If you look at it logically it's very clear who did it!

[sunspun]

I to have heard about BR friend staying over that night. But didn't know about it till lately. And I agree that it would be hard to control two children. Just wondering if they ever interviewed the other boy, I don't believe I heard anything about it. I would guess because he was a minor.

If his friend (was it DS?) was there that night, when did he arrive? I never heard any mention of him being along with them on their car trip to deliver gifts, so are they saying he showed up after the family returned home? That doesn't really fit, since 1) JR and BR didn't mention it in their recounting of what happened after they got home that night and 2) it would have been an odd time for him to show up when the family was tired and ready for bed. Do they mean this was an expected visit or did he just randomly show up on his own? Was this after JR had gone to sleep? Did he not know the friend was there? If BR let him in the door after JR was asleep, is this possibly a way an intruder could have entered after that if BR forgot to re-lock the door?

So far, none of that makes sense to me. I don't see any way he could have visited that night. And also, do they mean he stayed there overnight, or was he supposedly just there for a short visit and then went back home? I know he lived in walking distance, so I suppose that's possible. But it would have been awfully late for that. Did the friend's parents let him roam on his own at night like that? Or did he sneak out? What time was it when he supposedly would have left the R house? Or was he supposed to have still been there in the morning when all the trouble started? Are the Rs supposed to have been unaware he was there and that's why no one ever mentioned him in reports of the 911 call etc.? And BR never mentioned he was there while he lay scared in bed all morning pretending to be asleep?

This obviously isn't making sense when looked at critically. Why are people saying "I heard his friend was there that night" when all you have to do is ask a few questions about that to realize that's not likely? It doesn't fit in at all with those same people's OTHER theories of the rest of what went on that night. If you believe the part about BR and JR setting up one of his gifts late that night before going to bed, then where was the friend at that point? That's just one example of how a visiting friend wouldn't fit with the rest of the story that you say you do believe. Sounds like people are letting their theories run wild without vetting them with any discernment whatsoever. Which I also feel is what many have let happen with their RDI theories as a whole. People just getting carried away with their imaginations.

But I did just think of one other possibility about the visiting friend story. Do they mean he was there EARLIER that night? And left before the family went to deliver gifts? Possible, maybe. But if so, that doesn't really seem to have much to do with what happened to JBR and everything else in the house overnight. Don't see any relevance to make it worth mentioning. Wouldn't change anything.

UNLESS ok, here we go... unless the friend DIDN'T really leave when the family did, and he stayed behind by himself, unbeknownst to the family, and he was there alone the whole time they were gone (time enough to write a ransom note?), and was STILL there when they got back home, but stayed hidden, all still unbeknownst to the family, and only came out of hiding after all had gone to sleep... and ta-da! just like that, we have another SODDI theory. See how easy that was?

I obviously don't believe that in any way, shape, or form, but see how easy it is to get carried away just by using our imagination? If I really wanted to, I could probably sincerely argue for that theory and find all kinds of true facts that could back it up and construct a whole theory about it that would be based in facts known to be true. And plenty of other things that are opinions but fit when you look at it a certain way. Which is what I think has happened with the RDI proponents. You can make almost anything fit if you study the heck out of every possible detail and present it in a certain way. And with a certain relentlessness, I would say. Gives it staying power. Which it certainly has had. Doesn't give it truth though. Just the work of good imaginations and excessive creativity and an overdose of stubbornness, imo.

 

[887sMtreme]

Looking at the notes the police made PR write for comparison to the "ransom note" she misspells advise and advised. I wonder if any of her previous writing samples that were handed over to police had either of those words spelled incorrectly?

“Advise” is a verb. “Advice” is a noun. The writer of the ransom note used the verb form and spelled it correctly.

 

[CrimeTheorist]

“Advise” is a verb. “Advice” is a noun. The writer of the ransom note used the verb form and spelled it correctly.

I know I was talking about PR's writing of the ransom note for comparison, she spelled both words that I mentioned with a "z".

 

[887sMtreme]

I know I was talking about PR's writing of the ransom note for comparison, she spelled both words that I mentioned with a "z".

I reviewed the photos of the ransom note on ACandyRose and don’t see that at all; only the word “advise,” by the way, no “advised.” Are you referring to one of Patsy’s handwriting samples rather than the actual note?

 

[CrimeTheorist]

I reviewed the photos of the ransom note on ACandyRose and don’t see that at all; only the word “advise,” by the way, no “advised.” Are you referring to one of Patsy’s handwriting samples rather than the actual note?

Of course.

 

[887sMtreme]

Of course.

Thanks for clarifying that. What do you think is the implication?

 

[CrimeTheorist]

Thanks for clarifying that. What do you think is the implication?

I think PR wrote the ransom note and most likely misspelled those words in the handwriting sample to make it look like she didn't write the note. I'd like to see all of PR's writings prior to the murder that the police have and check if she had any problems with spelling, especially those words (if by chance she wrote those words correctly before the murder, it would be strange that she suddenly can't spell them).

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I disagree that owning posters from classic movies has anything to do with a deep obsession with any type of movie. Some signed posters are collectibles. They are just an item of decoration, attractive as cultural objects, purchased to be seen by others as fashionable. At the same time, college kids had posters of Che Guevera but didn't care a whit about Cuba and had no intention of ever using a machine gun. I had a poster of bare trees in winter in Scandanavia, I had no intention of going there and actually hated winter, it just was an attractive image.

Crime solving requires much deeper psychological insight than that ragged old argument that's been doing the rounds of the internet for years.

JMO

This is from transcripts from PR interview with LE . I think the police were suspicious that the Ramseys may have had a refresher course in some of the movie lines . The questioning is of pictures of video tapes in PRs recovery room.
If you have not read through all the transcripts I suggest you do. There are so many tidbits to be gleaned if you pay attention. The questions are not asked in away to say " Gotcha" so you must always be asking yourself why are they asking this. IMO, this one is fairly obvious.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

If his friend (was it DS?) was there that night, when did he arrive? I never heard any mention of him being along with them on their car trip to deliver gifts, so are they saying he showed up after the family returned home? That doesn't really fit, since 1) JR and BR didn't mention it in their recounting of what happened after they got home that night and 2) it would have been an odd time for him to show up when the family was tired and ready for bed. Do they mean this was an expected visit or did he just randomly show up on his own? Was this after JR had gone to sleep? Did he not know the friend was there? If BR let him in the door after JR was asleep, is this possibly a way an intruder could have entered after that if BR forgot to re-lock the door?

So far, none of that makes sense to me. I don't see any way he could have visited that night. And also, do they mean he stayed there overnight, or was he supposedly just there for a short visit and then went back home? I know he lived in walking distance, so I suppose that's possible. But it would have been awfully late for that. Did the friend's parents let him roam on his own at night like that? Or did he sneak out? What time was it when he supposedly would have left the R house? Or was he supposed to have still been there in the morning when all the trouble started? Are the Rs supposed to have been unaware he was there and that's why no one ever mentioned him in reports of the 911 call etc.? And BR never mentioned he was there while he lay scared in bed all morning pretending to be asleep?

This obviously isn't making sense when looked at critically. Why are people saying "I heard his friend was there that night" when all you have to do is ask a few questions about that to realize that's not likely? It doesn't fit in at all with those same people's OTHER theories of the rest of what went on that night. If you believe the part about BR and JR setting up one of his gifts late that night before going to bed, then where was the friend at that point? That's just one example of how a visiting friend wouldn't fit with the rest of the story that you say you do believe. Sounds like people are letting their theories run wild without vetting them with any discernment whatsoever. Which I also feel is what many have let happen with their RDI theories as a whole. People just getting carried away with their imaginations.

But I did just think of one other possibility about the visiting friend story. Do they mean he was there EARLIER that night? And left before the family went to deliver gifts? Possible, maybe. But if so, that doesn't really seem to have much to do with what happened to JBR and everything else in the house overnight. Don't see any relevance to make it worth mentioning. Wouldn't change anything.

UNLESS ok, here we go... unless the friend DIDN'T really leave when the family did, and he stayed behind by himself, unbeknownst to the family, and he was there alone the whole time they were gone (time enough to write a ransom note?), and was STILL there when they got back home, but stayed hidden, all still unbeknownst to the family, and only came out of hiding after all had gone to sleep... and ta-da! just like that, we have another SODDI theory. See how easy that was?

I obviously don't believe that in any way, shape, or form, but see how easy it is to get carried away just by using our imagination? If I really wanted to, I could probably sincerely argue for that theory and find all kinds of true facts that could back it up and construct a whole theory about it that would be based in facts known to be true. And plenty of other things that are opinions but fit when you look at it a certain way. Which is what I think has happened with the RDI proponents. You can make almost anything fit if you study the heck out of every possible detail and present it in a certain way. And with a certain relentlessness, I would say. Gives it staying power. Which it certainly has had. Doesn't give it truth though. Just the work of good imaginations and excessive creativity and an overdose of stubbornness, imo.

There are tracks in the snow of a bike leaving the house. Many people believe that to be of the neighbors son leaving the house. Other people also believe that the neighbor's son was picked up when the Ramsey stopped over to the neighbors. Some people speculate he was going to go along on the trip with them.

You have to remember the son's friend was a minor. They're not going to mention him too much to the public. So just because you didn't hear it before, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Also somebody found a baseball bat outside and and neighbors heard some kind of clanging sound that they thought was the baseball bat being thrown outside. My theory is that Burke threw the baseball bat outside so that's the neighbor's son could collect it before he went home. But I guess he missed it or something.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

We're talking a lot about JonBenet being sexually abused, but we are neglecting to mention some signs that Burke may have been sexually abused. For example there were reports that he had fecal incontinence. One example of that was his feces on the candy box that JonBenet had in her room the night she was killed. And if he was being sexually abused, who was doing it? And if it was true, then how does that fit into theories of the motivation of the murder of jbr.

Anal intercourse linked to increased risk of incontinence in both male

Study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology shows fecal incontinence risk from anal intercourse is heightened for both women and men, with

bb.uab.edu

"Engaging in the practice of anal intercourse may increase risks for bowel problems, including fecal incontinence and bowel leakage,"

 

[Swirlz]

One example of that was his feces on the candy box that JonBenet had in her room the night she was killed.

There's no evidence to suggest Burke got bodily waste on JBR's candy box, just that supposedly fecal material was observed on the box. The box wasn't collected which means it couldn't have been tested. Since JBR was known to leave poop places it wasn't supposed to be, the most likely scenario is that it was JBR herself who got waste on the box.

And if he was being sexually abused, who was doing it?

Susanne Bernhard recommended a follow up for Burke in specifically the area of "uncomfortable touching". Linda Arndt stated in her 2000 depo that she believed JR to be the party responsible for prior SA of JBR and implied the department of social services agreed with her assessment. Susanne Bernhard was part of the department of social services.

 

[sunspun]

There are tracks in the snow of a bike leaving the house. Many people believe that to be of the neighbors son leaving the house.

That would make me think the killer rode a bike to their house and of course, left on his bike when he fled after killing her. Which would be another good reason he didn't take her with him.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

That would make me think the killer rode a bike to their house and of course, left on his bike when he fled after killing her. Which would be another good reason he didn't take her with him.

Yeah, the sole evidence for DS being there that night is "some people think".

 

[John Rivers]

That would make me think the killer rode a bike to their house and of course, left on his bike when he fled after killing her. Which would be another good reason he didn't take her with him.

But when were the tracks made? Is there a reason to think they were left after JBR's death, and not before?

 

[concernedcitizen706]

That would make me think the killer rode a bike to their house and of course, left on his bike when he fled after killing her. Which would be another good reason he didn't take her with him.

No it was one of the family bikes. Because they found it at the neighbor's house.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

But when were the tracks made? Is there a reason to think they were left after JBR's death, and not before?

Yes because they were left in the frost which happened in the morning.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

Yeah, the sole evidence for DS being there that night is "some people think".

Well read the book and the evidence yourself, I don't have time to explain it all here. But to sum up, one of the Ramsey's bikes, don't know if they specified which one, but I think it's one of the bikes they got for Christmas that day, was found at the neighbors. The frost came in the morning so that's how the tracks were made after she was killed. The neighbor's son was interviewed at the grand jury. But again feel free to read up on it yourself.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

There's no evidence to suggest Burke got bodily waste on JBR's candy box, just that supposedly fecal material was observed on the box. The box wasn't collected which means it couldn't have been tested. Since JBR was known to leave poop places it wasn't supposed to be, the most likely scenario is that it was JBR herself who got waste on the box.


Susanne Bernhard recommended a follow up for Burke in specifically the area of "uncomfortable touching". Linda Arndt stated in her 2000 depo that she believed JR to be the party responsible for prior SA of JBR and implied the department of social services agreed with her assessment. Susanne Bernhard was part of the department of social services.

There was other evidence about that with Burke as well, such as soiling his underwear frequently. Again you'll have to Google it to get the details.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

Anyway I wanted to comment again on the burn mark on jbr's cheek. Also I read the fireplace poker was found near her body in the basement. So you put those two together, this is my theory on it. I believe she was struck in front of the fire with the fireplace poker. She was probably resisting the perps so she was beaten with that fireplace poker and that's how she got the bruises. That's also how she got to burn mark on her cheek from the hot poker, and when they hit her face with it, she screamed. And then she was struck over the head with the poker, to try and shut her up, while she was sitting on the floor. And that's how she got her head injury. I believe the parents did the later staging.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Well read the book and the evidence yourself, I don't have time to explain it all here.

What book?

But to sum up, one of the Ramsey's bikes, don't know if they specified which one, but I think it's one of the bikes they got for Christmas that day, was found at the neighbors.

No, JonBenet's bike was stored there until Christmas so she wouldn't find it. It wasn't found at a neighbour's after the murder.

The frost came in the morning so that's how the tracks were made after she was killed. The neighbor's son was interviewed at the grand jury. But again feel free to read up on it yourself.

Lots of people who were acquainted with the Ramseys went before the Grand Jury. Generally, if you're going before them,.you're not a suspect.