Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[SapphireSteel]

I understand your POV, in general, but there are many exceptions to the rule; Riley Fox, Elizabeth Smart, Jessica Lunsford...

I haven't studied the McCann case, but in this case there is a considerable lack of tangible, measurable evidence implicating any Ramsey in the assault & murder of JonBenét while other evidence suggests someone other than a Ramsey was @ the home, in the wine cellar, and he made contact with the child's underwear, her pants, her blanket, etc.

Statistically speaking, Jonbenet should have been one of the safest children in the US.

White, wealthy, good area, secure housing, parents at home - this is a crime that is ALMOST statistically impossible.

94% of children are hurt or killed by someone close to them.

The statistics say it was the parents, and the complete and utter lack of any glimpse of any intruder or evidence of an intruder over the last HOW MANY YEARS of investigation, tells me that this is the same old nasty ugly story.

Abuse gone too far.

I'm sorry if I sound dismissive but I am one of those natural lie spotters and I honestly am exasperated that these people are getting away with murder.

Madeleine McCanns case is getting very exciting btw....and I have high hopes the cuffs will go on before the year is out.

 

[lawstudent]

Just because there is enough evidence to take it to trial doesn't mean you should. Prosecutors decline to do so all the time because it doesn't seem worth it. In a case like this, even more so, because of double jeopardy. If there's a lot of mystery around the situation, better to wait and hope for a witness, confession, or a DNA match later on, and make sure you get whoever did it. In this case, I do think it was more that in the 90s people still couldn't grasp the statistics of children being hurt by parents, and a lot of crimes got glossed until quite recently unless there was a strong social pressure to do otherwise. With modern media, prosecutors always want to look tough and serious and I don't think this case would have languished had it happened now (and just with all the electronic stuff, media, and other stuff now I think it would have been a lot easier to solve).

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Just because there is enough evidence to take it to trial doesn't mean you should. Prosecutors decline to do so all the time because it doesn't seem worth it. In a case like this, even more so, because of double jeopardy. If there's a lot of mystery around the situation, better to wait and hope for a witness, confession, or a DNA match later on, and make sure you get whoever did it. In this case, I do think it was more that in the 90s people still couldn't grasp the statistics of children being hurt by parents, and a lot of crimes got glossed until quite recently unless there was a strong social pressure to do otherwise. With modern media, prosecutors always want to look tough and serious and I don't think this case would have languished had it happened now (and just with all the electronic stuff, media, and other stuff now I think it would have been a lot easier to solve).

Not sure if you heard of this case, but a man who works for Home Depot Corporate HQ left his son in a hot car, and the son died. He is charged w/ felony murder, and LE says there is more to the story. Most of the comments act like it was a complete accident, LE is overcharging, and $12,000+ has been donated by his defense. People won't even consider that this middle class man, living in the suburbs, w/ his wife and child murdered his child. The article says they found evidence this was not an accident, and you have all these comments asking why they are charging him w/ murder when it was an accident. Complete, utter denial. So I think that a lot of people still do not accept that parents from all demographics, all types of families, can kill their kids.

ETA: Also, on many articles about him, someone will comment about how they knew him, what a nice guy, etc, and their comment will get 100+ likes and condolences. It just takes one person on FB to say they are wonderful, and then there is no way this person could be a killer.

ETA: But...I would say most people did think the Ramseys were guilty back in the 90s. I have heard IDI's claim the opposite, that people back then could not accept that someone could break into her home and harm your child.

 

[chlban]

Just because there is enough evidence to take it to trial doesn't mean you should. Prosecutors decline to do so all the time because it doesn't seem worth it. In a case like this, even more so, because of double jeopardy. If there's a lot of mystery around the situation, better to wait and hope for a witness, confession, or a DNA match later on, and make sure you get whoever did it. In this case, I do think it was more that in the 90s people still couldn't grasp the statistics of children being hurt by parents, and a lot of crimes got glossed until quite recently unless there was a strong social pressure to do otherwise. With modern media, prosecutors always want to look tough and serious and I don't think this case would have languished had it happened now (and just with all the electronic stuff, media, and other stuff now I think it would have been a lot easier to solve).

I have always thought the problem with this case is exactly what we have on this board, at least among the RDI's. We can all agree, emphatically, that it was not an intruder. What we cannot all agree on is which Ramsey or Ramsey's were involved.

Sure you could charge both parents. but some of us are not convinced John was involved in the murder or iniital staging. I am sure there is someone here who probably believes it was all John.

Then there are those that think Burke did it and, of course, he could not be charged, so what a handy thing that is if it were to look to dire for the parents. I, for one, have no trouble believing that they would throw him under the bus in a second to save their skin. Especially knowing he couldn't actually be prosecuted.

Overall, I think Reasobnable doubt would sink this case. Not reasonable doubt that there really was an intruder. Resonalbe doubt as to which Ramsey.

 

[chlban]

Not sure if you heard of this case, but a man who works for Home Depot Corporate HQ left his son in a hot car, and the son died. He is charged w/ felony murder, and LE says there is more to the story. Most of the comments act like it was a complete accident, LE is overcharging, and $12,000+ has been donated by his defense. People won't even consider that this middle class man, living in the suburbs, w/ his wife and child murdered his child. The article says they found evidence this was not an accident, and you have all these comments asking why they are charging him w/ murder when it was an accident. Complete, utter denial. So I think that a lot of people still do not accept that parents from all demographics, all types of families, can kill their kids.

ETA: Also, on many articles about him, someone will comment about how they knew him, what a nice guy, etc, and their comment will get 100+ likes and condolences. It just takes one person on FB to say they are wonderful, and then there is no way this person could be a killer.

ETA: But...I would say most people did think the Ramseys were guilty back in the 90s. I have heard IDI's claim the opposite, that people back then could not accept that someone could break into her home and harm your child.

Is there a thread here for this case? It sounds like a CSI episode I saw where the man did, intentionally, kill his child by the same method. Of course at first everyone assumed it was an accident, but it was not. That, of course, was fiction, but it sounds so similar I wonder if it gave someone that idea.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Is there a thread here for this case? It sounds like a CSI episode I saw where the man did, intentionally, kill his child by the same method. Of course at first everyone assumed it was an accident, but it was not. That, of course, was fiction, but it sounds so similar I wonder if it gave someone that idea.

GA - Ongoing probe into toddler's death first blamed on heat, Cobb County, June 2014 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

It sounds like the child was dead before the faher put him in the car.

 

[THE BUNK]

Statistically speaking, Jonbenet should have been one of the safest children in the US.

White, wealthy, good area, secure housing, parents at home - this is a crime that is ALMOST statistically impossible.

94% of children are hurt or killed by someone close to them.

Which was the LE's first clue that something was off with this kidnapping/murder.

This was a wealthy suburb in Colorado, not a housing project in Oakland, CA.

 

[DeeDee249]

Which was the LE's first clue that something was off with this kidnapping/murder.

This was a wealthy suburb in Colorado, not a housing project in Oakland, CA.

The FBI arrived early that morning. After looking at the ransom note and observing the parents, they told police "You're going to be finding her body" and to "look to the parents". They suspected something right away. The division that responded was the FBI CASKU division (Child Abduction & Serial Killer Unit). Once they were proved right (her body WAS found in the home- by a parent) they no longer had jurisdiction as it was no longer a child abduction (kidnapping). Then local authorities had jurisdiction.
Detective Linda Arndt arrived a few hours later. She took in the parents' behavior too. She made some mistakes, to be sure, but suspected JR from the first moment he brought up the dead body of his daughter. She also admits she wondered why no one seemed to be waiting for that phone call (from the kidnappers) and why Patsy & JR never seemed to interact with each other, the way parents who have have a child kidnapped would do. Later, when she told JR to "take another look around to see if anything is missing" she recalled being surprised when he made a beeline for the basement. She said she had expected him to go to her room instead. It was a procedural error on her part either way- NO ONE should have been allowed to wander around an active crime scene except when accompanied by police. If she was alone for hours, she could have (and should have) kept all people in the home corralled in one room where she could keep an eye on them. The crime scene was compromised because of her.

 

[gramcracker]

... she wondered why no one seemed to be waiting for that phone call (from the kidnappers) ...

LA also reported that when the phone rang during the ransom call window (a friend who was unaware of the situation), JR was so far away that he had to be summoned to answer it

 

[DeDee]

The difference between the McCann and Ramsey case is that the intruder theory makes sense in the McCann case. The intruder did a quick snatch and grab and never looked back.

The McCann's are suspects, but the intruder theory in their case is also viable. Hence there are two sets of suspects.

My problem with the McCann's is that I can't see how they did all this while entertaining Tapas guests. You would think at least one of them would not be willing to keep quiet.

It's been a while since viewing the cadaver dog search. I believe Eddie and Keena. Madeleine died in the apartment. Never did figure out how evidence of her dead body came to be in their rental car? I don't believe the COD was an accidental overdose.

http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2011/05/evidence-of-cadaver-dogs.html

Not unlike the Ramsey's they invited the entire Tapas group into their apartment. They were milling about, possibly destroying evidence unintentionally, when LE arrived. Good for diversion tactics.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

The case I posted about in this thread above, where the father killed his son by forgetting him in the hot car, took place only 5 minutes from the Ramseys' old home in Marietta. About 2 miles. I am pretty sure John doesn't own it anymore, right?

ETA: It looks like they sold it for $1.8 million in 2002.

http://www.city-data.com/fulton-county/N/NW-Paces-Ferry-Road-5.html

This website says that John sold the house to Patsy in 2000 for $0? What is up with that? Does that just mean that they both owned the house then?

And Tyler Perry lives right behind the old house/next door neighbor. His driveway is right next door, but it is so long that the house ends being behind the Ramseys. What a weird fact...

 

[THE BUNK]

And Tyler Perry lives right behind the old house/next door neighbor. His driveway is right next door, but it is so long that the house ends being behind the Ramseys. What a weird fact...

Maybe John wasn't going to suggest Madea killed JonBenet. LOL

 

[gramcracker]

This website says that John sold the house to Patsy in 2000 for $0? What is up with that? Does that just mean that they both owned the house then?

people divest themselves of assets for various reasons: debt, tax liability, lawsuit, judgment/settlement, etc

what was going on circa 2000?

 

[otg]

Interesting that you brought this up now, gram. Moab recently posted an old interview Patsy and John had done with a group of journalism students. The date of the interview was October 12, 2000. In it, John said the following (emphasis mine):

JOHN RAMSEY: Uh…we need…a democracy needs freedom of the press. It…and I think Plato said that…a long time ago. But, it's got to…uh, it's very biased with…with, as Patsy said, adjectives…um, um…there was a report recently in the Atlanta paper, where it was reported that we were selling our house to pay legal bills, which is true…uh, but the article said that "the Ramseys have to give up their lavish lifestyle." Well, that wasn't…necessary. You know, that…that hurt! I mean, the fact of the matter is that we were losing our house, because this has been horrendously expensive, and…you know…we'd worked all our lives, and -

PATSY RAMSEY: (crosstalk) - See, it's those -

JOHN RAMSEY: …our savings…

PATSY RAMSEY: - little adjectives -

JOHN RAMSEY: - but, the adjective of "lavish lifestyle"…

PATSY RAMSEY: - Paints a portrait -

JOHN RAMSEY: - paints this horrible picture! We feel like we been created into modern-day, real-life J.R. Ewings. (Quiet laughter from audience)
​

But then, as eileenhawkeye points out above, in actuality John sold the house to Patsy for the sum of $0, on December 7, of that same year (right after the above interview in October). I’m not sure of the community property laws in the state of Georgia, but I know that in my state anything purchased after marriage by either party is essentially owned by both, regardless of whose name appears on the title. There must be some kind of tax advantage in Georgia in their having done this transfer that I’m not aware of. But whatever they did on paper, they still owned the house when they were claiming near-pauper status.

 

[bettybaby00]

Interesting that you brought this up now, gram. Moab recently posted an old interview Patsy and John had done with a group of journalism students. The date of the interview was October 12, 2000. In it, John said the following (emphasis mine):

JOHN RAMSEY: Uh…we need…a democracy needs freedom of the press. It…and I think Plato said that…a long time ago. But, it's got to…uh, it's very biased with…with, as Patsy said, adjectives…um, um…there was a report recently in the Atlanta paper, where it was reported that we were selling our house to pay legal bills, which is true…uh, but the article said that "the Ramseys have to give up their lavish lifestyle." Well, that wasn't…necessary. You know, that…that hurt! I mean, the fact of the matter is that we were losing our house, because this has been horrendously expensive, and…you know…we'd worked all our lives, and -

PATSY RAMSEY: (crosstalk) - See, it's those -

JOHN RAMSEY: …our savings…

PATSY RAMSEY: - little adjectives -

JOHN RAMSEY: - but, the adjective of "lavish lifestyle"…

PATSY RAMSEY: - Paints a portrait -

JOHN RAMSEY: - paints this horrible picture! We feel like we been created into modern-day, real-life J.R. Ewings. (Quiet laughter from audience)
​

But then, as eileenhawkeye points out above, in actuality John sold the house to Patsy for the sum of $0, on December 7, of that same year (right after the above interview in October). I’m not sure of the community property laws in the state of Georgia, but I know that in my state anything purchased after marriage by either party is essentially owned by both, regardless of whose name appears on the title. There must be some kind of tax advantage in Georgia in their having done this transfer that I’m not aware of. But whatever they did on paper, they still owned the house when they were claiming near-pauper status.

There is so much wrong with the above I don't even know where to begin

But I have a question. over the last few days there have been quite a few posts detailing R interviews which were conducted by seemingly random organizations and / or media outlets. What was up with that? Was it book tour related????

I've mentioned previously that when parents endure the tragic, violent murder of a child they typically behave in one of two ways:
*they avoid media attention in all it's forms, or
*they become vocal, and many times high profile advocates for children in the hope that crimes of this nature never happen again.

Neither could describe the Ramsys.

What bothers me the most however, is that these interviews have little or nothing to do with JonBenet.

 

[otg]

There is so much wrong with the above I don't even know where to begin

But I have a question. over the last few days there have been quite a few posts detailing R interviews which were conducted by seemingly random organizations and / or media outlets. What was up with that? Was it book tour related????

I've mentioned previously that when parents endure the tragic, violent murder of a child they typically behave in one of two ways:
*they avoid media attention in all it's forms, or
*they become vocal, and many times high profile advocates for children in the hope that crimes of this nature never happen again.

Neither could describe the Ramsys.

I agree with everything you stated, betty. It seems odd to me as well -- as it does (obviously) to all the other posters who've mentioned things like this. I mentioned it only because I had noticed this particular tidbit by gramcracker because of the year 2000, while reading the post by Moab that I referenced.

What bothers me the most however, is that these interviews have little or nothing to do with JonBenet.

Exactly. Which is one of the things that bothers so many people about the Ramseys. No, it doesn't prove anything -- one way or the other. It's just one of those things that makes us all scratch our heads.

BTW, did you read my comment at FFJ about that thread here?

 

[bettybaby00]

I agree with everything you stated, betty. It seems odd to me as well -- as it does (obviously) to all the other posters who've mentioned things like this. I mentioned it only because I had noticed this particular tidbit by gramcracker because of the year 2000, while reading the post by Moab that I referenced.

Exactly. Which is one of the things that bothers so many people about the Ramseys. No, it doesn't prove anything
-- one way or the other. It's just one of those things that makes us all scratch our heads.

BTW, did you read my comment at FFJ about that thread here?

Yes I did read it! The "and hence" seems to be a phrase they both used. IIRC PR used it in a Christmas letter to friends. Oh wait, wasn't there also an instance in something used at the funeral???? I'm not exactly sure if I'm remembering this correctly.

What's even more curious IMO in the interview you referenced was that phrase is rarely, I mean very rarely used when someone is talking versus using it in written form. So weird.

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

There is so much wrong with the above I don't even know where to begin

But I have a question. over the last few days there have been quite a few posts detailing R interviews which were conducted by seemingly random organizations and / or media outlets. What was up with that? Was it book tour related????

I've mentioned previously that when parents endure the tragic, violent murder of a child they typically behave in one of two ways:
*they avoid media attention in all it's forms, or
*they become vocal, and many times high profile advocates for children in the hope that crimes of this nature never happen again.

Neither could describe the Ramsys.

What bothers me the most however, is that these interviews have little or nothing to do with JonBenet.

This is simply not true, and is that most common of all logical fallacies: the false dilemma, false dichotomy, excluded middle, either/or; etc.

Regardless, I don’t think the Ramseys are necessarily comparable to most because most are not believed to be guilty by the general public. This belief colors virtually every appearance that they have ever made. They have always had to start out from that position of “we didn’t do it.” Of course, media appearances of this sort and number is something that guilty persons usually avoid altogether.
...

AK

 

[Chelly]

I always thought that that Ramseys, as guilty persons, believed guilty persons would avoid the media. Thus, in their expectation not to be perceived as guilty persons, decided to become media darlings.

 

[InstantProof]

They liked the attention IMO.