Cyril Wecht's theory of the murder

[bettybaby00]

Great points Re: circumstantial evidence questfortrue.

What's evident in this case, as with many others, is that any one particular inconsistency, or piece of circumstantial evidence could be explained or viewed in an "innocent" manner. But when one looks at the totality of these inconsistencies, and circumstantial events it becomes much harder to believe that so many coincidences point to non involvement by the family. Add to this scenario the obvious collusion of the DAs office, and none of it passes the smell test.

All my opinion of course :moo:

 

[Chelly]

Circumstantial evidence is the only evidence which can be used in this particular crime, because of the contamination of the crime scene and because of the lack of witnesses or “solid” DNA proof like blood, saliva, semen. When it’s circumstantial evidence, there must be more than one piece of it. In the R’s case there is a lot of circumstantial evidence, and I’m not going to list it all here. ST used to carry a warrant around in his pocket, so convinced he was of the amount of evidence gathered.

Thanks to UKguy for his suggestion of involvement of more than 1 R in the crime. The following is “circumstantial”.

Lies: PR and R’s lies have been discussed at length. For BR, however, not as much pointed out. Kolar does point to some things. First, there is the very curious statement on the part of BR that JB had been struck on the head and stabbed,and it doesn't jibe with the fact that when the early BR interview took place, BR had already heard at a school presentation that his sister had been strangled. Plus, he said he pretended to be asleep, when a voice (people think his) was heard on the enhanced by-the- Aerospace- Corp tape. BR did not contradict his parents story about this until later. (OK, understandable not to contradict one’s parents, especially your father.) However, doesn’t take away that both he and parents lied about this. And lying in a capital case is a big deal.

Sexual contact: It is possible sexual contact was perpetrated by 2 or even 3 (If the corporal cleansing idea is accepted – douching or rough cleansing mean PR could be involved with this.) It seems less probable IMHO, but acknowledge the possibility.

Kolar does an outstanding job of describing SBP and connecting the dots to BR. Too, given the presence of a dictionary with the word “incest” highlighted, methinks circumstantially someone in a position to know felt one of the R’s were responsible for the sexual contact that night. It’s to be noted that the sexual evidence was “distanced” by the R’s – both in a police interview and in their press conference beginning of May ’97. In that tightly controlled press gathering JR states emphatically that he did not kill JB. But regards sexual abuse: “I can tell you those were the most (BBM) hurtful innuendoes to us as a family. They are totally false.” His statement about not killing his daughter is straightforward. His statement about sexual abuse – more emphatic and he includes his entire family. What could be worse than being accused of killing your daughter? Sexual abuse. Make of it what you want.

One last story for consideration, but first a discussion. Some of you may know of the syndrome of giving one’s wife a nice present after being caught doing something bad – an affair, etc. Kobe Bryant’s $6 million diamond ring for his wife after his Colorado bad boy behavior comes to mind. (moo) Well, in the fall of ’95 the R’s took a trip to Texas. JB was 5 years old. When they returned the photographer of JB who also knew the family said JB’s “look” of childhood innocence was gone. ( It’s my belief photographers are trained to notice expressions.) What caused my antenna to go up was that PR came back with a humongous diamond ring and was shining people on about why she got the ring. PR said she saw others down in Texas with big rings and she wanted one. The photographer who heard this story thought it rang very false. OK, make of this what you want, totally circumstantial. Or call it too speculative. JB’s innocent look gone and PR sports a big diamond ring.

These are just details discovered on the web, in ST’s book and in Wecht’s book. Not sure it contributes anything to our discussion here, but I am a believer in the preponderance of circumstantial evidence explaining a crime. Interpreting who it points to the best is the perplexing part.

Nicely said.

 

[UKGuy]

the end result being the same is an interesting point to consider in light of the Rs refusal to have ALL of JB and BR's medical records turned over to LE. It's indicative, IMO, to the parent's knowledge that something wasn't right. And the Rs reasoning that they felt they were entitled to "an island of privacy" certainly raises questions. Moreover, while reviewing police files, Kolar came to realize that prior to the Rs first official "interview" with the DAs office (April '97), they were provided copies of police investigative reports prior to their questioning.this was a concession by the DA. A concession made in exchange for the Rs to agree to the "interview." Their subsequent interview in June of '98 had another "caveat." Their lawyer states at the time, "I have a real problem with certain kinds of medical records. These people are entitled to an island of privacy to try and recover what they've been through...I think you will get virtually everything you've described with the possible exception of personal medical records that I think Patsy and John are at least entitled to make a reasonable decision on..." (251/53)

Virtually everything????? Why not everything??:banghead::banghead:

bettybaby00,
Because IMO they were protecting BR. They were not protecting JonBenet, she was dead. They were not protecting themselves since as adults they have nothing to hide, excepting extra-marital affairs etc?

The island of privacy move likely repeats across the JonBenet case but in different ways. The phone records come to mind. There can only be two explanations for this, one is: The R's had a healthy bank balance, or everyone involved understood links to a specific person were not to be made public?


.

 

[BOESP]

It's not in Patsy's handwriting.

I disagree.

 

[BOESP]

bettybaby00,
Because IMO they were protecting BR. They were not protecting JonBenet, she was dead. They were not protecting themselves since as adults they have nothing to hide, excepting extra-marital affairs etc?

The island of privacy move likely repeats across the JonBenet case but in different ways. The phone records come to mind. There can only be two explanations for this, one is: The R's had a healthy bank balance, or everyone involved understood links to a specific person were not to be made public?


.

One thing that has always perplexed me is why John Ramsey did not (apparently) immediately contact his employer's security team. People in his position in companies associated with big-time defense contractors always have a security plan in place for events like kidnapping, whether it is the employee/owner or a family member. I'd go far enough to guess that complying with the security program was a part of a signed contract.

It seems obvious that Lockheed-Martin was not involved. If so, why not?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

One thing that has always perplexed me is why John Ramsey did not (apparently) immediately contact his employer's security team. People in his position in companies associated with big-time defense contractors always have a security plan in place for events like kidnapping, whether it is the employee/owner or a family member. I'd go far enough to guess that complying with the security program was a part of a signed contract.

It seems obvious that Lockheed-Martin was not involved. If so, why not?

My guess is because he was not thinking about that. She is missing he calls the police. Not his private security team, he does not call someone he could potentially control. Make them come out and contaminate everything.. He calls the police because he wants his DD back. When she is found he figures they will solve this and find the monster.
For me, This works for the Ramseys' not against them.. OMO

 

[Venom]

My guess is because he was not thinking about that. She is missing he calls the police. Not his private security team, he does not call someone he could potentially control. Make them come out and contaminate everything.. He calls the police because he wants his DD back. When she is found he figures they will solve this and find the monster.
For me, This works for the Ramseys' not against them.. OMO

I don't think he was worried about them contaminating, the R's calling just about all of Boulder over to their house that morning worked for that. MOO

 

[SapphireSteel]

It's not in Patsy's handwriting.

Uh, yes it was.

Or should I say, it resembled PR's writing and use of language so closely that I cannot accept a second person writing it especially using the Ramsey paper and the Ramsey pens and writing it (including a practice note) in the Ramsey house.

:twocents:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't think he was worried about them contaminating, the R's calling just about all of Boulder over to their house that morning worked for that. MOO

I guess I should have said having his security detail mess with the house. At this point he does not know she's dead. I would have been calling everyone also.

When my son went missing last winter for 40 mins I did not search anywhere I freaked out and called the police. In fact the men we were all with ran outside to search for him also no one searched the premises right away.

It's hard to say what you would do if you have never been in that situation. Omo

 

[SapphireSteel]

I guess I should have said having his security detail mess with the house. At this point he does not know she's dead. I would have been calling everyone also.

When my son went missing last winter for 40 mins I did not search anywhere I freaked out and called the police. In fact the men we were all with ran outside to search for him also no one searched the premises right away.

It's hard to say what you would do if you have never been in that situation. Omo

Interesting point.

We never did hear if the Ramseys rang around to actually try to find her, or if they just rang around to get an audience of supporters...did we?

Like the McCanns after them, the calls were for attention for them, not calling for or looking for their lost child.

Perhaps because both sets of parents knew their child wasn't alive to be found.

:sick:

 

[BOESP]

My guess is because he was not thinking about that. She is missing he calls the police. Not his private security team, he does not call someone he could potentially control. Make them come out and contaminate everything.. He calls the police because he wants his DD back. When she is found he figures they will solve this and find the monster.
For me, This works for the Ramseys' not against them.. OMO

John Ramsey was a highly paid executive in an extremely government-friendly business but he certainly did not control Lockheed-Martin.

He and Patsy had the wherewithal to call the police, JonBenet's pediatrician, their pastor and friends, all of whom positively contaminated the crime scene.

John ranted about the FBI not being called so it doesn't ring true that he simply forgot to call Lockheed. His failure to call his employer about an emergency security breach works against logic, sanity, and the desire to find his daughter's kidnapper (and later in the day, killer). Lockheed-Martin probably had more connections and ways to provide security and investigative resources than the city of Boulder.

John's employer could have gotten a lot done in a short period of time had he only let them know that he was being extorted and his daughter had been "kidnapped."

ETA: the FBI actually was called but that's another story.

 

[BOESP]

Uh, yes it was.

Or should I say, it resembled PR's writing and use of language so closely that I cannot accept a second person writing it especially using the Ramsey paper and the Ramsey pens and writing it (including a practice note) in the Ramsey house.

:twocents:

Hey, SapphireSteel, you left out the best part. John Ramsey told LE that the paper was Patsy's personal note pad and Patsy's personal pen, kept in her personal area on and in her desk just outside the kitchen area. I don't think he was the type to try and blame his wife just to keep his own chin clean. Do you?

I think he said it before he had figured out she actually wrote the note.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Hey, SapphireSteel, you left out the best part. John Ramsey told LE that the paper was Patsy's personal note pad and Patsy's personal pen, kept in her personal area on and in her desk just outside the kitchen area. I don't think he was the type to try and blame his wife just to keep his own chin clean. Do you?

I think he said it before he had figured out she actually wrote the note.

No.

I think they're both in it up to their slimy white necks.

I don't think JR knew that PR had done something so stupid. He told her to clean up (while he staged the garrotte), but he did not tell her to get busy writing anything :moo: He was just as surprised as the rest of us when LE found it and of course he couldn't deny that the paper and pen were hers, a lie like that is very easily detected.

:twocents:

 

[BOESP]

Interesting point.

We never did hear if the Ramseys rang around to actually try to find her, or if they just rang around to get an audience of supporters...did we?

Like the McCanns after them, the calls were for attention for them, not calling for or looking for their lost child.

Perhaps because both sets of parents knew their child wasn't alive to be found.

:sick:

I'm glad you posted this Sapphire. I think your post deserves more attention than just hitting the "thanks for the useful post" button. :tyou:

 

[UKGuy]

One thing that has always perplexed me is why John Ramsey did not (apparently) immediately contact his employer's security team. People in his position in companies associated with big-time defense contractors always have a security plan in place for events like kidnapping, whether it is the employee/owner or a family member. I'd go far enough to guess that complying with the security program was a part of a signed contract.

It seems obvious that Lockheed-Martin was not involved. If so, why not?

BOESP,
With all due respect this seems to be a rhetorical question: i.e. if you stage a crime which you know does not involve any intruder, you might not notify Lockheed-Martin. since if you intend to diall 911 thats enough scrutiny, thank you?

.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
With all due respect this seems to be a rhetorical question: i.e. if you stage a crime which you know does not involve any intruder, you might not notify Lockheed-Martin. since if you intend to diall 911 thats enough scrutiny, thank you?

.

It is a rhetorical question (or food for thought for those still trying to decide which side of the fence they sit on).

 

[midwest mama]

Can someone pls remind me,
why where the cops so interested in JR's scarf?I forgot...

Because there was one that showed up in a photo that was on a roll of a few Christmas photos that were shot a
by JR and turned over to LE at a later time. There was a discrepancy between JR's and PR's statements as to who owned the scarf that was shown laying on one of the kitchen/hall counters.

If memory serves me the scarf was red and black?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

John Ramsey was a highly paid executive in an extremely government-friendly business but he certainly did not control Lockheed-Martin.

He and Patsy had the wherewithal to call the police, JonBenet's pediatrician, their pastor and friends, all of whom positively contaminated the crime scene.

John ranted about the FBI not being called so it doesn't ring true that he simply forgot to call Lockheed. His failure to call his employer about an emergency security breach works against logic, sanity, and the desire to find his daughter's kidnapper (and later in the day, killer). Lockheed-Martin probably had more connections and ways to provide security and investigative resources than the city of Boulder.

John's employer could have gotten a lot done in a short period of time had he only let them know that he was being extorted and his daughter had been "kidnapped."

ETA: the FBI actually was called but that's another story.

I don't see any reason for him to call Lockheed. The POLICE are involved so why would you call Lockheed?
He wants his dd found and saved. I don't see the link between him not calling Lockheed and anything nefarious.

 

[2 percent]

I know plenty of kids who have has uti problems and no abuse. They just have issues. Sometimes it happens. Some of us are more probe to things than others.

But that's not fact, it's speculation based on personal experience.

I just can't take the leap to abuse from that. There needs to be more for me.

Her hymen was eroded.
There's no innocent explanation for that.

 

[UKGuy]

But that's not fact, it's speculation based on personal experience.



Her hymen was eroded.
There's no innocent explanation for that.

2 percent,
And if as a parent you are unaware of any prior molestation, who was it that cleaned up JonBenet, changed her underwear, dressed her in longjohns, then wrapped her in a blanket?

The R's could have opted for an intruder led molestation and asphyxiation, leaving JonBenet in her bed, bloodied and bruised form her encounter, but they never so why not?


.