I can't find a hole in this theory...

[Whaleshark]

Yes, just saw that..... Was first replying to 'Pages' comment from the bonita papers saying they were on the counter..

 

[midwest mama]

I agree-I think B had more of a motive THAT NIGHT then John!!
I keep coming back and asking myself-Why that night?

Exactly my repeated thought! Why would JR pick Christmas night for such a heinous act. He'd loaded his plane that day to get ready to head for Michigan, the family had made gathering plans, and even a cruise was booked for Patsy's birthday just following. Parents had solid plans. Kids, however, were probably all hyped up still from Christmas, looking forward to more presents, etc, and would have had a hard time settling in, expecting another visit from Santa, and then excited about all the fun to come in the next days. I remember my own kids fighting off sleep and being awake extra early for every holiday or special celebration.

 

[midwest mama]

midwest mama,
I agree. Something like that, IMO the emphasised phrase represents Ramsey arrogance completely, maybe thats why it worked eventually?


.

Exactamundo!! This has been my take on the Ramseys all along. They always acted as if everything they said or done would be totally accepted by everyone, and they would expect nothing less. Both of them were always in the driver's seat of all phases of their adult lives. Their abilities, actions, achievements - everything pointed to continual successes, and they had no reason to ever feel they would not succeed at anything they attempted.

I've posted several times in threads in this forum about my impression of the narcissistic characteristics they seem to have possessed. Any failures portrayed to the public by them in any way would have been unthinkable to them, IMHO. This crime HAD to be made to look as if someone other than any of them was responsible. And it would never have crossed their mind that they would fail at proving that. :moo:

 

[UKGuy]

Ok, so they did each use their own pad, perhaps, but both pads were there on the counter, and either one, or both of them, used one of the pads that they owned to write the note. They did it anyway, and they are both equally implicated, as they both had access to their own, and each other's writing pads...

Whaleshark,
All the R's had access to everything in the R's house, whats new?

You and Chrishope are becoming tedious with your repeated generalizing from the particular.

You seem to resort to this when the evidence does not fit docg's theory, e.g. fiber evidence. Its not a particularly intelligent form of rebuttal and over time will weaken docg's whole case, as other board members become cynical of this approach.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Exactamundo!! This has been my take on the Ramseys all along. They always acted as if everything they said or done would be totally accepted by everyone, and they would expect nothing less. Both of them were always in the driver's seat of all phases of their adult lives. Their abilities, actions, achievements - everything pointed to continual successes, and they had no reason to ever feel they would not succeed at anything they attempted.

I've posted several times in threads in this forum about my impression of the narcissistic characteristics they seem to have possessed. Any failures portrayed to the public by them in any way would have been unthinkable to them, IMHO. This crime HAD to be made to look as if someone other than any of them was responsible. And it would never have crossed their mind that they would fail at proving that. :moo:

midwest mama,
I think you make a good point. Psychology is not a subject I'm strong in, but I noticed this tendency when John told one of the police officers he was leaving Colorado, without JonBenet , using his private plane, because he had some business appointment to attend that day!

Duh, what a brassneck!


.

 

[UKGuy]

Right, so we can quit saying it was Patsy's paper and pen, etc. It was the Ramsey's paper and pen, etc.

So, going along with doc's theory (which I think is a pretty good theory) wouldn't PR have to recognize that the RN is on "their" paper? Or at least paper very like their own? Wouldn't she have to recognize that it was written with a sharpie, vice a ballpoint?

Chrishope,
It was really Boulder paper and pen, since Intruders also had access to them.


simples.



.

 

[SyraKelly]

Exactamundo!! This has been my take on the Ramseys all along. They always acted as if everything they said or done would be totally accepted by everyone, and they would expect nothing less. Both of them were always in the driver's seat of all phases of their adult lives. Their abilities, actions, achievements - everything pointed to continual successes, and they had no reason to ever feel they would not succeed at anything they attempted.

I've posted several times in threads in this forum about my impression of the narcissistic characteristics they seem to have possessed. Any failures portrayed to the public by them in any way would have been unthinkable to them, IMHO. This crime HAD to be made to look as if someone other than any of them was responsible. And it would never have crossed their mind that they would fail at proving that. :moo:

I agree after seeing that pic in the Child of rage thread-what a bizarre pic!
These people really did think they were in the same caliber class as the Kennedys & people should treat them as such!I think Pasty tried to emulate Jackie O & her family as The Kennedys!
Didn't Pasty ask someone at JB's funeral if she looked like Jackie O?Pasty had an ego the size of Texas & Alaska put together!!!

 

[Whaleshark]

Whaleshark,
All the R's had access to everything in the R's house, whats new?

You and Chrishope are becoming tedious with your repeated generalizing from the particular.

You seem to resort to this when the evidence does not fit docg's theory, e.g. fiber evidence. Its not a particularly intelligent form of rebuttal and over time will weaken docg's whole case, as other board members become cynical of this approach
.

What's new is that I was originally answering blefuscu's comment who was asking why Patsy would be so daff to use her own pad and pen in her own handwriting and implicate herself. I pointed out to blefuscu that they had to use what was in the house anyway, and that one could then make the same argument about John - why would he implicate himself... Yadda yadda. Chrishope chimed in with his questions from that.

I was not using any excuse to back up docg's theory for any reason. Chrishope backs up Docg's theory.... I am not committed to any theory.

Just because Chrishope happened to agree with a comment about the point I was trying to make to blefuscu does not mean I was using some pointless comment in agreement with docg. No.

Perhaps you should read the origin and beginning of the discussion a few pages back before you presume to know what you are talking about.

 

[Chrishope]

why? the various detectives and investigators labelled it as such:

ST, pg. 31

When Sergeant Bob Whitson had arrived at the house, he asked for handwriting samples of John and Patsy Ramsey, standard procedure to begin eliminating people as possible suspects. John Ramsey had picked up two tablets of white lined paper -- one from a countertop and the other from a hallway table a few steps from the spiral staircase -- and handed them to the policeman. Whitson scribbed John across the top of one, which contained business notes Ramsey said he made, and Patsy atop the second, on which the first four pages were covered with doodles, lists and other writing in a feminine hand.


AJK, pg. 93

When Sgt. Bob Whitson asked John Ramsey for samples of handwriting for him and his wife, Ramsey grabbed a pad of paper and wrote out the following: "Now is the time for all good men". He also produced another pad of paper from the kitchen that he described as belonging to Patsy.

It could also have been labeled "pad of paper", without reference to the "owner". It doesn'treally matter how it's labelled. The paper was available, to anyone.

Whaleshark has a good point, the paper wasn't under the exclusive control of PR. It was just a writing tablet in the R's house. It points to the Rs, but not to either one specifically. The "association" is just as strong for JR as for PR.

 

[Chrishope]

What's new is that I was originally answering blefuscu's comment who was asking why Patsy would be so daff to use her own pad and pen in her own handwriting and implicate herself. I pointed out to blefuscu that they had to use what was in the house anyway, and that one could then make the same argument about John - why would he implicate himself... Yadda yadda. Chrishope chimed in with his questions from that.

I was not using any excuse to back up docg's theory for any reason. Chrishope backs up Docg's theory.... I am not committed to any theory.

Just because Chrishope happened to agree with a comment about the point I was trying to make to blefuscu does not mean I was using some pointless comment in agreement with docg. No.

Perhaps you should read the origin and beginning of the discussion a few pages back before you presume to know what you are talking about.

I wasn't backing up doc's theory with my comment. (ThoughI do favor doc's theory over all other case theories) If anything I was pointing out a potential weakness in the theory, specifically that the paper should have looked very familiar to PR. To me this suggests a couple things. A) the murder was not premeditated, at least not planned days in advance, or there would have been plans made to source items from outside the home. B) PR was expected to accept that the "kidnappers" wrote the note, using the R's paper, or she was expected to be so distraught over JBR's disappearance that she wouldn't notice.

I had been doubtful about the part of doc's theory where the original is destroyed, but now I see that it makes sense. As blefuscu points out it would be daft of PR to write the note in her own hand, on "her" paper and hand it to the cops. It would be equally daft for JR to do so, on paper available in "his" home.

I was agreeing with you that the paper and pen were not under the exclusive control of PR. Though it may well be that she bought them, and that in normal conversation one would refer to them as "hers", they were in fact available to anyone in the house.

As you pointed out, the paper and pen are not "associated" or "linked" to PR any more strongly than to JR. Whichever one iwrote the RN, that author was using pen and paper from their own home.

 

[Chrishope]

Ok, so they did each use their own pad, perhaps, but both pads were there on the counter, and either one, or both of them, used one of the pads that they owned to write the note. They did it anyway, and they are both equally implicated, as they both had access to their own, and each other's writing pads...

No no, they'd never use each other's pads. They'd only ever use the one they had already been using. Especially since the pads are so very different, JR's being blue, and PR's being pink.

 

[Whaleshark]

Chrishope said:
"As you pointed out, the paper and pen are not "associated" or "linked" to PR any more strongly than to JR. Whichever one iwrote the RN, that author was using pen and paper from their own home".


Right, which was in answer to blefuscu's questions and fallacious argument....
Not about being in support of docg's theory.

- Is my point to UKGuy.

 

[Whaleshark]

No no, they'd never use each other's pads. They'd only ever use the one they had already been using. Especially since the pads are so very different, JR's being blue, and PR's being pink.

Don't start getting facetious, now. You'll only confuse people - as you can see, people are already not following what some people are even talking about...

 

[Chrishope]

Don't start getting facetious, now. You'll only confuse people - as you can see, people are already not following what some people are even talking about...

Par for the course.

 

[midwest mama]

midwest mama,
I think you make a good point. Psychology is not a subject I'm strong in, but I noticed this tendency when John told one of the police officers he was leaving Colorado, without JonBenet , using his private plane, because he had some business appointment to attend that day!

Duh, what a brassneck!


.

Lest we forget, Kolar has presented a 20 page Theory of Prosecution (his 2nd one - different from the one he gave to Lacy) currently in the hands of Boulder LE. He believes this case can be prosecuted to a resolution. Translation: To seek and indictment, JR has to be charged with murder - in some degree. The case is currently open as a murder investigation.
Burke and Patsy can't be charged with murder. JR can't be charged with lesser related crimes due to statute of limitations.

So, unless there is more direct evidence that is being withheld pending a prosecution, that leaves us to suspect the theory Kolar presented must now also include very well-substantiated circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence must always include responsible psychological and behavioral profiling - else why the need for the BAU and CASKU of the FBI.

History of this case leaves Kolar without optimism of it getting the resolution it deserves, i.e., two past DA's making gutless :moo: decisions
and the RST ability to squash everything that looks like a bug.

But Kolar also remains HOPEFUL, having taken a stand on truth as he knows it, and wanting to believe there can still be justice for JB.

 

[blefuscu]

Chrishope said:

Right, which was in answer to blefuscu's questions and fallacious argument....

:floorlaugh:

 

[Chrishope]

:floorlaugh:

Just to be clear, I didn't say your argument was fallacious. I agree it makes no sense for PR to write the note, stating don't call the cops, then call the cops, then hand over a RN in her handwriting, using pen and paper from her house.

But Whaleshark has a point, since the pad was accessible to anyone there is no reason to treat it as if it's particular to PR. IOWs if JR wrote the note, which I'm sure he did, he would have the same concern. It wouldn't be much of a defense to claim he couldn't have written it because it's on PR's pad.

 

[midwest mama]

I absolutely agree - the final few lines of the note are florid and melodramatic, almost as if the author was relishing their own 'poesy'. In an age without the internet, I still persist in viewing the dictionary opened at 'incest' as a desperate attempt to find some information about what had been discovered to have occurred to JBR. Reference books were for referring to back then.

My utterly unsupported interpretation is that Burke executed all the sexual defilement, including the paintbrush jab. I don't think the Ramseys realised they were brilliantly covering up past abuse meted out by Burke. They were simply confronted by the horrific mess of their daughter's genitalia. Patsy had her suspicions upon visits to the pediatrician which had now been tragically confirmed. One last thing - the dynamic seems to be Patsy firmly in the driving seat during the entire evening with John taking a grief-stricken backseat.

Using your scenario, let's add this: Both Patsy and John thought JB was already dead according to what they saw. Now, to make it look like the "kidnapping" they would set up, and because eventually they would call the police, so she would be 'found' 'dead' (as the kidnappers warned), they decided they'd better tighten that ligature enough to make it look like she'd been strangled for sure, since the bash only left a dent (they felt it):moo: and no immediate signs of death. Patsy just didn't have the guts to pull the cord once the handle was made, so poor John had to be the one. :moo: Tragedy is, JB was still alive, and JB actually murdered his daughter by strangulation.:moo:

If we add this activity, JOHN CAN BE PROSECUTED FOR MURDER, which is probably why Kolar presented a 20 page Theory of Prosecution to Boulder LE in January 2011. :rocker:

 

[midwest mama]

Well Doc, looks like no matter what route some are using to arrive at their theory, many are coming around to the fact that John was the one who took the last breath out of JB.

We can all create as many scenarios based on our non-professional ability as we dare, but bottom line is that to get this case tried before a jury, there has to be enough evidence to motivate a DA.

Whether Kolar's Theory of Prosecution now before Boulder LE includes just direct evidence, new direct evidence, circumstantial evidence or a combination of any of it, what does it matter as long as it is a credible Theory that brings the case to court??

Why would Kolar even create his 20 page document, and do what he did to get the facts out to the public (as he has taken great care to do), if he doesn't think John Ramsey should be prosecuted. Open murder case, no prosecution of Burke or Patsy, or John for any related crimes due to statute of limitations = just John chargeable with murder.

Now, wouldn't it make sense, if any of us want to see John Ramsey prosecuted, for us to figure out a way to get Boulder LE up off their dead *es and onto their dying feet??

No intruder, no final strangulation of JB by anyone other than John Ramsey. How do we get it into court??t


:justice: :websleuther: :justice:

 

[Chrishope]

I have no problem with any other part of this post, Chris, but have to take exception here. The pad used for the note was absolutely generic, the type of pad used by millions of people and probably many thousands in Boulder. The police determined the note came from patsy's pad, only by magnifiying the tear holes at the top and matching them with corresponding holes in the pad. We have no reason to assume patsy would have recognized that the note came from her pad, no more than that she would have recognized john's writing, which was obviously disguised (how else would he have been ruled out?).

I may have put things too strongly. I didn't mean she'd take one look and say "Hey, that's from my writing tablet!". I just meant that it should have occurred to her that the paper was similar to hers. And she should have been able to tell it was written with a sharpie, not a ballpoint. Or maybe it's better to say it COULD have occurred to her, which is a risk for JR. One that he had to take, but still a risk.

I agree, it's generic paper. And a sharpie is a sharpie. So maybe it's expecting too much of PR to start considering that the note was written in the house on their paper, especially since she'd be in a panic about JBR being taken.