Possible NEW Suspects In JonBenet Ramsey Case?

[Chris_Texas]

The state would first have to have proof I would imagine. They couldn't just walk into the Fernies, take Burke and say, "well, we have no proof, but think you may have molested and killed your sister, so ypu're outta here!"

That's where I believe 'the fixer', the attorneys and the private investigators, hired by John, came in to play. This is also why the distancing of the family from LE was crucial.

This case proved, once again, that it pays to have money. I wonder how much Fleet White knows or suspects?

Two points:

1. No, they really wouldn't need proof -- or not proof as defined by a criminal court. If there was stoing evidence linking Burke to the crime he would, at the least, have been committed to a mental health institution. He would absolutely have been removed from the home. There would be no trial, just a hearing with a Doctor, perhaps some state social workers, and a Judge. I am not even sure that the Ramseys would immediately have the opportunity to offer their own Doctor's to counter what the state presented to the Judge.

And in any case what could they possible argue? They gonna argue that he wasn't insane when he murdered and molested his sister?

2. The point of all this is that some folks have stated that this Colorado law is the reason that the crime was dismissed -- that the DA's office knew it was really Burke and they couldn't do anything. This is beyond ridiculous. Not only could (and would) the state "do something" but it would be EASIER.

 

[mtwentz]

Hi AKWILKS, I am new here, and fairly new to the Ramsey case (although I casually followed it from the beginning, this is my first hard look at the evidence.) I am in no way an expert in criminology, so take my view with a grain of salt. But it seems to me that although you've brought up good points, that the RN indicates to me the perp's real target was John Ramsey, not JonBenet. In other words, JonBenet's death was used as an act of vengeance or hatred towards John Ramsey personally or towards rich people in general.

That would make Mitchell and unlikely suspect, in my view. I would almost be more looking for a Ted Kaczynski-type of person than a pedophile. Of course, the perp could be a combination, a sort of anti-capitalist anarchist pedophile.

However, it would not hurt to speed up the DNA process. My only question would be: how much would it cost in government legal fees and court costs?

 

[vlpate]

Hi AKWILKS, I am new here, and fairly new to the Ramsey case (although I casually followed it from the beginning, this is my first hard look at the evidence.) I am in no way an expert in criminology, so take my view with a grain of salt. But it seems to me that although you've brought up good points, that the RN indicates to me the perp's real target was John Ramsey, not JonBenet. In other words, JonBenet's death was used as an act of vengeance or hatred towards John Ramsey personally or towards rich people in general.

That would make Mitchell and unlikely suspect, in my view. I would almost be more looking for a Ted Kaczynski-type of person than a pedophile. Of course, the perp could be a combination, a sort of anti-capitalist anarchist pedophile.

However, it would not hurt to speed up the DNA process. My only question would be: how much would it cost in government legal fees and court costs?

Seems simple to me .... neither of these two killers, TK and DM, would have used Patsy's pen and paper - any ransom note writer worth his salt would have his own....in fact, you would think they'd have brought it already written.

Patsy wrote the note...and whomever wrote the note either killed JonBenet, or helped cover it up.

Just my opinion of course. :deadhorse:

 

[mtwentz]

Hi vlpate:

I would think that if Patsy wrote the note, she would not have used $118,000 as the ransom amount, which would implicate her. I think it more likely the $118,000 amount was used because the killer found out JR's bonus, and 1) knew this was money that the Rs could come up with quickly and easily before the body was discovered or 2) was taunting the Rs, "I know the personal and private details of your finances". or 3) wanted to hurt Rs further by implicating them in the crime.

 

[vlpate]

Hi vlpate:

I would think that if Patsy wrote the note, she would not have used $118,000 as the ransom amount, which would implicate her. .

You are giving Patsy way too much credit. She wanted it to appear it was someone John knew, obviously - the "good southern common sense" remark was evidence of that.

was taunting the Rs, "I know the personal and private details of your finances"

Taunting them?? Their daughter was dead in the basement and their life (were it a true intruder crime), would never be the same - why would they concern themselves with someone knowing their finances??

I think it more likely the $118,000 amount was used because the killer found out JR's bonus, and 1) knew this was money that the Rs could come up with quickly and easily before the body was discovered .

You do realize Ramsey was worth millions, some reports say billions - why, if a true kidnapper, would they ask for such a paltry amount? And as far as "easy" to come up with - do you think they cashed the check and had it in the cookie jar? No one deposits over 100,000 in a checking account.

 

[AKWILKS]

mtwentz - Thanks for your comments. Ted Kaczynski was arrested around April 1996 so he can't be a suspect. We are waiting to hear the results of the FBI seeking a court order for his DNA to compare with possible suspect DNA in the Tylenol case, and then hopefully in the Zodiac case. Then it should be entered into CODIS where it will automatically be compared to DNA in thousands of cases.

By law as a federal felon Brian David Mitchell should have a DNA draw done and put into CODIS. I sent all this information about BDM/WB to Boulder PD, and informed them that the current DNA backlog is 300,000 awaiting entry. Since BDM would go to the back of this line, it could be several years before it is done. So there really isn't any cost here, and I think the cost amounts to less than $1,000 to do the draw and comparison. Not sure about any costs for fingerprint checks. If they hired an expert to do handwriting and vocabulary/word usage that would cost money.

But the DNA is the main thing, and no major cost for that.

BDM was very anti-rich, it comes up often in his writings. He says they are wicked, and it is his duty to take seven brides out of "Babylon" for Christ (him).

John was from Michigan not the south. But someone who read the newspaper articles about him or saw documents about the Georgia location of his former company could have falsely concluded he was from the south.

The $118,000 bonus was automatically deposited in John Ramsey's bank account. Doucuments in his home may have reflected this.

The reported net worth of John Ramsey in 1996 was about $7,000,000. He had about $1,000,000 readily available to become cash, and called that morning to have $118,000 in cash.

 

[mtwentz]

Well, if it doesn't cost anything extra to move on it , I would say to the authorities, go ahead and put BDM/WB to the front of the line.

We have criminals with a similar M.O. (boldly entering a house to kidnap/ hurt a child with the parents present), who we have some indication might possibly have been in Colorado during the time of question. The Christian connection I also find intriguing and while can't say for sure that the Ramsey killer (s) was/were anti-rich, the use of the term "fat cats" certainly points in that direction.

I agree with you on the southern common sense. That is another reason that I don't think PR wrote the note.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi vlpate:

I would think that if Patsy wrote the note, she would not have used $118,000 as the ransom amount, which would implicate her. I think it more likely the $118,000 amount was used because the killer found out JR's bonus, and 1) knew this was money that the Rs could come up with quickly and easily before the body was discovered or 2) was taunting the Rs, "I know the personal and private details of your finances". or 3) wanted to hurt Rs further by implicating them in the crime.

I'd like to add my 2 cents, mtwentz. Far as I see it, vlpate's got it right: the mentioning of the $118,000 was done deliberately by Patsy to make it look like it was somebody close to the family, or at least to John. And if it did come back to implicate her (which it did), they could simply give the same explanation you did: it was part of the killer's plan to incriminate them.

And to you and AKWILKS, I agree with vlpate's assessment of the "good southern common sense" as further proof of that. John's "good southern common sense" was a joke among Patsy and her relatives. Those two factors are very important.

 

[Roy23]

You may well find yourself mistaken on both counts, pilgrim. At the very least, I wouldn't take odds on either.

Those are odds I am willing to take. Without a second thought.

 

[vlpate]

The $118,000 bonus was automatically deposited in John Ramsey's bank account. Doucuments in his home may have reflected this.

Are you suggesting the kidnapper/pedophile/intruder/murderer was rifling through the Ramsey's finances while on his way to JonBenet's bedroom. There were no fingerprints and it's darned hard to rifle through paperwork with gloves on.

You know, I find it incredibly odd that there is not one piece of evidence, forensic or otherwise, tying BDM to either of these crimes. Elizabeth and her sister's word (one changed her eyewitness testimony over the months Elizabeth was missing, and the other couldn't remember what she said in her testimony and had to have her memory refreshed on the stand).

Have you contacted Craig Silverman with this BDM theory? He, as of an article he wrote in 2010, still leaves out the bash on the head that likely killed JonBenet, and he still opines that John Ramsey is actively looking for the killer... :floorlaugh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-alan-silverman/jonbenet-truths-might-sti_b_754648.html

Sure, the Ramseys pressured the BPD and the DA's office for years - not to find the killer of JBR, but to clear them as suspects.

Southern, Northern, Eastern, or Western common sense has rarely been used in this case by anyone except the beer can collectors.

 

[vlpate]

And to you and AKWILKS, I agree with vlpate's assessment of the "good southern common sense" as further proof of that. John's "good southern common sense" was a joke among Patsy and her relatives. Those two factors are very important.

If I remember correctly, Nedra Paugh was said to have made this remark to John a few times.

 

[BBB167893]

Sure, the Ramseys pressured the BPD and the DA's office for years - not to find the killer of JBR, but to clear them as suspects.

Quite correct. And it took threats of lawsuits, backroom deals and jamming up witnesses to do it!

Southern, Northern, Eastern, or Western common sense has rarely been used in this case by anyone except the beer can collectors.

A sad commentary on the law as we know it!

 

[BBB167893]

If I remember correctly, Nedra Paugh was said to have made this remark to John a few times.

That's the way I heard it!

 

[vlpate]

That's the way I heard it!

Not to stray too far from the subject, but that Paugh family was something. As opinionated as Nedra was, and considering mothers almost always take their children's side, she never threw John under the bus or accused him of sexually molesting JonBenet - in fact, she was always about the intruder theory and throwing any and everyone else under the bus. Being a mother myself, I think I would at least take a sideways glance at the adult male in the house when the autopsy showed prior sexual abuse.

I will tell you though, that AK's question about why the Ramseys would let Burke be questioned alone if he was implicit in the crime, made me think. It brought me back to my original theory that Patsy did the deed over bed wetting. If he was made to stay in bed while all the staging was done, he wouldn't know anything to tell the police. I still can't wrap my mind around John staying with Patsy if she killed JonBenet - why would he? Did she have something on him? Sexual abuse or something more....something to do with the company that he didn't want made public?

BDM doesn't fit this crime for so many reasons - the one that comes to mind right away is that he wanted young women to marry - this was his stated goal. Nothing about the crime fits BDM's MO. During 1996 he and Barzee were looking for money to make a trip to Hawaii, right? There was plenty to take from the Ramsey's house that night to pawn or sell for a couple of tickets. Nothing was missing....not even the child.

 

[BBB167893]

I will tell you though, that AK's question about why the Ramseys would let Burke be questioned alone if he was implicit in the crime, made me think. It brought me back to my original theory that Patsy did the deed over bed wetting. If he was made to stay in bed while all the staging was done, he wouldn't know anything to tell the police.

I agree. I've never believed Burke was involved at all.

I still can't wrap my mind around John staying with Patsy if she killed JonBenet - why would he? Did she have something on him? Sexual abuse or something more....something to do with the company that he didn't want made public?

I have often wondered about that. I tend to lean toward the "sexual abuse" angle, but even leaving that aside, even if he were totally innocent, he'd have his reasons for staying with her.

 

[cynic]

Under the common law, that infants lack capacity to form intent to do a crime is a REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION FROM AGES 7 TO 14.

A few questions for you.
You would agree, then, that under common law there is no legal standing, whatsoever, for the arrest of a six year old child for murder, because it would be an age at, and below which there is an irrebuttable presumption of incapacity, correct?
Given that this is based on common law, do you agree that any state that has previously been governed by common law in a specific area has the right to formulate a change by way of a statute?
Once the change has been codified, common law would no longer be applicable with respect to that situation, in that state, correct?

 

[AKWILKS]

A few questions for you.
You would agree then that under common law there is no legal standing, whatsoever, for the arrest of a six year old child for committing murder, because it would be an age under which there is an irrebuttable presumption of incapacity, correct?
Given that this is based on common law, do you agree that any state that has previously been governed by common law in a specific area has the right to formulate a change by way of a statute?
Once the change has been codified, common law would no longer be applicable with respect to that situation, in that state, correct?

In theory, yes. This is where you get into the distinction between "activist" judges and "strict constructionist" judges.

If the people elect a legislature, and the legislature makes a law, then that law should be followed, and the decades or centuries of "common law" or "case law" should only be guidance. If the statute clearly says one thing, and the common law another, then in theory the statute should prevail. Judges are supposed to interpret and apply the law, not make it.

And that is usually the way it works.

However...it does not always work that way.

if an "activist" judge feels a law is "unclear", or poorly drafted, or conflicts with another law, of if he feel the result would be absurd and thus the legislature could not have intended it, he can rely on common law or case law.

I mean, I am not sure what you are driving at. After further research I conceded that I could not find a Colorado judge in the last 100 years who let a criminal felony prosecution go forward for someone under ten.

The fact that charges were brought half a dozen times on those under ten shows that the presumption that infants lack capacity IS a rebuttable presumption, thus in theory in a heinous case showing planning involving a 9 year old, a judge could let the prosecution go forward. But in reality no judge has done so in 100 years. That tells me judges regard this as a very strong presumption. We can only speculate what would have happened if there was evidence of Burke's guilt and he was charged, would the judge dismiss it? Hold him under threat to others? Hold him under emergency powers? Or mental health? Or unfit parents?

Who knows?

Bottom line the parents would not have let him talk to police without parents or attorneys present if they knew he was guilty, I think all of us agree or lean to agree with that.

 

[cynic]

I mean, I am not sure what you are driving at. After further research I conceded that I could not find a Colorado judge in the last 100 years who let a criminal felony prosecution go forward for someone under ten.

The fact that charges were brought half a dozen times on those under ten shows that the presumption that infants lack capacity IS a rebuttable presumption, thus in theory in a heinous case showing planning involving a 9 year old, a judge could let the prosecution go forward. But in reality no judge has done so in 100 years. That tells me judges regard this as a very strong presumption.

I’ll phrase it this way, you have spoken of rebuttable presumption and common law gives an age span from age 7 to 14.
Below 7 would be universally regarded as irrebuttable, correct?

 

[mtwentz]

I'd like to add my 2 cents, mtwentz. Far as I see it, vlpate's got it right: the mentioning of the $118,000 was done deliberately by Patsy to make it look like it was somebody close to the family, or at least to John. And if it did come back to implicate her (which it did), they could simply give the same explanation you did: it was part of the killer's plan to incriminate them.

And to you and AKWILKS, I agree with vlpate's assessment of the "good southern common sense" as further proof of that. John's "good southern common sense" was a joke among Patsy and her relatives. Those two factors are very important.

SuperDave:

It is just like Bill Kurtis said in the A&E documentary: Look at the evidence one way, it was someone inside the house, look at the same evidence another way, and it was an intruder.

But leaving aside the $118,00 and "good southern common sense" for one moment, what do you make of the "proper burial" reference in the note.

If I were advocating for the RDI side (which I am not), I would say that phrase betrays that PR wrote the note, and shows the reason why the Rs didn't just take JBs body and dump it at some location where she would never be found. They wanted a cover-up that would allow for a proper burial of their child.

However, from the IDI side, I would advocate this phrase indicates the intruder knows something of the Rs religious beliefs.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave:

It is just like Bill Kurtis said in the A&E documentary: Look at the evidence one way, it was someone inside the house, look at the same evidence another way, and it was an intruder.

I remember him saying that, mtwentz. That's usually how it works with these circumstantial cases. Like I always say, it's how you put the individual pieces together that makes it.

But leaving aside the $118,00 and "good southern common sense" for one moment, what do you make of the "proper burial" reference in the note?

If I were advocating for the RDI side (which I am not), I would say that phrase betrays that PR wrote the note, and shows the reason why the Rs didn't just take JBs body and dump it at some location where she would never be found. They wanted a cover-up that would allow for a proper burial of their child.

Well, I am advocating the RDI side, and that's PRECISELY what I say!

You impress me, mtwentz.

However, from the IDI side, I would advocate this phrase indicates the intruder knows something of the Rs religious beliefs.

I get you.