Missing Link - What's the compelling motive for government cover-up?...

  • #41
narlacat said:
Edison

Here is a theory that I find makes sense that could explain that it was John and Patsy didnt know.
It is from a poster called docg.

>>What follows is a hypothetical scenario based on my analysis of the Ramsey case posted some time ago at the Webbsleuths Case Files site. It demonstrates how John Ramsey could have murdered his daughter and covered up his actions, essentially on his own, with just a small amount of help from a basically innocent Patsy. The key to the scenario is the ransom note itself, for which it supplies a very thorough (if speculative) explanation. If you can “read” the note, then, in my opinion, this scenario simply pops right out at you. Because the note looks to me like the outline of a plan:

1. John kills his daughter JonBenet, probably in connection with some sort of sexual molestation. It’s possible he does this “accidently” during gentle manual strangulation, concocting the “garotte” to point investigators away from possible fingerprints on her neck. (See the Althusser case, in France, where strangulation was so gentle as to leave no signs at all on the outer part of the neck.) Or it’s possible the garotte was itself a part of the sexual act. It’s difficult to account for the reason behind the head blow, but it would seem to have followed strangulation and been part of a coverup effort.
2. John then devises a plan, a phoney kidnapping, followed by a fatal sexual attack on the part of the “kidnapper.” To make this work he needs two things: a ransom note; a staged break-in.
3. He stores the body temporarily in the windowless room, in a remote corner, covered by blankets, planning later to get it into the trunk of the car and dump it.
4. He writes the ransom note at his computer, then either traces it or copies it, imitating the look of the font he’s chosen. (He dare not print it for fear of waking Patsy or Burke.) It is carefully constructed to accomplish several tasks: discourage Patsy from searching the house for JonBenet; frighten her into not calling the police; setting up a phoney kidnapping scenario; calling for a reasonably small ransom amount, something that won’t make the people at the bank suspicious – he makes it $118,000 rather than, say, $100,000 so that this particular amount will be seen as having primarily symbolic rather than monetary significance – the kidnapper he is creating will be someone “out to get” John; setting up a situation where it is up to him to deal with raising the ransom and getting it to the “kidnapper”; giving him a full day to do what he will have to do (the note says the call will come “tomorrow.”)
5. He then stages a break-in at the basement window, breaking a hole in the window, dumping debris from the window well onto the floor, making a scuff mark on the wall, placing the suitcase under the window and leaving it ajar. He realizes, however, that this is not sufficient, that at some point he must actually crawl through that window and displace the grate. Too risky to do that now. He plans to take care of that the following night when, as he hopes, he will be alone in the house.
6. John’s plan (plan A) involves calling in friends to witness the staged break-in and the note’s contents and then take Patsy and Burke with them, for their safety, leaving John alone to deal with raising the ransom and delivering it.
7. Once everyone is gone, John will be able to safely get the body into the car trunk, along with all the evidence, including the note itself. He’ll dump the body in a remote place and burn the note. Later he will claim the kidnappers contacted him again and gave him instructions as to where to take the ransom. He’ll also claim they demanded the return of the note. And he’ll claim they then told him to pick JonBenet up somewhere, but when he arrived no one was there.
8. The above plan could not be implemented, however, because John was never able to convince Patsy not to call the police. For whatever reason, most likely in all innocence, she makes that 911 call, spoiling his carefully worked out plan. He must now move to plan B. IMO it could well be the shift from plan A to plan B that has made this case so difficult to piece together.
9. As the police are arriving, John is already at work attempting to undo plan A and move to plan B. Since the window break-in had never been completed, this is now his main concern. Because the way things now stand, it will be all too clear to the police that this is a staged break-in. He attempts to undo his earlier staging by secretly closing the window and then claiming it had been broken long ago, by him, when he’d locked himself out of the house. Unknown to him, however, the police had already spotted the window when it was open. This IMO is his most serious mistake, not getting that window closed soon enough. Later, when questioned about this, why he closed the window and why he informed no one, he is unable to explain.
10. When Arndt asks John to search the house, he goes directly to the basement because it is necessary for him to discover the body – so he can claim it was right out in the open rather than carefully hidden in a corner under blankets (which is why Fleet White didn’t see it earlier). This, rather than any attempt at “contaminating the crime scene,” is his real reason for “discovering” the body.
11. After the body is found, John cannot permit the police to interrogate Patsy. Because she might reveal the fact that John was totally against calling the police, and this might well give away his plan. This is the real reason why “the Ramseys” stonewalled the police for so long. Patsy needs to be convinced to tell some white lies about what happened. John lets his lawyers do this, the argument being that to tell the whole truth will tend to make John look bad. Patsy is convinced John is innocent, so she tries to do all she can to help in his defense. Patsy is convinced IMO to this day, which is why they have presented a united front. John depends on Patsy because he’s afraid she’ll tell the whole truth about whose idea the 911 call was. Patsy depends on John because he, with his legal “team,” has become her principal defender.<<
Wait, you belive this is what happened?
Why because all dads are child molesters?
Why do you think JR was molesting his daughter?
On Christmas night after a really long day and dinner at friends with a trip to Michigan the next morning at 6 am. JR decides it's time for a little JBR action? Do you think PR would of noticed him gone at all?
There's no evidence to suggest JBR was ever sexually molested.
Stick to facts, don't make them up.
Bad place to start a theroy.
 
  • #42
I didnt say I believed it, I said it "could" have been what happened and I certainly didnt say all dad's are child molesters.

Noone knows exactly what happened that night remember? None of us were there remember?
Sticking to the facts, JonBenet was definelty sexually assaulted the night she died. With a paintbrush zman.
I dont know if John Ramsey sexually molested his daughter or not and neither do you, if the experts who say JonBenet showed signs that were consistent with abuse are right,for all we know he well could have, sheesh its not out of the realm of possibility or you dont live on planet Earth. It happens.
 
  • #43
EdisonDoyle said:
......I agree with you in the sense that if there is a cover-up, it is widespread. But why? Why are they covering this up?

I know the CIA and FBI cover things up for national security and other reasons (plane crashes?). But this piddlin' case (which is really what it is, in the course and scope of things). Maybe that's the reason - it was piddlin and they figured no one would notice; yet conspirators joined the conspiracy after it was no longer piddlin' So why? And do you think it will ever be exposed?

National Security? There's an article, "Daddy's Little Princess" at konformist.com, which gives a CIA theory, I believe. http://www.freedomdomain.com/articles/jonbenet.htm

Also, if interested, google "Mind Control" and "Mind Control Experiments". I haven't yet read the results myself, lots more than you really wanted to know, but it might get us out of the RDI "rut".

Skimming the paragraph headlines, I believe I did read that experiments started in about 1953, and twenty yrs later, during the Nixon Watergate uproar, two of the guys heading it up retired, decided to destroy the records. A few financial records only escaped the shredder.

"Why would the Ramseys participate in a coverup if none of them is guilty?" keeps coming up, constantly, so, a wild guess, what if there really was some madman misusing the methods learned in these experiments, like in "Manchurian Candidate", and like Charles Manson, influencing others to kill, but claiming he himself is not a killer? Not dirtying his own hands. Always using others as "insulation" to do his dirty work?

If the Ramseys knew or suspected this was that kind of gov't-sanctioned warfare on normal people, wouldn't that be a powerful reason for them to participate in the coverup?

You have to have read at least some of the search results, I guess, to begin to form this impression. Maybe they knew they'd offended someone they didn't dare name.

One of our former members showed it was indeed possible for JAR to be in Boulder that night, and, judging by (1) neighbor Barnhill's seeing someone strongly resembling JAR that evening, (2) the Waterford, Mi. sometime-informant claiming JAR tried to arrange a boating accident for his little half sister, but probably the young man had not been in Mich at the time, (2) there having been some Lee Harvey Oswald lookalikes, according to one of the books about Dallas, (4) the loiterer at the gas station in Charlevoix spouting hate propaganda against JR, according to long ago Jameson posters, let's face it, there may have been a JAR lookalike, and what would that mean? That the same people who engineered the assassination use that m.o. for some reason, and maybe also did this?

I have no firm theory, not saying I believe or disbelieve whatever, just joining the discussion to point out there's other possible reasons for the R's to participate in the evident coverup, than one of them being guilty. That's just too pat an answer, oversimplified. I think I agree with whoever said that apparently this was worldwide. JR was at the time one of the "jet set", after all. I think he had some kind of security clearance. Re the 1973 Nixon coverup, Watergating and Mind Control experiments must have been somehow connected. The two guys resigning wouldn't be just to try to divert attention from the Watergating crisis, just doubled the trouble, right? Did we maybe miss some clue? I have no idea what it might be. (Hate propaganda, possible lookalike, staging the suitcase, dictionary, etc. to point to a family member, which only actually points to an intruder or intruders, since no family member would leave such obvious incriminating evidence against themselves. Are we giving these enough weight, and is there more along these lines that we missed? We've pretty well explored just about everything else, to no avail. Not that we'd be able to crack the even-bigger case either.)
 
  • #44
Just responding, to fit in with Eagle1's composition.

Consider my knee jerk analysis, how about JR involved in child 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 on an international governmental scale to raise money for 'quiet and secretive' governmental 'activities'?

Consider this, WHY would a governmental contractor want to rid themselves of JR so soon AFTER the murder? What would it matter remember all the sexual misadventures of past political performers. Kindness and generosity would have been better served in KEEPING JR.

There is a new book on the market written by Peter Lawfords son, that blows the lid off some incredible sexual romps with president Kennedy and his brother Robert. Orgies if you will.

So then IF anyone wishes to consider the possibility of child 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 involved in the 'accidental' killing of JonBenet, WHY oh WHY would Patsy ever go along with this?

This thought then dumps us down in the same old thought pile that hangs out with the BDI, etc., theories, that PR did not want to lose her standing in the community, nor her BREADWINNER husband and ruin the life of their little son.

Additionally WHY and HOW would their college age son, offer 'forgiveness' so QUICKLY to the UNKNOWN KILLER/ACCIDENTAL KILLER/sexual pervert OF HIS 'adored' little sister? HOW would he have known of a 'cloak and dagger cover up of ACCESS Graphics'?

All of these trails take us down yet another path to a dead end. imop.

I am smitten with the thought that IF IF IF the FBI had EXERTED itself OVER THE 'Kidnapping Ransom Note scene' and taken control over the matter on the morning of December 26 we could possibly have had a better conclusion.

For a 'pipsqueek' local LE man to shoo the FBI away was a MAJOR MISTAKE, and for the FBI to go away, yet another mistake!

The ransom note smelled like a duck, and should have been treated like a duck by the FBI. BUT, IF the FBI had taken control that morning, it is possible that we would still be sitting in the same old boat, high and dry, IF Eagle1's synopsis has any truth to it.

I am reminded of a story of some friends of mine, who sitting at the real estate closing table on the sale of their home to a retired FBI man, asked this question. "What did you do with the FBI", he replied in kind, "I lied a lot".

The friends did ultimately know what his job had been, and it had been indeed a dangerous one.



.
 
  • #45
lol, I'll have to read through Camper's again, but here's a short copy/paste of just the part where I'm referenced, thank you, all in good humor, I trust. "The ransom note smelled like a duck, and should have been treated like a duck by the FBI. BUT, IF the FBI had taken control that morning, it is possible that we would still be sitting in the same old boat, high and dry, IF Eagle1's synopsis has any truth to it."

Eagle: I'd also have to re-read my own post from yesterday in order to make any intelligible comment, so just my usual one-liner, "I didn't say I believe or disbelieve" such and such. Probably was doing some creative thinking a/k/a speculation. It's too early to do a lot of detail reading and I just had two laser eye surgeries in a month, may need several more, so I'm taking it easy for a while.
 
  • #46
Narlacat, you noticed a lot more than I did about the basement. Good posts. I have that book but I hadn't even noticed there were some pictures being stored down there which may have been JAR's, probably because none of us ever commented on them before, that I know of.

Were they really paintings, which would mean very deliberately done by someone for some reason, or prints, and if JAR selected them, what does this tell us about him?

Yes, the word "forgiveness" was an unusual choice for this kind of case. Had forgiveness been harped on a lot at church? Did JAR attend church? I'm sure we don't know. Just asking in case anyone does know.
 
  • #47
Eagle1 said:
Narlacat, you noticed a lot more than I did about the basement. Good posts. I have that book but I hadn't even noticed there were some pictures being stored down there which may have been JAR's, probably because none of us ever commented on them before, that I know of.

Were they really paintings, which would mean very deliberately done by someone for some reason, or prints, and if JAR selected them, what does this tell us about him?

Yes, the word "forgiveness" was an unusual choice for this kind of case. Had forgiveness been harped on a lot at church? Did JAR attend church? I'm sure we don't know. Just asking in case anyone does know.
Hi Eagle
Since re reading this thread, I have to make a correction to a mistake I made. I stated that the paintings were most probably JAR's and that Patsy and John had probably never watched an episode of Star Trek in their life.....
Well, I'm not sure where I read it the other day, but it was John that was the Star trek fan. Apparently he was a real fan.
I don't think they were paintings as such, I think the book said they were prints.
Did JAR attend church?? I guess he did with Patsy and John when he was younger.....Has forgiveness been harped on by the church? You betcha, along with all the other harping!
 
  • #48
Hi, Narla, just read your post about the pictures again, and you originally said they were posters, which is probably true.

So they could be John's? From when he was younger, maybe? His college days, reason he didn't throw them away?

"Forgiveness" could obviously be used as an alibi, by any criminal who was raised in church, not saying JAR or anyone in particular. As everyone knows, I have never posted any certain firm theory, still casting about for why the Rams seem to be covering for someone, and I'm reminded of Lyndon Johnson when he first took office reportedly saying, "We've got a Murder,Inc in the Carribean!" and not seeking a 2nd term. We never did find out what that meant. (Maybe New World Order or something similar? Not that I know anything at all about that. Hillary also said there's a "vast conspiracy", and we never had that explained. As to motive for any such phenomena to go after the Ramseys' child, I'm at a loss, unless, unless, unless, there's some nut masterminding whatever it is who maybe thinks like Captain Phoebus (?) in The Hunchback, that Esmerelda is likely to cause too much "lust", so he killed her? Maybe someone thought the same thing about JonBenet (?) just thinking out loud. Another part of such a theory, he might also claim she would grow up with too much "pride". A much-too-judgemental prideful person himself, playing God, and judge and jury. Wild long-shots, I know, but nobody can prove there's not such a madman (a misonygist?) any more than I can prove there is one. "Judge nothing before the time." Remember when Lance used to post a whole chapter of Revelation at a time and make it relevant? But I don't have that knack.

Glad you noticed about the posters, Narlacat, another thing that may become important at some point as we hopefully learn more and more. None of the rest of us apparently noted them.

I meant to quote someone's post #102 in another thread, and now I forget which thread. Maybe later if I come across it again. About Patsy but not John knowing "a friend" was molesting JonBenet, and her naturally not wanting that known. Doesn't it seem all the friends, not just the R's, and all the local LE may have been participating in deliberate coverup, Starting the night of the 23rd, when JonBenet was apparently molested or thought she was and tried to call 911, because none of the adults apparently considered a child as important as whoever the adult guest was? No offense to anyone who's disregarding this, of course. Where was JonBenet's father?

S. Stine turned away police at the door. Doesn't it seem that immediately when JonBenet was found murdered ( which they weren't told before they came to the house may have happened) they would realize the party incident was more serious than they'd thought, and that they're now all in trouble for not doing something then, reason they fled and are all lying low? Doesn't it seem that they all probably know who it was that did something to her the 23rd, in other words, and that the R's wouldn't be powerful enough to get the whole city, and nation, to not indict them, if all didn't know something that we don't know?
 
  • #49
narlacat said:
Edison

Here is a theory that I find makes sense that could explain that it was John and Patsy didnt know.
It is from a poster called docg.

>>What follows is a hypothetical scenario based on my analysis of the Ramsey case posted some time ago at the Webbsleuths Case Files site. It demonstrates how John Ramsey could have murdered his daughter and covered up his actions, essentially on his own, with just a small amount of help from a basically innocent Patsy. The key to the scenario is the ransom note itself, for which it supplies a very thorough (if speculative) explanation. If you can “read” the note, then, in my opinion, this scenario simply pops right out at you. Because the note looks to me like the outline of a plan:

1. John kills his daughter JonBenet, probably in connection with some sort of sexual molestation. It’s possible he does this “accidently” during gentle manual strangulation, concocting the “garotte” to point investigators away from possible fingerprints on her neck. (See the Althusser case, in France, where strangulation was so gentle as to leave no signs at all on the outer part of the neck.) Or it’s possible the garotte was itself a part of the sexual act. It’s difficult to account for the reason behind the head blow, but it would seem to have followed strangulation and been part of a coverup effort.
2. John then devises a plan, a phoney kidnapping, followed by a fatal sexual attack on the part of the “kidnapper.” To make this work he needs two things: a ransom note; a staged break-in.
3. He stores the body temporarily in the windowless room, in a remote corner, covered by blankets, planning later to get it into the trunk of the car and dump it.
4. He writes the ransom note at his computer, then either traces it or copies it, imitating the look of the font he’s chosen. (He dare not print it for fear of waking Patsy or Burke.) It is carefully constructed to accomplish several tasks: discourage Patsy from searching the house for JonBenet; frighten her into not calling the police; setting up a phoney kidnapping scenario; calling for a reasonably small ransom amount, something that won’t make the people at the bank suspicious – he makes it $118,000 rather than, say, $100,000 so that this particular amount will be seen as having primarily symbolic rather than monetary significance – the kidnapper he is creating will be someone “out to get” John; setting up a situation where it is up to him to deal with raising the ransom and getting it to the “kidnapper”; giving him a full day to do what he will have to do (the note says the call will come “tomorrow.”)
5. He then stages a break-in at the basement window, breaking a hole in the window, dumping debris from the window well onto the floor, making a scuff mark on the wall, placing the suitcase under the window and leaving it ajar. He realizes, however, that this is not sufficient, that at some point he must actually crawl through that window and displace the grate. Too risky to do that now. He plans to take care of that the following night when, as he hopes, he will be alone in the house.
6. John’s plan (plan A) involves calling in friends to witness the staged break-in and the note’s contents and then take Patsy and Burke with them, for their safety, leaving John alone to deal with raising the ransom and delivering it.
7. Once everyone is gone, John will be able to safely get the body into the car trunk, along with all the evidence, including the note itself. He’ll dump the body in a remote place and burn the note. Later he will claim the kidnappers contacted him again and gave him instructions as to where to take the ransom. He’ll also claim they demanded the return of the note. And he’ll claim they then told him to pick JonBenet up somewhere, but when he arrived no one was there.
8. The above plan could not be implemented, however, because John was never able to convince Patsy not to call the police. For whatever reason, most likely in all innocence, she makes that 911 call, spoiling his carefully worked out plan. He must now move to plan B. IMO it could well be the shift from plan A to plan B that has made this case so difficult to piece together.
9. As the police are arriving, John is already at work attempting to undo plan A and move to plan B. Since the window break-in had never been completed, this is now his main concern. Because the way things now stand, it will be all too clear to the police that this is a staged break-in. He attempts to undo his earlier staging by secretly closing the window and then claiming it had been broken long ago, by him, when he’d locked himself out of the house. Unknown to him, however, the police had already spotted the window when it was open. This IMO is his most serious mistake, not getting that window closed soon enough. Later, when questioned about this, why he closed the window and why he informed no one, he is unable to explain.
10. When Arndt asks John to search the house, he goes directly to the basement because it is necessary for him to discover the body – so he can claim it was right out in the open rather than carefully hidden in a corner under blankets (which is why Fleet White didn’t see it earlier). This, rather than any attempt at “contaminating the crime scene,” is his real reason for “discovering” the body.
11. After the body is found, John cannot permit the police to interrogate Patsy. Because she might reveal the fact that John was totally against calling the police, and this might well give away his plan. This is the real reason why “the Ramseys” stonewalled the police for so long. Patsy needs to be convinced to tell some white lies about what happened. John lets his lawyers do this, the argument being that to tell the whole truth will tend to make John look bad. Patsy is convinced John is innocent, so she tries to do all she can to help in his defense. Patsy is convinced IMO to this day, which is why they have presented a united front. John depends on Patsy because he’s afraid she’ll tell the whole truth about whose idea the 911 call was. Patsy depends on John because he, with his legal “team,” has become her principal defender.<<
I have a few problems with this theory Narlacat:

Firstly, if it was important that the police NOT be called then I am sure John would have done 'whatever it takes' to stop Patsy from doing it so.

Secondly, you say plan A was to make it look like a kidnapping. But you have not explained what plan B was except that it required that the body not be hidden.

Thirdly, Patsy and John were perhaps not interrogated nor were they formally interviewed at the police depot, but they WERE questioned throughout the afternoon of the 26th at their house and John did not stop Patsy from being questioned and she did not report that John had tried to stop her from calling the police.
 
  • #50
Begs the question - why were they not afraid to call the police? They didn't even mention to the police that they were not supposed to talk to anyone.
 
  • #51
Brefie
user_online.gif
vbmenu_register("postmenu_836177", true);
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 586


Begs the question - why were they not afraid to call the police? They didn't even mention to the police that they were not supposed to talk to anyone.
__________________
The above is my opinion only.


Great take Brefie!

A new thought enters my mind this morning. The Ramseys say they had not read the note when they called the police. BUT why didn't they read the note AFTER they called the PD and while they were waiting for them to come?

IF they had read the note while waiting for the police, OR if one of them had read the note before, after or during the wait for the police, WHY did Patsy call her FRIENDS? Surely then not ALL of the folks that were called would have been called, or called back to say WAIT WAIT, it says JonBenet will be murdered IF I talk to anyone. I am smelling a strange fragrance.

PLUS IF Burkes voice is the one we hear on the unhung up call, he would have been standing near the note that was laying on the floor, WHY did he not also read the note? OR did he, wonder if he was asked that question by his interrogators at PD?

Now its time for BlueCrab, I am guessing here, to come in and say, hecky darn he WROTE the note.

PS: Now then if a middle aged man gets down on the floor in his underwear to read the note, he is going to read enough to know NOT to call the police, before he stands up again.imop


.
.
 
  • #52
Just bumping this up because I like this kind of thread, coverup by all, not just the R's, even gov't people.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
1,554
Total visitors
1,712

Forum statistics

Threads
632,447
Messages
18,626,746
Members
243,156
Latest member
kctruthseeker
Back
Top