are of a fixed size. You cannot tie them around anything. You have to tie the loop first and then you slip them on. Which means that your victim can slip them off, too.

I was tied as jbr was with 17 inches of cord between my wrists. I walked upstairs, out the door, got in my car and drove to the corner store – stick shift – slipped off the ligatures, went into the store, slipped the ligatures back on in the car and drove home. You can do anything tied like this. I showered (you can’t take your shirt off, or put it on). I cooked a meal and ate it. I posted.

The wrist ligatures would not have interfered with the victim’s movements in any meaningful way. She could have easily slipped them off if she had wanted to. So, she must have been tied for some other reason than restraint.

IMO, the person who tied jbr did so solely for the sake of appearance. Perhaps, for personal reason, he liked the way it looked. Or he may have been thinking about how it would look to others. So, how would it look to others? It would look fake.

This fits with the idea of staging. I see the tape, and the ransom note and the hands tied and I see a fake kidnapping. The note is fake, the tape is fake and the tied hands are fake.
A fake kidnapping contradicts what the Ramseys, if RDI needed to do because the fake kidnapping looks OBVIOUSLY fake; the Ramseys, if RDI, should have made some attempt to make things look real. Even a stupid person would know how to make someone look as if they were tied up.

The ligature around the neck looks real (it IS real!). The person who tied this had no problem with real; but the wrist ligatures look fake.

If investigators had discovered the body (as they should have) what would they have seen? The body, under a blanket with the arms exposed, extended, and raised above the head, loosely bound. Fake. The exposed, raised arms draw attention. Look at me. The ligatures become obvious. Obviously fake.

What did the FBI supposedly say? If this was staging it was unlike any they had seen before. Staging within staging…

My “theory” of intent is that the killer, by “deliberate action and conscious effort,” <1> staged a (OBVIOUS to profilers; and, me! ) fake kidnapping.

He wanted it to be obvious that it was fake. It is not a “theory” of why (motive) he staged a fake (staged) kidnapping. It is a “theory” that says that the killer staged a fake (staged) kidnapping. He wrote the note with intent. He made it “hinky” with intent. He used the notepad and pen with intent. He put the notepad and pen away with intent. He left the so-called practice note in the notepad with intent. He removed pages from the notepad with intent. He placed the notepad and the ransom note in proximity with intent. He used the paintbrush with intent. He broke it with intent. He put the brush end in the paint tote with intent. He tied the handle to the cord with intent. He hid the body with intent. He latched the wc door with intent. He wrapped the body with intent. He used the tape with intent. He tied fixed loops that could slip off with ease with intent. He left enough length between wrists to allow for freedom of movement with intent. He raised the arms above the head with intent. The killer, by “deliberate action and conscious effort,” took steps to prevent, minimize or make ambiguous any evidence of entry/exit. Etc, etc and any idiot could have planned and prepped for this as long as they used JOHN Douglas’ “Mindhunter” (hurting the ones we love chapter) as template.
Every single “deliberate action and conscious effort” (INTENT!) directed towards creating (and, inviting!) a scene for profilers. Look at me!

The killer in this “theory” is of a specific type with specific traits. He is restricted by the “theory.” He is not malleable and I cannot change his nature or knowledge or desires or characteristics to fit any question or objection or scenario.

This “theory” is falsifiable. If the motive was kidnapping, if the motive was sexual. If the killer deliberately left evidence that could be traced back to him. If no unsourced trace evidence existed. If all possibility of entrance/exit could be eliminated. If no note existed. If items used could not be traced to the home. On and on, falsifiable in so many ways.
HOLY COW! I got carried away with this one! Anybody left standing? Good grief.

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY.

<1> http://tinyurl.com/j7zsmgn
…

AK

Anti-K,

The killer in this “theory” is of a specific type with specific traits. He is restricted by the “theory.” He is not malleable and I cannot change his nature or knowledge or desires or characteristics to fit any question or objection or scenario.

...

This “theory” is falsifiable.

It sure is, simply by assuming the person doing the staging was not the killer!


.

 

[AndHence]

I haven't posted on here long enough to know what people think of Doc G's theory. I don't know that I buy it, but he does provide the only reasonable explanation for the note. In his view, John wrote the note to terrify Patsy into NOT calling the police. It would allow him to dispose of the body under the ruse of getting the ransom money to 'pick up' JonBenet from her kidnappers. The purpose of the note is something everyone (RDI or IDI) needs to explain, but it's certainly more problematic for RDI folks since it makes little sense given that the body was found in the house.

 

[UKGuy]

I haven't posted on here long enough to know what people think of Doc G's theory. I don't know that I buy it, but he does provide the only reasonable explanation for the note. In his view, John wrote the note to terrify Patsy into NOT calling the police. It would allow him to dispose of the body under the ruse of getting the ransom money to 'pick up' JonBenet from her kidnappers. The purpose of the note is something everyone (RDI or IDI) need to explain, but it's certainly more problematic for RDI folks since it makes little sense given that the body was found in the house.

AndHence,
I rarely comment on the RN since its patently staged so can form no part of whatever were the events leading to the death of JonBenet.


The RN may have been written simply to explain how JonBenet was moved from upstairs to downstairs in the basement, albeit a failed abduction, its intent was secured and the R's disconnected from the wine-cellar crime-scene?

.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I think Burke put the underwear on JB

I think Burke was awake that night too

I think the entire Ramsey family was up and doing >>>God knows what

and I think the house was big enough that none of them knew what the other was doing

I think Burke was awake just like his sister, heard her distress, came looking

Found her unclothed and molested on the basement floor then got the underwear himself and dressed her himself in a childish way to Make Her Better.

I believe Burke has a LOT of information about that night but has most likely suppressed it all - as you would as a child Dependant on Parents for Life.

I think JR was a violent bully and this is PART of the crime somehow - either his Favoritism for JB tipped Crazy PR over the edge, or perhaps it was PR way of "saving" JB from the treatment JR meted out

I am disgustingly aware that the age of 4 is considered Age of Consent for Pedophiles

Also Disgustingly aware this happened on Christmas Night (Daddy wants his Special Gift)

The only way we can explain JB is to look to the 3 people who were in the house that night

Logic, common sense and my (brand new) Domestic Violence theory accounts for everything IMO.

Burke is still petrified of his dad to this day.

IMO

JMO

 

[Ringfinger]

I believe nothing R said..:violin: My thought those 12 size panties ( could be 10-12 ) are JB's not present for the niece.. They probably were used when she put diapers on.. size 6-8 dont fit over diapers imo. Just an opinion of course....
so I have to think on a scenario accordigly :detective:

ive ve always thought this about the size 12's. I think someone like PR may not want to publicly talk about JBR having to ever wear diapers. That could result in destruction of the image she is trying to build up. It's the exact opposite of her being a full grown covergirl model. One scenario would be that after being cleaned (whatever the reason was) she was redressed with the 12's because they had the matching "Wednesday" but the size was overlooked. Maybe another scenario would be that she went to sleep that night with a diaper and that was taken off her and cleaned, but the panties were put back on. If she was put in a diaper before bed it would conflict with the "official story" .

It has always been very easy for me to see how a narcissist family might have trouble with the world seeing that their child still wet the bed. They are obsessed with image. Jmo. IMO. Moo. Etc.

 

[AndHence]

I think one of the more telling (and little known) signs of Ramsey guilt comes from a story Barbara Fernie told. She became suspicious when the Ramseys began drawing attention to a splintered door hinge at the front of their house as possible evidence of an intruder. Barbara knew that Patsy knew this hinge had been like that well before the murder and they'd discussed getting it fixed. Now they were willfully being dishonest about it to try to cast suspicion elsewhere. Barbara would begin to distance herself from the Ramseys after this.

 

[ekardh]

I'm fairly sure it wasn't the parents or Burke. Not that I'm suggesting that John & Patsy are completely squeaky clean, I think there's plenty of reason to suspect either of them of concocting the ransom letter. Their motives for that elude me, other than them panicking and suspecting each other or Burke of the murder. I don't think that any of them were capable of committing THIS kind of murder. Yes, parents and siblings have been known to commit murders in the heat of the moment but I don't see this as a crime of passion. This was done by a lust killer who enjoyed making Jonbenet suffer to gratify themselves sexually. Probably someone known to the family who had visited the house before, and most likely in their late teens, early 20s.

I know that most devotees of this case are married to the Burke theory, but he was probably too young and too sheltered to commit this kind of murder. Young murderers don't hold up well under police questioning, and if Burke was some kind of sociopath prodigy, I have no doubt that he would've reoffended by now or we would've heard a rumour from within his social circle. However, by all accounts, he's living what we could classify a normal life.

 

[icedtea4me]

John and Patsy Ramsey wrote a book called The Death of Innocence: The Untold Story of JonBenet's Murder and How Its Exploitation Compromised the Pursuit of Truth. Could this part "The Untold Story of JonBenet's Murder and How Its Exploitation Compromised the Truth" be a clue as to what went down? Are they trying to communicate that her death was due to their exploitation of her and, in order to come to the truth, you need to focus on at least two people who compromised?

 

[Annapurna]

The problem with that theory is that you can't reason by someone being seemingly "incapable". And I'm sorry but the idea of them writing the note when none of them committed the murder makes no sense. People are capable of some crazy stuff when put into crazy situations. They may seem like "good people" and religious and all, but I guarantee this is in part due to the media portraying them as such due to their wealth. Money and good lawyers can buy you that. The law firm they used had someone in charge of their PR. BR was not interviewed extensively. He was interviewed by a child psychologist shortly after the crime, and then not again for months and not intensely by LE. Being sheltered doesn't mean he couldn't be violent. It only takes one time to do something terrible. Doesn't have to mean you're a sociopath.

JB was not raped. She was assaulted, but it has been described as "relatively gentle" There was one well defined bruise and some lacerations in her hymen. This is consistent with her being penetrated once with an object harder than a finger. It wasn't a jagged object either. This doesn't seem consistent with a "sexual gratification" killing.

 

[Annapurna]

I can't see why the size 12's would have been worn over diapers. PR herself said she bought them for a cousin. If they were diaper covers wouldn't they have more of them? In her drawer there were only size 4-6 (not 6-8 as PR said in an attempt to make the 12's seem less over sized). JB was said to have been only wearing diapers at night too, no point in having a cover on that.

PR did talk about the bed-wetting to friends. JR said all of his children had bed wetting problems. Its not like a great shame. PR loved her pageants, and she did make JB look like a model during those events, but most of the time JB was still allowed to be a little girl. I think its a bit of a misconception caused by the media's portrayal of the case that PR was obsessed with making JB look like she was 20 or something. She was a little nutty but not totally off her rocker.

 

[UKGuy]

I can't see why the size 12's would have been worn over diapers. PR herself said she bought them for a cousin. If they were diaper covers wouldn't they have more of them? In her drawer there were only size 4-6 (not 6-8 as PR said in an attempt to make the 12's seem less over sized). JB was said to have been only wearing diapers at night too, no point in having a cover on that.

PR did talk about the bed-wetting to friends. JR said all of his children had bed wetting problems. Its not like a great shame. PR loved her pageants, and she did make JB look like a model during those events, but most of the time JB was still allowed to be a little girl. I think its a bit of a misconception caused by the media's portrayal of the case that PR was obsessed with making JB look like she was 20 or something. She was a little nutty but not totally off her rocker.

Annapurna,
Somebody made a mistake by redressing JonBenet in the size-12 underwear then compounded this by not telling PR that there were no size-12's in JonBenet's bedroom.

This person might be JonBenet's killer since a co-operative stager might have informed PR that JonBenet had been redressed?

.