Members can now start their own threads

[Tricia]

Hi Everyone,

You can now start your own thread topic. You don't need to wait 3098 years until I can get to your thread and approve it.

Please remember the rules. We do not allow random theories that are unproven and impossible.

There are only three possibilities as to who killed JonBenet. Until those three people are cleared and a logical explanation is brought forward by the mainstream media we only allow discussion on who killed JonBenet to include John, Patsy, and Burke.

The evidence points to someone in the house. What happened in the house that night I don't know. I only know there was no intruder.

With the exception of Mary Lacy who I believe to be mentally ill or has some other issue that makes her unable to make logical choices, the Ramseys have not been cleared by law enforcement.

I am not trying to be flippant or sarcastic when I say that about Mary Lacy. This is my constitutionally protected opinion about Mary Lacy. Her declaration of innocence for the Ramseys was never taken seriously by anyone because it was such a flat out insane thing to do. I don't know of any other D.A. who has done something like this on their own without any input from the members of law enforcement.


If you still want to believe that an intruder murdered JonBenet I invite you to read the book by James Kolar called Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?

Here is the Websleuths thread about the book

James Kolar was the lead investigator in the JonBenet Ramsey case when he worked for Mary Lacy. In a nutshell, Lacy refused to let Kolar proceed with investigating the Ramseys. Even though the evidence led directly to the Ramsey's Lacy refused to let him do his job.

Kolar quits, used his own money and self-published this book because he was so disgusted at what happened in the Boulder D.A.'s office. I am using my own words to paraphrase the situation.

Kolar took all the risk here to write the book. He has lost money in writing this book.

ANYWAY...... Please start threads sparingly and with a logical topic, please.

Thank you,
Tricia

 

[wonderllama]

Hey, I think I've been away with the pixies for a while, but did you just say that no non-Ramsey threads are allowed anymore?

 

[k-mac]

i requested a new thread some time ago.


**archeil please read the above statement from tricia websleuths owner.

 

[Tricia]

Ok well, this is off to a flying start.

If people start with their crazy theories that have zero evidence to back up said theories I will lose what is left of my mind.

Just sayin'.

Thank you.

Tricia

 

[Tricia]

Hey, I think I've been away with the pixies for a while, but did you just say that no non-Ramsey threads are allowed anymore?

The rules are the same as the rest of Websleuths but now you can start your own thread topics.

We are only looking at the people in the house that night because no one has been cleared and there is ZERO proof of an intruder.

No intruder theories because they are filled with false information. All of them.

Websleuths is privately owned by yours truly. I have final say on the rules.

We are very lucky in this discussion because of James Kolar's book. We have the evidence.

If someone can show me anything that logically suggests an intruder I am all ears.

The first thing someone has to do is find me an intruder who would write the 2 1/2 page ransom note in handwriting that looks like Patsy's.

Always start with the ransom note I say.

Carry on.

Tricia

 

[BBB167893]

The rules are the same as the rest of Websleuths but now you can start your own thread topics.

We are only looking at the people in the house that night because no one has been cleared and there is ZERO proof of an intruder.

No intruder theories because they are filled with false information. All of them.

Websleuths is privately owned by yours truly. I have final say on the rules.

We are very lucky in this discussion because of James Kolar's book. We have the evidence.

If someone can show me anything that logically suggests an intruder I am all ears.

The first thing someone has to do is find me an intruder who would write the 2 1/2 page ransom note in handwriting that looks like Patsy's.

Always start with the ransom note I say.

Carry on.

Tricia

It's simpler than that for me. Show me who else would benefit from writing a phony ransom note.

 

[UKGuy]

It's simpler than that for me. Show me who else would benefit from writing a phony ransom note.

ITA. Reducing it further, how come the killer knew there was a wine-cellar, where he could leave his abductee behind, after spending all that time authoring the ransom note?

Meaning: No phone call, because there is no body to hand over, i.e. maybe JonBenet had been intended to be found early on, so to prevent phone calls, ransom meetings, etc?

.
.

 

[BBB167893]

ITA. Reducing it further, how come the killer knew there was a wine-cellar, where he could leave his abductee behind, after spending all that time authoring the ransom note?

Meaning: No phone call, because there is no body to hand over, i.e. maybe JonBenet had been intended to be found early on, so to prevent phone calls, ransom meetings, etc?

.
.

Very possible, my friend.

 

[UKGuy]

Very possible, my friend.

Like why does the killer hang around to author a ransom note, if JonBenet is already dead?


Also what differentiates a violated, deceased JonBenet discovered in her bedroom and a violated and deceased JonBenet discovered in the wine-cellar : the ransom note.

IMO its the bedroom homicide that is being masked?

.

 

[BBB167893]

Like why does the killer hang around to author a ransom note, if JonBenet is already dead?

They don't. Unless they were already there.

Also what differentiates a violated, deceased JonBenet discovered in her bedroom and a violated and deceased JonBenet discovered in the wine-cellar : the ransom note.

Very true.

IMO its the bedroom homicide that is being masked?
.

Do tell.

 

[UKGuy]

They don't. Unless they were already there.



Very true.



Do tell.

Well we can tell the parents expected JonBenet to found early on, at least that was the expectation, why ? JR later phoning to arrange a flight out of Boulder, i.e. leaving JonBenet behind !

JR and PR had no backup plan in case JonBenet was not found, note JR's nervous behaviour , pacing about, his off the cuff remarks, etc, and Patsy bemoaning her fate.

So whatever the plan it was not really thought through, I reckon the parents attempted to sever the link between the real primary crime-scene, e.g. JonBenet's bedroom and the secondary crime-scene, e.g. the wine-cellar.

JonBenet's bedroom did not match that of an intruder abduction, its difficult to pin down what it represented, but it did not look as if someone entered, lifted JonBenet and proceeded to the basement. It looks like stuff has been removed and moved around.

The ransom note and placing JonBenet into the wine-cellar are red-flags, since she could have been staged in her bedroom as the consequence of an intruder assault.

This is why I think her bedroom is the primary crime-scene. There is the outside possibility that BR's bedroom is the primary crime-scene and JonBenet's bedroom was suitably messed around in attempt to fake a bedroom abduction scenario?

The collection of Photos left in the basement along with other items, also attest to the idea of separating the primary crime-scene from her assailant. Not something an intruder might consider?

Since JonBenet was examined genitally on two separate occassions, i.e. at autopsy then again later, thereby confirming Coroner Meyer's initial verbatem opinion regarding Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration, its safe to assume this was part of the motive, and that the perpetrator was male?

Why would Patsy want to divorce herself from JonBenet's cutesy photographs, she was her Project after all?

So it looks like the case is JDI or BDI, it might be worse and be both when you take into account the alleged chronic abuse?

I've always assumed Kolar, Thomas, et al could never reveal where BPD really thought the primary crime-scene was, as their terms of employment restrict what they can reveal about the case, so I take Kolar's and Spitz's tale about the breakfast bar with a pinch of salt.

Maybe if the litigation is defended we might find out more if the discovery process is made public?

 

[BoldBear]

Been gone for a while too. Good to see not much has changed.

 

[BBB167893]

Well we can tell the parents expected JonBenet to found early on, at least that was the expectation, why ? JR later phoning to arrange a flight out of Boulder, i.e. leaving JonBenet behind !

Well said.

JR and PR had no backup plan in case JonBenet was not found, note JR's nervous behaviour , pacing about, his off the cuff remarks, etc, and Patsy bemoaning her fate.

Agreed. I always figured John "finding" her was "Plan B"

The ransom note and placing JonBenet into the wine-cellar are red-flags, since she could have been staged in her bedroom as the consequence of an intruder assault.

mm-hmm.

This is why I think her bedroom is the primary crime-scene. There is the outside possibility that BR's bedroom is the primary crime-scene and JonBenet's bedroom was suitably messed around in attempt to fake a bedroom abduction scenario?

The collection of Photos left in the basement along with other items, also attest to the idea of separating the primary crime-scene from her assailant. Not something an intruder might consider?

Since JonBenet was examined genitally on two separate occassions, i.e. at autopsy then again later, thereby confirming Coroner Meyer's initial verbatem opinion regarding Sexual Contact and Digital Penetration, its safe to assume this was part of the motive, and that the perpetrator was male?

Why would Patsy want to divorce herself from JonBenet's cutesy photographs, she was her Project after all?

So it looks like the case is JDI or BDI, it might be worse and be both when you take into account the alleged chronic abuse?

I've always assumed Kolar, Thomas, et al could never reveal where BPD really thought the primary crime-scene was, as their terms of employment restrict what they can reveal about the case, so I take Kolar's and Spitz's tale about the breakfast bar with a pinch of salt.

You've given me a lot to consider.

Maybe if the litigation is defended we might find out more if the discovery process is made public?

I have a feeling it will be.