Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[Tadpole12]

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/jonbenet-ramsey-killer-investigation-murder-fbi-foia/

Radaronline
Justice For JonBenet! Local Cops & FBI Confirm Ramey Murder Investigation Is 'Ongoing'
Jun 15, 2016

"Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request from Radar, Boulder City Attorney Tom Carr revealed that all records related to the case “are part of an ongoing criminal investigation.”
Confirming his statement, at the Boulder police department, the manager of records and information services, Patricia Raab, told Radar, “The requested records are investigatory files and are part of an ongoing investigation, which I am withholding … on the ground that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.”
And even the FBI hasn’t quite closed the book on the notorious case. Four months after Radar filed a Freedom of Information Act request for copies of their case files, Section Chief David Hardy wrote to Radar, “The material you requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure” because it concerns “records or information complied for law enforcement purposes … [that] could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings.”
Hardy confirmed, “There is a pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive records.”

 

[singularity]

singularity,
The big Q is did Patsy know JonBenet was being abused, if so, why did she go along with it?

Her reaction in the transcripts to their comments on the subject are revealing. Had she genuinely been outraged by the possibility, her response would have been entirely different.


Later in one of the interviews they bring up her own childhood and the possibilities of abuse. She goes silent and then they change the subject. Her lack of response here also revealing.

Its possible JonBenet was being abused by all the males in the R's household?

.

Absolutely. Its also possible other men were abusing her as well. Whether due to "normal" family dysfunction or the abuse itself, she was unknowingly exposing herself to the potential for situational molestation. The flirting with men, letting literally anyone wipe her in the bathroom, etc. Then add in the pageant/modeling and how that almost comes across as grooming in itself. Many of those pics/videos are inappropriate to say the least.

The stories about her and Burke being in bed "playing doctor" IMO aren't really troubling. Kids do those things. If it goes any further than that is when it gets disturbing.

Its inexcusable that BPD didn't place her life(especially her last year) under a miscrocope. She was in a highly chaotic environment. That is crystal clear. They didn't even want to scratch the surface. Shame on them.

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/jonbenet-ramsey-killer-investigation-murder-fbi-foia/

Radaronline
Justice For JonBenet! Local Cops & FBI Confirm Ramey Murder Investigation Is 'Ongoing'
Jun 15, 2016

"Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request from Radar, Boulder City Attorney Tom Carr revealed that all records related to the case “are part of an ongoing criminal investigation.”
Confirming his statement, at the Boulder police department, the manager of records and information services, Patricia Raab, told Radar, “The requested records are investigatory files and are part of an ongoing investigation, which I am withholding … on the ground that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.”
And even the FBI hasn’t quite closed the book on the notorious case. Four months after Radar filed a Freedom of Information Act request for copies of their case files, Section Chief David Hardy wrote to Radar, “The material you requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure” because it concerns “records or information complied for law enforcement purposes … [that] could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings.”
Hardy confirmed, “There is a pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive records.”

If the FBI never takes a serious crack at it, the case will remain in limbo for eternity.

I don't think we will ever get to see all the evidence in this case. Some people think and even some investigators have said we've seen everything. I call horse manure on that statement. I think the exact opposite....there is much we have not seen. A big part of the story has never been revealed. I also think some of it is probably shocking. There is a reason why those Christmas photos at the Whites have never been revealed and why the subject kept coming up over and over during the interviews and its not just to try and make them slip up. They know what they wore to the party...even if they didn't, they're staring at the damn photographs. They know now. There's something else in those photos not adding up. Then there's the photographs on the Ramsey film that contain some oddities to say the least. Last but not least are the "cutesy" photographs of Jonbenet found dumped in the basement.

Yet some people think we've seen it all. Hell, they wont even acknowledge the doll in that pic in the wine cellar. I highly doubt we were supposed to see that in the first place.

If they move forward with that new series about Jonbenet, I'm hoping at least a sliver of unknown evidence comes out. I'd like to hear the fully enhanced 911 call to settle that once and for all and I'd like a description of the photographs. I also wish someone who attended that 23rd party would come forward for this show. I also wouldn't mind the people who supposedly heard John Andrew at school talking about Jonbenet frequently stepping up to the plate as well. I don't even remember where that info originated from but if its true, let's hear it.

 

[observation]

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/jonbenet-ramsey-killer-investigation-murder-fbi-foia/

Radaronline
Justice For JonBenet! Local Cops & FBI Confirm Ramey Murder Investigation Is 'Ongoing'
Jun 15, 2016

"Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request from Radar, Boulder City Attorney Tom Carr revealed that all records related to the case “are part of an ongoing criminal investigation.”
Confirming his statement, at the Boulder police department, the manager of records and information services, Patricia Raab, told Radar, “The requested records are investigatory files and are part of an ongoing investigation, which I am withholding … on the ground that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.”
And even the FBI hasn’t quite closed the book on the notorious case. Four months after Radar filed a Freedom of Information Act request for copies of their case files, Section Chief David Hardy wrote to Radar, “The material you requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure” because it concerns “records or information complied for law enforcement purposes … [that] could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings.”
Hardy confirmed, “There is a pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive records.”

And I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about the part I bolded above. This case has gone unsolved for so long. It's remarkable really that the GJ indictments were ever released.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[singularity]

And I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about the part I bolded above. This case has gone unsolved for so long. It's remarkable really that the GJ indictments were ever released.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another way of looking at it is it could be mumbo jumbo so they don't have to ever release the files. Just keep saying it's an ongoing investigation even if nothing is going on. The moment they say, "Yeah it's dead in the water....we screwed the pooch" is when there's a chance all those files could come out.

A few more items I'd like to see....


PATSY RAMSEY: That looks like a drawer. That is the drawer in the guest -- in John Andrew's
room.

TRIP DEMUTH: What is the red and black item?

PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I can't tell. I don't know.

TOM HANEY: Go ahead.

PATSY RAMSEY: I was going to say, do you have a picture of it blown up?

TOM HANEY: No, we don't.

---

TOM HANEY: And 285.

PATSY RAMSEY: That is a makeup bag, like a video and video. Can't tell what it is. I don't know
where it is. A wooden something.

TOM HANEY: There is no previous photo that kind of --

PATSY RAMSEY: Goes with that.

TOM HANEY: Yeah.

PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know where it is.

TOM HANEY: Okay. And 286 would be next.

PATSY RAMSEY: This is the John Andrew's room again, that fabric.

TRIP DEMUTH: Do you know what piece of furniture that is that the fabric is on?

PATSY RAMSEY: I can't tell. A chair covering it when they were tossing pillows and the dust
ruffle and the draperies coming down. (Inaudible). I don't know. A little purple bow or something.

---

TRIP DeMUTH: That doesn't jog any bells, though, telling you it's in a bag by the chair
in John Andrew's bedroom?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.

TOM HANEY: And the next photo is marked 120TET8.

PATSY RAMSEY: Are we looking for anything special here?

TOM HANEY: Do you see anything unusual in there?

PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I don't know what this -- that looks like cleaning fluid or Windex
or something, I don't know what that would be doing sitting down there.

TOM HANEY: Uh-huh (yes).

PATSY RAMSEY: That's strange. I can't tell what that is.

----

I'd like to see all these other pictures of JAR's room. Lots of activity in his area that night and some interesting items seem to be there.


This is interesting as well. It sounds like they may be showing her a pic of the area where the "cutesy" photographs were found. The few times these photographs have been mentioned, there's usually an (inaudible) in place. Not a coincidence. I think these are redactions.

TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. 387 may be nothing more than just miscellaneous laundry, but I want you to look at it. Tell us if there is anything in there that sticks out.

PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible).

TRIP DEMUTH: We don't need you to identify anything. I want you to look at the photo. The same
with -- I think it would be, let's make sure, it is buried, 388. Look at it, but look at the photo.

PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible).

TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. 389, I believe we looked at that from another angle before. Anything you want
to add?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

----

Like I said before, there are many pieces of the puzzle yet to be revealed.


edit: One more thing I always found odd is the issue of clothing but even more so the continual references to their shoes. Not just Jonbenet's but Patsy's as well. In one of the interviews it even reaches the point where they're asking if Patsy herself wore socks. The only reason the line of questioning isn't absurd is because you realize we do not have all the facts at our disposal.

In a typical murder case(even child murder) the subject of the victim's footwear much less that of their parents isn't an issue, especially going back a day or two before the actual murder. Then take into account the victim in this case was actually found barefoot......yet it is still an issue.

This was one strange family.

 

[singularity]

One other item I forgot to mention and I've always wanted to see this particular pic as its probably the oddest, most out of place clue in the overall story. It has largely gone ignored over the years.

TOM HANEY: Okay. Next is another eight by ten photo and it does not have a number but maybe you can identify that.

PATSY RAMSEY: Well, it looks like a --John got a -- bowl, an award or something from the Chamber of Commerce and this might be like a program or something --

TOM HANEY: Okay.

PATSY RAMSEY: -- from there.

TOM HANEY: And there's some additional?

PATSY RAMSEY: Yes.

TOM HANEY: -- writing on it.

PATSY RAMSEY: There's writing on it, no, no, no, heart, and I don't know what that is. I have no clue. I've never seen this. I went to the event, if that is a program from there. I don't understand that.

TOM HANEY: The writing or printing that's on there --

PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).

TOM HANEY: -- could you describe it or do you have an opinion about it?

PATSY RAMSEY: It says no, no, no, three of them, and this is John's picture and -- if you do have some alternate.

TOM HANEY: I think we have that in evidence.

TRIP DeMUTH: Does its look like something JonBenet would do?

PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I can't imagine her writing -- I mean, I don't think that she could -- when was this? I forget what year that is. '95. I can't imagine her writing no, no, no like that. I can't tell whether --

TRIP DeMUTH: Do you have a magnifying glass?

PATSY RAMSEY: I just can't imagine. I don't know where this was, if she would have seen it to do such a thing, anyway.

TRIP DeMUTH: Can you make out the words?

PATSY RAMSEY: I'm trying to see if there's a word there or something. I don't think that -- heart, SOS -- no, no words.

TRIP DeMUTH: Just for the record I should say that this, what we're looking at here is an article of some sort that at the top says 1995, three hundred new words from being off her (inaudible).

PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, I don't know. Is that (inaudible)?

TRIP DeMUTH: Uh-huh (yes). Do you recognize that at all?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

TRIP DeMUTH: Did JonBenet ever doodle like that on --

PATSY RAMSEY: Well, she would doodle but this is pretty -- I mean, why would she put no, no, no and then -- just strange. That just seems weird.

TRIP DeMUTH: You don't have any prior memory --

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

TRIP DeMUTH: -- of seeing this?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

TRIP DeMUTH: Would Burke possibly have done it?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

TRIP DeMUTH: Okay.

PATSY RAMSEY: I don't like that.

TOM HANEY: We've got the no, no, no on this one and this is just we have a heart and then we have --

PATSY RAMSEY: X.

TOM HANEY: Or a Y.

PATSY RAMSEY: Y?

TOM HANEY: Would be a Y-E-S and a heart.

PATSY RAMSEY: Oh. Oh, Y-E-S, no, no, no, yes. I don't know, I have never seen this before.

TOM HANEY: Okay. Do you recognize the folder that it's in, if that is a folder?

PATSY RAMSEY: No, I can't tell what that is, it's -- this folder here?

TOM HANEY: Uh-huh (yes).

PATSY RAMSEY: No. No.

----

If this photo was ever released/leaked and I simply overlooked it somehow I hope someone posts it. Something else I wanted to see is the ripped up Christmas Card from Santa Bill that was found in Jonbenet's trash can. I think this was given to her at some point during that 23rd party yet two days later it is in her trash. Why?

 

[AndHence]

The funny thing about the pineapple evidence is how Patsy responds to it. There is a bowl of pineapple sitting in the breakfast nook, so the origin of the pineapple is clear. Jonbenet did not eat it at the White's and had to have eaten it at home. Patsy is adamant she did not serve pineapple (as is John). Patsy is adamant that she would have heard JonBenet and Burke had they awoken in the night to make themselves the snack (yet she couldn't hear a stun gun-bearing intruder or her daughter allegedly screaming?). This means Patsy expects us to believe that the intruder got JonBenet out of bed, brought her downstairs, and then made her a pineapple snack -- all before killing her and without any resistance whatsoever. If this is what Patsy wants us to believe and, for sake of argument, let's say we do, this theory makes the use of a stun gun both unnecessary and wholly incompatible with Patsy's theory of an intruder.

If the parents were aware that a bowl of pineapple was sitting in the breakfast nook, they could have at least acknowledged the possibility that JonBenet ate some before the White's party. Regardless of the exact digestion rate, this at least gives them plausible deniability. They admit only to the presence of pineapple in the home and can remain ignorant as to when she ate it and who fed it to her. However, the complete denial of even SERVING pineapple that day tells us something more. It is possible that when the Ramseys found JonBenet and began their staging, they were nowhere near the breakfast nook and didn't realize Burke had put pineapple in the bowl during the night. Their ignorance about the pineapple might be genuine. Its discovery inside JonBenet is every bit as surprising to them as it is to us. This catches them off guard and they don't know how and who this piece of evidence hurts the most in their version of the events so they just play it safe here and deny feeding it and serving it. As it happens, Patsy's fingerprints are on the bowl and Burke's are on a tea mug found next to it. While we might expect to find these prints there in a manner unrelated to the crime, it does make Patsy's total ignorance about the pineapple even more vexing. Anyway, thoughts?

 

[BoldBear]

My thoughts are simple on this.... Why do you believe what John and Patsy said about what happened that night? Once you establish they are being untruthful in their stories, stop believing their version of the events. Er...well...maybe we can cherry pick what they said and detect the half truths vs the truth. The easiest story they can tell is that JB was carried up the stairs. John read to her when she was asleep and Patsy normally gets up around midnight to see if she wet the bed. Burke's an early riser but slept through Patsy's scream for John and when his parents went into his room to check on him. Oi!

 

[UKGuy]

And I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about the part I bolded above. This case has gone unsolved for so long. It's remarkable really that the GJ indictments were ever released.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

observation,

Hardy confirmed, “There is a pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive records.”

This is due to the case falling into the inactive status but moved to cold case review status, which means nothing needs to be released and everyone involved is subject to BPD legal process.

I spoke with Niccolò Machiavelli last night and he says That's the plan, keep everything in an evidence cage at the Colorado Depository, that way nobody gets implicated.

.

 

[UKGuy]

The funny thing about the pineapple evidence is how Patsy responds to it. There is a bowl of pineapple sitting in the breakfast nook, so the origin of the pineapple is clear. Jonbenet did not eat it at the White's and had to have eaten it at home. Patsy is adamant she did not serve pineapple (as is John). Patsy is adamant that she would have heard JonBenet and Burke had they awoken in the night to make themselves the snack (yet she couldn't hear a stun gun-bearing intruder or her daughter allegedly screaming?). This means Patsy expects us to believe that the intruder got JonBenet out of bed, brought her downstairs, and then made her a pineapple snack -- all before killing her and without any resistance whatsoever. If this is what Patsy wants us to believe and, for sake of argument, let's say we do, this theory makes the use of a stun gun both unnecessary and wholly incompatible with Patsy's theory of an intruder.

If the parents were aware that a bowl of pineapple was sitting in the breakfast nook, they could have at least acknowledged the possibility that JonBenet ate some before the White's party. Regardless of the exact digestion rate, this at least gives them plausible deniability. They admit only to the presence of pineapple in the home and can remain ignorant as to when she ate it and who fed it to her. However, the complete denial of even SERVING pineapple that day tells us something more. It is possible that when the Ramseys found JonBenet and began their staging, they were nowhere near the breakfast nook and didn't realize Burke had put pineapple in the bowl during the night. Their ignorance about the pineapple might be genuine. Its discovery inside JonBenet is every bit as surprising to them as it is to us. This catches them off guard and they don't know how and who this piece of evidence hurts the most in their version of the events so they just play it safe here and deny feeding it and serving it. As it happens, Patsy's fingerprints are on the bowl and Burke's are on a tea mug found next to it. While we might expect to find these prints there in a manner unrelated to the crime, it does make Patsy's total ignorance about the pineapple even more vexing. Anyway, thoughts?

AndHence,
Patently neither parent was aware of the pineapple snack, since it would have been incorporated into their version of events, particularly if the case was either PDI or JDI. Similar reasoning applies to the size-12's, combined with the former it nearly rules out PDI completely?

BR's fingerprints were also on the serving bowl, and if that's his pajama bottoms lying on JonBenet's bedroom floor, then along with his touch-dna found deposited on the bloodstained pink barbie nightgown places him at the locus of all the important Ramsey crime scenes.

Then there are the hair-ties on JonBenet's head, where did they come from, who put them on her head, remember the R's said JonBenet was placed sleeping straight to bed?

Looks to me like Patsy could have dressed JonBenet in her pink pajama top and bottoms, the former can be seen in the crime-scene photos, then arranged her hair using those hair-ties?

So did JonBenet make it to bed, only to be offered a pineapple snack once her parents were asleep?

If either of the parents had been responsible for JonBenet's death, then they had roughly, four hours available to complete the staging, i.e. time to run forensically stained clothing through the washing machine, then tumble dry them. Time to cleanup any crime-scenes, i.e. breakfast bar and remnants of the pineapple snack, also JonBenet's bedroom, removing any feces etc. Not forgetting the basement and any broken windows, photograph caches, and stools etc.

.

 

[FrankieB]

Hello everybody

I have followed this case with a lot of interest for over 10 years. It was since 2014 though when I discovered this forum that I started to learn so many things I had no idea about and the case took a whole new meaning for me.

So after lurking for 2 years and reading as much as I could, I decided to join and share some things that come to mind everytime I read these threads.

For starters I'm 100% with Singularity. Why is NOBODY talking about this bizarre picture that has the NO NO NO on it and the heart around John's face.Nevermind the pineapple, this right here is a truly bewildering piece of evidence. How did it get to the house? who wrote on it? why has it never been released? (Singularity: your memory is not wrong, the picture remains secret) I would love to read more discussion about this particular evidence.

Second: I want to know what was in the christmas picture, the one that made Patsy go "Oh god" "why would anyone take a picture like that"
it sounds ominous, it sounds disturbing and I do not buy for one second it's a picture of a scarf. Patsy's replies clearly imply to me there is something wrong with that picture, and it's something directly related to Jonbenet or both children. A thread was created for this topic, however only the first few replies pertained to the topic at hand, after that it spiraled into yet another "Garrotte" thread. I sat through countless theories about the garrotte while wondering when the actual topic of the thread would be addressed. It seems like many people either don't know about that picure or simply don't care. However the garrotte seems to be a source of endless fascination. If there is a thread dedicated to it all posts about that should go there right? I wouldn't read it to be honest, I've had enough of that topic.

Singularity, I assume the topic of these christmas pictures is of interest to you as much as me? I'd love to see it discussed more.

Next, the christmas party where Jonbenét said she didn't feel pretty and somebody dialed 911, this is also a matter that haunts me. Did the girl finally have enough and called, or was it an adult who saw something they felt they should report anonymously? the notion that Fleet dialed by mistake is an insult to everybody's intelligence.

Actually my intelligence has been insulted so many times by the Ramseys while following this case I've lost count but some claims are more outrageous than others.

I am not pro-intruder as you can see.

But something I've read here bothers me a bit. The notion that John Ramsey was the abuser because he was a situational abuser? I don't recall if this is the correct term. Basically the idea is in the absence of sexual activity from his unwilling wife, John turned to the child because she was there and she was available. Erm...I'm not defending John Ramsey but this seems very stretched to me. Surely a man of his position could spare no expense on a high class escort? wasn't he away frequently? what was that I read about him ordering escorts to his room? I can't believe he turned at his daughter as if they were stranded on a desert island, sorry I can't.

What has been made of these claims Patsy attended Annie Get Your Gun in New York and was seen talking to herself and dancing the play numbers at the candy line much to the embarrassment of John? the claim there was a butt print on one of the stairs? the claim Jonbenét once rejected Mcdonald's burgers while out with a friend and her friend's mom saying that food made people fat? I mean has ALL of this been confirmed or does it fall into the category of apocrypha?

"This is me when I was first born, that's my mom and that's the docter" (sic) did Burke write this as dictated by Patsy? did Patsy write it? is it true the hand writing on this caption matches the ransom note?

I better stop, I have hundreds of questions burning in my mind, I'm glad I joined the forum. Greetings to everybody, it's been nice to read you all for the past two years.

 

[UKGuy]

Hello everybody

I have followed this case with a lot of interest for over 10 years. It was since 2014 though when I discovered this forum that I started to learn so many things I had no idea about and the case took a whole new meaning for me.

So after lurking for 2 years and reading as much as I could, I decided to join and share some things that come to mind everytime I read these threads.

For starters I'm 100% with Singularity. Why is NOBODY talking about this bizarre picture that has the NO NO NO on it and the heart around John's face.Nevermind the pineapple, this right here is a truly bewildering piece of evidence. How did it get to the house? who wrote on it? why has it never been released? (Singularity: your memory is not wrong, the picture remains secret) I would love to read more discussion about this particular evidence.

Second: I want to know what was in the christmas picture, the one that made Patsy go "Oh god" "why would anyone take a picture like that"
it sounds ominous, it sounds disturbing and I do not buy for one second it's a picture of a scarf. Patsy's replies clearly imply to me there is something wrong with that picture, and it's something directly related to Jonbenet or both children. A thread was created for this topic, however only the first few replies pertained to the topic at hand, after that it spiraled into yet another "Garrotte" thread. I sat through countless theories about the garrotte while wondering when the actual topic of the thread would be addressed. It seems like many people either don't know about that picure or simply don't care. However the garrotte seems to be a source of endless fascination. If there is a thread dedicated to it all posts about that should go there right? I wouldn't read it to be honest, I've had enough of that topic.

Singularity, I assume the topic of these christmas pictures is of interest to you as much as me? I'd love to see it discussed more.

Next, the christmas party where Jonbenét said she didn't feel pretty and somebody dialed 911, this is also a matter that haunts me. Did the girl finally have enough and called, or was it an adult who saw something they felt they should report anonymously? the notion that Fleet dialed by mistake is an insult to everybody's intelligence.

Actually my intelligence has been insulted so many times by the Ramseys while following this case I've lost count but some claims are more outrageous than others.

I am not pro-intruder as you can see.

But something I've read here bothers me a bit. The notion that John Ramsey was the abuser because he was a situational abuser? I don't recall if this is the correct term. Basically the idea is in the absence of sexual activity from his unwilling wife, John turned to the child because she was there and she was available. Erm...I'm not defending John Ramsey but this seems very stretched to me. Surely a man of his position could spare no expense on a high class escort? wasn't he away frequently? what was that I read about him ordering escorts to his room? I can't believe he turned at his daughter as if they were stranded on a desert island, sorry I can't.

What has been made of these claims Patsy attended Annie Get Your Gun in New York and was seen talking to herself and dancing the play numbers at the candy line much to the embarrassment of John? the claim there was a butt print on one of the stairs? the claim Jonbenét once rejected Mcdonald's burgers while out with a friend and her friend's mom saying that food made people fat? I mean has ALL of this been confirmed or does it fall into the category of apocrypha?

"This is me when I was first born, that's my mom and that's the docter" (sic) did Burke write this as dictated by Patsy? did Patsy write it? is it true the hand writing on this caption matches the ransom note?

I better stop, I have hundreds of questions burning in my mind, I'm glad I joined the forum. Greetings to everybody, it's been nice to read you all for the past two years.

FrankieB,
Welcome to websleuths. Its a big case and a lot of what looks like potential evidence is likely just circumstantial stuff, this is probably why its never followed up, plus BPD know who did it, its no mystery, the GJ more or less eliminated the parents as homicide suspects.

On the abuse front four males had regular access to JonBenet, so any one of these could be the chronic abuser, and the acute abuse on Christmas Day might be a one off?

If you haven't read James Kolar's book, you should, its a pretty good summary of what might have happened and what did occur that fatal night.

.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*
the notion that Fleet dialed by mistake is an insult to everybody's intelligence.*snip*

So, you think it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for Fleet to have wanted to have dialed 411 for information and have inadvertently dialed 911 instead?

 

[FrankieB]

So, you think it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for Fleet to have wanted to have dialed 411 for information and have inadvertently dialed 911 instead?

I have two problems with that. If it was a genuine mistake why remain silent on the other end and then hang up? The second issue being why did they tell the officers to go away without even opening the door? Combine both things with the child's alleged comment and something is definitely wrong

 

[FrankieB]

FrankieB,
Welcome to websleuths. Its a big case and a lot of what looks like potential evidence is likely just circumstantial stuff, this is probably why its never followed up, plus BPD know who did it, its no mystery, the GJ more or less eliminated the parents as homicide suspects.

On the abuse front four males had regular access to JonBenet, so any one of these could be the chronic abuser, and the acute abuse on Christmas Day might be a one off?

If you haven't read James Kolar's book, you should, its a pretty good summary of what might have happened and what did occur that fatal night.

.

Hi UKGuy thank you for the welcome. Kolar's book fully read !

 

[BoldBear]

I believed that Fleet accidently dialed the phone, but I've had to review many assumptions. You have a police officer on the door, but you don't open it. You're a guest in the home, but send the officer away. Did I miss something? Wouldn't you bring that to the attention of the hosts?

 

[andreww]

So, you think it would have been absolutely, positively 100% impossible for Fleet to have wanted to have dialed 411 for information and have inadvertently dialed 911 instead?

That would have easily been proved by looking at the phone records right? There should have been three calls in a row, 911, 411, then the requested number. That's probably the reason we don't have the phone records right there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FrankieB]

And let's also keep in mind the Ramseys had the audacity to refer to the 911 call as "somewhat of a mystery" in their book.
Well, it wouldn't have been a mystery had the phone records been released! :banghead:

 

[Chelly]

Ramsey Murder Suspect Charged in Boulder Child *advertiser censored* Case
story by Charlie Brennan, Boulder Daily Camera
6/21/16
As more than half a dozen national television productions prepare to mark the nearly two decades that have passed since the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, a suspect in the notorious unsolved slaying is in the Boulder County Jail on charges of sexually exploiting a child.

Gary Howard Oliva, 52, was booked without bond into the jail Friday on a case brought by the Boulder Police Department, the same agency that has labored for two decades to bring resolution to the notorious Christmas night 1996 slaying of the 6-year-old child beauty queen.......

(link)
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_...rged-boulder-child-*advertiser censored*-case

 

[singularity]

Singularity, I assume the topic of these christmas pictures is of interest to you as much as me? I'd love to see it discussed more.

Yeah I think the various pics are crucial pieces to the puzzle which is why we have never been allowed to see them.

the pics have a story to tell.

Next, the christmas party where Jonbenét said she didn't feel pretty and somebody dialed 911, this is also a matter that haunts me. Did the girl finally have enough and called, or was it an adult who saw something they felt they should report anonymously? the notion that Fleet dialed by mistake is an insult to everybody's intelligence.
.

That 23rd party had an ominious event. I highly doubt its a coincidence she was murdered two days after this party. I have always believed that one of the key factprs in solving this crime is finding out what happened that night.

But something I've read here bothers me a bit. The notion that John Ramsey was the abuser because he was a situational abuser? I don't recall if this is the correct term. Basically the idea is in the absence of sexual activity from his unwilling wife, John turned to the child because she was there and she was available. Erm...I'm not defending John Ramsey but this seems very stretched to me. Surely a man of his position could spare no expense on a high class escort? wasn't he away frequently? what was that I read about him ordering escorts to his room? I can't believe he turned at his daughter as if they were stranded on a desert island, sorry I can't..

I'm on the fence with John as the abuser. Mr Big CEO Man, rarely stays home and didn't seem to be actively involved in their day to day lives. She was being abused though and since BPD never made any serious attempt at this angle in the mystery we may never know who and how many abusers she had.

Someone in John's position could have had literally anyone from prom queens, college cheerleaders, models, showgirls, etc. and if he's interested in young girls like Jonbenet, he can fly to a different country and do whatever he wants. Having said that, it doesn't mean its not possible he was abusing her as well.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[BoldBear]

I don't understand the psychology behind sexually abusing a child. My understanding of this is that an abuser is more likely to have been abused themselves. In this household, John was away a lot. Someone who abuses might do so through opportunity where someone like an uncle visits on rare occasions. A family member who's abusive would want to put themselves in a position of control so they'd always be around, To view John as an abuser, he'd have to have enough trust in the child to feel secure with his secret when he was away from home. Add to that the fact that Jonbenet had seen the school nurse (presumably alone) a couple of times before her death, and I can't quite draw the conclusion that John abused his daughter. I will not, however, rule it completely out due to the autopsy findings. The bruising cannot be dismissed.

I just had a really creepy thought. Children who are abused will often wet the sheets in order to ward off the abuser. What happens when the abuser is out of town on business? Does the child still wet the bed? If that person is out of town for several nights, would the wetting of the bed happen less and less the longer the abuser is out of town?