"Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?"

[K777angel]

Brother Moon - The scripture you just quoted from Matthew is where our Lord has given Peter the "Keys to the Kingdom" - Keys denoted Authority in holy scripture. He is here making Peter - "The Rock" as he has called him - head of his holy church on earth. The first pope so to speak. The succession from Peter has never ended to this day down to Pope John Paul II.

The power to "bind & loose" is also part of the authority our Lord is bestowing on Peter (the office of Peter). He goes on to say that "the gates of hell will never prevail against it." (his church) This authority is not a "personal" authority but one directly and representing Christ's. With it also comes the power to "bind and loose" sins (in the sacrament of confession). He tells his disciples, "Whose sins you forgive they are forgiven; if you hold them bound, they are held bound." John 20:23 He had immediately before saying this, BREATHED on them and said, "Recieve the Holy Spirit..." then gave them the authority (in His name) to forgive sins. It is only the second place in scripture where God breathes on Man. The first time is when he breathed his life into Adam.
Lest anyone might think the "binding and loosing" somehow had something to do with JonBenet Ramsey.

 

[little1]

ajt400,

Regarding your interesting question about scientifically determining whether JonBenet was hit by a moving object or whether her head struck a stationary object -- just for the fun of it I'll take a swing at it (only O.J. can take a stab at it).

The following information is not a scientific analysis because I'm not qualified to make one, but there are experts who can fairly well determine from velocity and mass data and appearance of physical deformation regarding "what struck what?"

But in my personal unprofessional opinion, judging from the head injury, JonBenet was hit by a baseball bat. Baseball bats have velocity of from about 50 MPH to over 100 MPH, depending on who's doing the swinging.

It appears to me that only a baseball bat would have had the velocity to split JonBenet's skull in two. The velocity of her falling or being pushed and striking a stationary object to cause that much damage would have to be low, perhaps a velocity of around 10 or 15 MPH, and therefore remote as the cause of the injury.

Just my unprofessional opinion.

BlueCrab

Okay bluecrab, lets take the baseball bat theory a little further.

I agree that it could have been a bat (or that flashlight)--but where is the bat now? (Oh, BTW, was that flashlight ever checked for any of JBR's hair, blood, etc? Just In Case?) Where would the bat play into a sexual game between the siblings? Would the bat have been in a place where it would just be laying arund for it to be used?

 

[little1]

The major difference I have with Seraph is their idea that the head blow was done out of frustration. I think that was calculated. The strangulation and violation were done as punishment for sins. Once the dark side had been addressed the light side was attended to by sending the angel to God by means of the head blow. You have to remember that what appears to have been done to a person was actually taking place inside Patsy Ramsey's mind at the time. To Patsy JonBenet was an object, an integral factor in a psychotic fantasy. What Patsy did to JonBenet was reflecting what was going on in Patsy's mind. This is typical of progressive psychosis. It does not make sense to us to blow up the Federal building in OK city but to Tim Mcveigh it made perfect sense because the building and the destructive act were elements in his delusion, which he tried to control. Same thing with Patsy Ramsey.

Maxi, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Yeager's misunderstanding of psychology. Thanks.

So a sacrifice so to speak? Why not the traditional forms of sacrifice? Where is it listed that sexual staging and posing also strangulation is a form of sacrifice?

 

[Maxi]

BrotherMoon, I spoke to Dale Yeager about his definition of psychopath/sociopath, and it was no where near in line with that used by most psychologists and profilers. Two of his more off-the-wall assertions were that fundamentalist Christians were more likely than other Christians to be psychopaths, and that some incredible percent (I forget what -- maybe 50%) of Southern women were psycopaths. It's beyond me why the BPD used Yeager as a consultant on religious overtones to JBR's murder. The last time I looked at his site, most of his experience seemed to be in security, particularly canine security..

 

[BrotherMoon]

Thanks Maxi. I would say that someone that spends his life in a forest is likely to think the whole world is full of trees. People schooled in Freudian psychology see sex as the motive in this case. When I got into borderline personality disorder books I saw everyone with problems as borderline. Yeager came up with his interpretation because he was schooled in such cases. I came up with the sacrifice theory on my own before I started reading about the case becasue I had been reading Joseph Campbell and C.G. Jung. I agree that fundamentalism can take a person closer to psychosis than a less stringent form of religion. Just take a look at what is going on in Islam. Sounds like Yeager has a bias. I don't use the Seraph report as a definitive in this case, only a reference point, and one that I say is closer to the truth than any other theory save mine.

To clarify the sacrifice thing for little I would say that Patsy did not follow external directions in the manner of most people's cartoonish understanding of sacrifice, something like we would see in a Hollywood movie. Patsy followed inner compulsions that were to her validated by The Psalms. She did not find a "recipe" for sacrifice in literature an go from there. She bit by bit subsumed the life of her daughter in classic narcissistic fashion culminating in using her as a means to connect herself with a deity.

It is typical of people to believe that the body inhabits the temporal realm of space, time and matter. The soul inhabits the non-temporal realm. When an animal or person is killed in sacrifice the soul is separated from the body and goes off to the eternal realm usually as a messenger to beseech the intervention of a deity. Same thing with a burnt offering, the matter is burned, the smoke rises, disipates and disappears. What was once matter is then spirit that goes to the heavenly realm as a messenger.

Again, in the psychosis JonBenet became an object that Patsy used in many ways. In the end she could not see the difference between herself and her daughter. If it makes this any easier to understand, Patsy was in a juvenile/infantile regression with the according moral development, very possibly identified with Sandy Stranger and the Brodie set. Thus the juvenile tone of the ransom note.

The Psalms is all over this case, there is no doubt. So is The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. Two indicators that point to Patsy. The many confusing elements of the staging and note indicate an irrational sadistic personality with a high I.Q. very much lost in the world of symbolism.

 

[BlueCrab]

BrotherMoon,

Your sacrifice theory is interesting and could, of course, be possible since none of us know for sure what happened. But I just can't see Patsy doing all the things to JonBenet that were done to her that night. Her behavior would had to have been Jekyll and Hyde a thousand times over.

And I doubt either of the parents would have covered up for the other after such a brutal crime. Only if Burke was involved would the parents agree to try to cover up the truth.

I'm aware of what religious extremism can do, and your Islam example is an appropriate analogy -- but with Islamic extremists the hate has often been beat into people from birth. That's all they can think of. Patsy did not show any previous extreme behaviors.

In my opinion the killing of JonBenet and the bizarre staging, including the childish ransom note, has juvenile behavior written all over it.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[Eagle1]

Yeager? Then you had him confused with Singular earlier, and I could not remember Singular saying what you were quoting. It was Yeager, right?

 

[Maxi]

Yeager? Then you had him confused with Singular earlier, and I could not remember Singular saying what you were quoting. It was Yeager, right?

Hmm...I looked at post 125 on this thread, and I did say Yeager. I know I've mixed up the names before tho. Yeager is the guy with the Seraph website that was hired as an expert on religious themes in crimes. Singular is the guy who quoted extensively from Pam Griffith.

 

[sissi]

Who killed Jonbenet Ramsey?
If someone finally convinces EVERYONE that her family did not kill her ,who would you think committed the crime? Does anyone have a "second choice" if "proven" not to be a Ramsey?
Could we think the alley guy who the BPD lost?
Could Melody Stanton have been awakened by the "twins" coming in from a crime?
Could the "prophet" have acted in the way of Manson,initiating a crime but not getting his hands dirty?
Santa?
An angry family member of the housekeeper?
Who would you pick if you were "convinced" once and for all it was an intruder?
JMO IMO

 

[Ivy]

Sorry, sissi, but if I ever became convinced that an intruder killed JonBenet, I'd insist on having my head examined.

 

[sissi]

Sorry, sissi, but if I ever became convinced that an intruder killed JonBenet, I'd insist on having my head examined.

You really couldn't accept being wrong?
IMO JMO

 

[Ivy]

sissi, if there's ever absolute, indisputable proof that an intruder killed JonBenet, I'll accept it.

 

[BlueCrab]

sissi, if there's ever absolute, indisputable proof that an intruder killed JonBenet, I'll accept it.

There's a good possibility an intruder did kill JonBenet, but at least one of the Ramseys in the house knows who he is. The cover up, in my opinion is for the benefit of that intruder and that Ramsey -- whom appears to be Burke.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[Nehemiah]

There's a good possibility an intruder did kill JonBenet, but at least one of the Ramseys in the house knows who he is. The cover up, in my opinion is for the benefit of that intruder and that Ramsey -- whom appears to be Burke.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

If Mike Kane was privvy to the GJ proceedings... and in your opinion, the case was solved during that time involving minors.... then what about Kane interviewing J & P in Atlanta? Would he not just forget all that if he really knew the "truth" of the case? I am just trying to reconcile your theory with the GJ and with Kane's involvement. Please help me along these lines.

Nehemiah

 

[txsvicki]

Millions of people do not believe that the prophets in the Old and New Testaments were psychotic, but were ispired by God. I am one of those and from the South. I suppose that I am a sociopath and psychotic because I believe the Bible. I have a feeling that the reason he said that southern women are psychotic has to do with HIS religious non beliefs, since the south is a large Bible belt area, especially Baptists.

 

[SisterSocks]

Millions of people do not believe that the prophets in the Old and New Testaments were psychotic, but were ispired by God. I am one of those and from the South. I suppose that I am a sociopath and psychotic because I believe the Bible. I have a feeling that the reason he said that southern women are psychotic has to do with HIS religious non beliefs, since the south is a large Bible belt area, especially Baptists.

Preach on Sister friend... I agree Amen and Amen. :blowkiss:

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,

If Mike Kane was privvy to the GJ proceedings... and in your opinion, the case was solved during that time involving minors.... then what about Kane interviewing J & P in Atlanta? Would he not just forget all that if he really knew the "truth" of the case? I am just trying to reconcile your theory with the GJ and with Kane's involvement. Please help me along these lines.

Nehemiah

Nehemiah,

In my theory the grand jury solved the case to the extent that they knew non-culpable children were involved and, by confession to the jurors, knew they killed JonBenet. In such cases involving very young children absolute secrecy is required under Colorado law. However, there were still some loose ends to tie up even though the grand jury had been permanently dimissed.

For instance, should John and Patsy, and perhaps others, be charged with obstruction of justice for lying and covering up to protect Burke? If so, how can this be done without revealing to the world that Burke killed JonBenet? Did Burke have an accomplice? If so, how old was the accomplice? And to what extent were John and Patsy REALLY involved?

Loose ends -- they're still hanging, and there doesn't seem to be anything to do about it without violating Colorado law protecting the identities of the children.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[TLynn]

I cannot reasonably believe in an intruder because of the pineapple. Perhaps I could stretch it to someone who knew JonBenet very well, but who would bring pineapple to the house?!

The Ramseys say JonBenet was deep asleep. Patsy said she didn't buy, serve or have any knowledge of the pineapple!

So, basically, they're saying an intruder came into the house and served pineapple to JonBenet with a big spoon.

Fit that scenario into any intruder theory -

Burke may have been involved, but the GJ did NOT come to that conclusion.

 

[little1]

I cannot reasonably believe in an intruder because of the pineapple. Perhaps I could stretch it to someone who knew JonBenet very well, but who would bring pineapple to the house?!

The Ramseys say JonBenet was deep asleep. Patsy said she didn't buy, serve or have any knowledge of the pineapple!

So, basically, they're saying an intruder came into the house and served pineapple to JonBenet with a big spoon.

Fit that scenario into any intruder theory -

Burke may have been involved, but the GJ did NOT come to that conclusion.

No, the way you described it is not plausible. But the intruder does not necessarily have to be unknown. I have always leaned towards the "someone close to the family" theory.

An intruder that JBR knew could have come into the home, (also the home would not be unfamiliar to this person, either) and to coax her downstairs to feed her something. If the person was someone JBR trusted, then she would not need to feel alarmed.

 

[Barbara]

An intruder that JBR knew could have come into the home, (also the home would not be unfamiliar to this person, either) and to coax her downstairs to feed her something. If the person was someone JBR trusted, then she would not need to feel alarmed.

If the intruder was a trusted someone, enough for JBR to willingly go downstairs to have a snack of pineapple with, why would the stun gun in her bed be necessary (if you are of the stun gun belief)?