The actual vs. desired outcome

[Nuisanceposter]

Holdon, it has been recently posted two or three times that Patsy or John could have hidden excess cord and duct tape on their persons, in a pocket book, under a coat, among other possibilities. Why can't you admit that possibility?

I've often heard that the piece of tape over JonBenet's mouth, of an insufficient size to have actually been effective at silencing her while she was awake and alive, had indications of having been applied to something else prior to having been applied to her face.

There was a perfect set of her lip prints on the tape. There is no sign that she struggled to scream or even speak while the tape was on her face. There is no distortion as if she was twisting her lips to work it loose, no suggestion of her thrusting her tongue against it, and certainly no sign that she had been able to get her hands to her face to try to yank it off. Inside her mouth, her tongue and the insides of her cheeks are smooth and unblemished, further indicating she was unconscious when strangled to death, as strangulation victims usually the bite up the insides of their mouths while trying to gasp for air and get free.

On top of that, the tape had the residue of bloody mucus on the sticky side, indicating that it had been applied to her face after she had been assaulted, after her nose and/or mouth was expelling fluid from the head wound and strangulation. UNDER THE TAPE.

What reason would an Intruder have to wait to apply tape on the mouth of the victim AFTER he's already attacked her? What reason would he have to stage something like that after it's done, and try to make people think she's been gagged with the tape the entire time?

An Intruder wouldn't. A parent staging a scene would.

You can't find the rest of the tape if the piece used on JB is from something else, and there's no "rest of the roll" to find. And, hmmm, that piece of tape had tan/brown fibers on it, just like the body of an American Girl doll...and wow, check it out - an American Girl Molly doll was ordered to Access Graphics in the name of JonBenet Ramsey AFTER the murder. Interesting. JonBenet already had an American Girl Molly doll. Aunt Pam collected it on her one-woman raid of the hellhole on 12/28. So why would anyone order a new doll in JB's name, sent to Access Graphics, after she'd been murdered, and pay for it with a money order? Why didn't anyone at Access Graphics ever report something like that to BPD or the RST?

As for the cord...more was used than necessary. IMO, someone was using up the last of what there was to make sure it was used up and there wasn't any more to be traced to the R house.

Absence of "the rest" of the cord and tape is NOT proof that an Intruder broke in and killed JonBenet....not when you look at the whole puzzle and include all the information. There is NO forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night. John and Patsy Ramsey can't be bothered to help LE solve the case, and contradict themselves any time they act like they are, when they aren't giving "I don't know" and "I can't remember" as answers.

It's that simple...I don't know why people have to make it so difficult when it's pretty obvious to experienced people like FBI that this crime is a domestic accident covered up by family.

 

[JMO8778]

Before I need to explain R fibers on an R, you need to explain in somewhat less weak terms how the cord is recently purchased, not yet used for the innocent purpose, AND suddenly all used up after the murder. LOL. Oh, please don't tell me there is third conspirator, another person with no criminal history who took the remnants out of the house.

no,I asked you first.and yes,Aunt Pammy could have taken the rest out,IF there was any left.why on earth did JR tell her to retrieve his golf bag??? was he thinking of playing a few rounds in the dead of winter? she need not have a criminal history to desire to help her sister and family out.
Patsy probably purchased many things from the store,it doesn't mean they had to have been used right away to be of use to her.I bet she also got some paintbrushes and things for her paintings,that hadn't been used at the time of the murder.It doesn't mean she didn't intend to use them later.Like when they got back from the trips and she had more time,for one.

 

[DeeDee249]

PR bought that tape and cord not long before the murder, and yes, for what IMO was an innocent purpose. Just because they hadn't been used YET doesn't mean they weren't intended to BE used. They were bought at a very busy time of year for many families- right before the Christmas holidays. PR had been in New York on a shopping trip in November, they had the Colorado Christmas house tour, and the whole house to overdecorate, presents to wrap (and un-wrap), the big Christmas party on the 23rd, the trip to Charlevoix on the 26th (which included meeting her step-daughter's fiance for the first time), followed by a cruise on Disney's Big Red Boat. And JBR had a Christmas pageant (that she won).
AND PR turned 40. BIG stress stuff, especially for someone like PR.
Whatever PR planned to do with that tape and cord (I believe it was to transport paintings, though the tape could have been taken from something else, like the doll), she simply did not get around to doing it. That is not surprising, and has nothing to do with her guilt or innocence. It simply means the items were still available in the house to BE used, and were used in the staging.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

There's a difference between a rationalization and an explanation.

"They used up a new roll cutting two pieces of cord off" is a rationalization for why there was no cord found elsewhere that matched the cord on JBR.

RDI accident coverup scenario relies on a rationalization. Faced with the idea that all items should have been among available household items, coming up with guesses as to why the cord was not immediately found to be an available household item. Unlike the pen, paper, and paintbrush.

 

[BOESP]

There's a difference between a rationalization and an explanation.

"They used up a new roll cutting two pieces of cord off" is a rationalization for why there was no cord found elsewhere that matched the cord on JBR.

RDI accident coverup scenario relies on a rationalization. Faced with the idea that all items should have been among available household items, coming up with guesses as to why the cord was not immediately found to be an available household item. Unlike the pen, paper, and paintbrush.

What's the difference in the RDI rationalizing statement you made above and you rationalizing that an Intruder removed a particular item from the premises, a statement you've made here at an earlier time. There's no proof there was an Intruder and certainly no proof anything was removed by an Intruder and really no proof any unused cord or unused tape even remained at all. It sounds to me as if you are rationalizing to help support what seems to be your belief that the Ramseys are innocent of any involvement.

While I believe the Ramseys knew/know more than they told, I can't come to a conclusive statement about who did what. I don't think JonBenet's death was anything other than a domestic homicide of an accidental nature. I call that my opinion of what I think is a possibility based on evidence available to the public. So let's be fair and quit generalizing everything with the sweeping "RDI's believe thus-and-so." And for Pete's sake, please quit rationalizing so you can comfortably cling to your beliefs. If we can't do it, neither can you.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

So the the kidnapper wrote a ransom note to mask a kidnapping?

Maybe. Maybe the kidnapper wanted to appear motivated by money when he really wanted JBR.

The fact that the RN author threatened so many times to kill JBR if JR did anything at all wrong, and then stipulated that if JBR was killed, then JR should not expect her remains, seems over and above what was necessary to get JR moving on 118K.

RDI says the RN is an explanation to LE why JBR was found dead in the basement, when really it could be an explanation to JR why JBR was missing for years. In that scenario, JBR would've appeared killed by her abductors because the ransom note wasn't complied with, and her remains were not returned.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What's the difference in the RDI rationalizing statement you made above and you rationalizing that an Intruder removed a particular item from the premises, a statement you've made here at an earlier time. There's no proof there was an Intruder and certainly no proof anything was removed by an Intruder and really no proof any unused cord or unused tape even remained at all. It sounds to me as if you are rationalizing to help support what seems to be your belief that the Ramseys are innocent of any involvement.

While I believe the Ramseys knew/know more than they told, I can't come to a conclusive statement about who did what. I don't think JonBenet's death was anything other than a domestic homicide of an accidental nature. I call that my opinion of what I think is a possibility based on evidence available to the public. So let's be fair and quit generalizing everything with the sweeping "RDI's believe thus-and-so." And for Pete's sake, please quit rationalizing so you can comfortably cling to your beliefs. If we can't do it, neither can you.

In IDI, no explanation is necessary for the fact that no other cord was found. Its presumed the cord was brought along. RDI accident coverup is obligated to explain why the cord was not found among household items. Explanations that are only guesses are rationalizations.

 

[BOESP]

In IDI, no explanation is necessary for the fact that no other cord was found. Its presumed the cord was brought along. RDI accident coverup is obligated to explain why the cord was not found among household items. Explanations that are only guesses are rationalizations.

Holdon, I'd say that qualifies you as a rationalizer. You're guessing just as much as anyone else. Actually, I'd say more so since the entire body of evidence and the professional analysis and correlation of said evidence weighs more toward an inside job.

 

[Solace]

Holdon, I'd say that qualifies you as a rationalizer. You're guessing just as much as anyone else. Actually, I'd say more so since the entire body of evidence and the professional analysis and correlation of said evidence weighs more toward an inside job.

The Ramseys have made a career out of using the "rationalizations" in this case. For every incriminating piece of evidence, Team Ramsey has come out with a "return" of frivolous reasons why it could be so, and they have managed to stay out of jail because of hiring people like Lin Wood to reinforce these claims. The fact is all the evidence points to an inside murder, and there is NO evidence whatsoever of an intruder. The footprint has been explained, the so called exculpatory DNA that the Ramseys so pointedly use in their book HAS BEEN EXPLAINED over and over. The palm print on the basement door is Melinda's. And also as you watch Lou Smit enter the basement through the window using the "suitcase" as leverage, you will notice in the original pictures of the basement, that suitcase is in a different position - so Smit moved the suitcase to fit his theory. This is egregious.


The fact that they use this DNA "evidence" is one of the reasons that I strongly believe in their guilt. They had to have been versed inside and out on that DNA and that it cannot be linked to an intruder - if only for the fact that it is older than JB's DNA.

If one watches John Ramsey answer questions, he is well versed in "dodging". Except for the time with Bill Kurtis when he opens the segment with John saying the FBI was not there that day and Kurtis switches to Ron Walker, FBI agent, who says he was and speaks of the ransom note. I always wondered why he so adamantly refused to admit that Walker was there and I can ONLY come up with the conclusion that Walker said at the time "look to the parents" and John wants nothing to do with him, for obvious reasons.

I believe Patsy did not "mean for this to happen" and therefore believes she is innocent of murder. I believe John is in agreement and is also so angry by the fact that he is being accused by some of incest that it is no problem for him to vigorously defend "their" innocence.

So there.:razz:

 

[JMO8778]

"They used up a new roll cutting two pieces of cord off" is a rationalization for why there was no cord found elsewhere that matched the cord on JBR.

perhaps you're right,perhaps the killer did take the rest with him... for example,JR himself claims the killer took the rest of the cord with him (in DOI)...now..just HOW would he know that??? ..Because I have never seen where Thomas said (and if he has,someone pls correct me)that the cord he purchased that matched what was found in the murder was so many inches long,and the cord found on JB added up to be ___ inches long.So,it appears Thomas knows some cord is missing,and JOHN RAMSEY ALSO knows some cord is missing...NOW JUST HOW WOULD HE KNOW THAT?

RDI accident coverup scenario relies on a rationalization. Faced with the idea that all items should have been among available household items, coming up with guesses as to why the cord was not immediately found to be an available household item. Unlike the pen, paper, and paintbrush.

the above I just posted requires no rationalization.
but why are you leaving out the tape??? you keep doing that..perhaps it is b/c it matches what was taken off an AG doll(identical to the one that was sent to JR's office after the murder,and paid for w. a MO),and that can be proved??

 

[JMO8778]

The Ramseys have made a career out of using the "rationalizations" in this case. For every incriminating piece of evidence, Team Ramsey has come out with a "return" of frivolous reasons why it could be so, and they have managed to stay out of jail because of hiring people like Lin Wood to reinforce these claims. The fact is all the evidence points to an inside murder, and there is NO evidence whatsoever of an intruder. The footprint has been explained, the so called exculpatory DNA that the Ramseys so pointedly use in their book HAS BEEN EXPLAINED over and over. The palm print on the basement door is Melinda's. And also as you watch Lou Smit enter the basement through the window using the "suitcase" as leverage, you will notice in the original pictures of the basement, that suitcase is in a different position - so Smit moved the suitcase to fit his theory. This is egregious.

yes,and it's just absurd,the generalness of it all..forensics just isn't like that.
for example,JR rationalizes the pineapple away in DOI by saying the kids were free to eat whatever they wanted,whenever they wanted..but,of course it isn't like that.forensics says she HAD to have eaten the pineapple *after she got home that night,and she had none at the White's.(not to mention,it matched what was in the bowl at the R's table).

The fact that they use this DNA "evidence" is one of the reasons that I strongly believe in their guilt. They had to have been versed inside and out on that DNA and that it cannot be linked to an intruder - if only for the fact that it is older than JB's DNA.

I think they were versed very well,and so was BR.That's why it took them over 4 mo. to be interviewed...prep time was much needed.

If one watches John Ramsey answer questions, he is well versed in "dodging".

yes,I wonder how many times he's said 'Well,Larry...',on LKL.

Except for the time with Bill Kurtis when he opens the segment with John saying the FBI was not there that day and Kurtis switches to Ron Walker, FBI agent, who says he was and speaks of the ransom note. I always wondered why he so adamantly refused to admit that Walker was there and I can ONLY come up with the conclusion that Walker said at the time "look to the parents" and John wants nothing to do with him, for obvious reasons.

Walker was also the one who declared the RN a fake,b/f JB's body was even found,and said 'you're going to be finding her body...'.

I believe Patsy did not "mean for this to happen" and therefore believes she is innocent of murder. I believe John is in agreement and is also so angry by the fact that he is being accused by some of incest that it is no problem for him to vigorously defend "their" innocence.

I agree.he has to have a reason to keep hanging onto this,otherwise,I would think he would feel at least somewhat vindicated that Patsy got the blame for the murder and vag. trauma,as he got a free pass,even from Thomas,(just as he said,'John,I'm giving you a pass'),for murder as well as for molestation.

So there.:razz:

amen. good post.

 

[JMO8778]

Maybe. Maybe the kidnapper wanted to appear motivated by money when he really wanted JBR.

The fact that the RN author threatened so many times to kill JBR if JR did anything at all wrong, and then stipulated that if JBR was killed, then JR should not expect her remains, seems over and above what was necessary to get JR moving on 118K.

'denied her remains' is how they knew JB was already dead when the note was written...why else would someone already be thinking of her remains and what to do w/ them if she was still alive?

 

[Rino]

RDI says the RN is an explanation to LE why JBR was found dead in the basement, when really it could be an explanation to JR why JBR was missing for years.

Who says that?? Did I miss the part in the RN that said anything to that effect. Hmmm, be a good southern gentleman and go get your daughters body from the basement. And by the way, wait for our call to collect the ransom....

The RN is purley a hoax to fool you. It worked She wasn't missing for years, if that was to be the case she would have been taken.

In that scenario, JBR would've appeared killed by her abductors because the ransom note wasn't complied with, and her remains were not returned.

But she wasn't killed for that reason. The Ramseys didn't comply (even before they found her) with the demands in the RN. Her remains were never taken, creating a very diffucult situation when it comes time not to return her remains.

Which is one of the more simple points, an actual kidnapper would have taken the body, whatever the reason - he would have taken the body if he wrote the note.

 

[JMO8778]

Who says that?? Did I miss the part in the RN that said anything to that effect. Hmmm, be a good southern gentleman and go get your daughters body from the basement. And by the way, wait for our call to collect the ransom....

The RN is purley a hoax to fool you. It worked She wasn't missing for years, if that was to be the case she would have been taken.




But she wasn't killed for that reason. The Ramseys didn't comply (even before they found her) with the demands in the RN. Her remains were never taken, creating a very diffucult situation when it comes time not to return her remains.

Which is one of the more simple points, an actual kidnapper would have taken the body, whatever the reason - he would have taken the body if he wrote the note.

exactly,the ransom could still be collected,dead or alive.
but why only $118,000? why not a million,or even 10 mill? it's b/c they were trying to set someone up,and make it appear to be an 'inside job',just as JR said to LA,when he brought JB's body up from the basement.

 

[BOESP]

I'm still trying to figure out how you can have a topic titled "The actual vs. desired outcome" without rationalizing in order to make one's explanation of an unknown desired outcome fit what you believe was the desired outcome. :croc:

I spend way too much time thinking about this. The evidence says it was an inside job and Patsy is the most likely person to have been the assailant. It was accidental and poor John didn't have a clue. I think I can explain it like this: he figured out Patsy did it then said, "Look here, Patsy. I think you wrote that note but please don't ever tell him whether or not you did do it. As long as I don't know I won't have to lie about it."

BTW, excellent posts Sol, JMO and Rino.

 

[Albert18]

With the Madeleine McCann situation in the news, I'm wondering if John isn't wondering how much easier things would have been if there would have been the opportunity to get rid of the body. He would be blessed with incessant sightings of JonBenet in every state of the Union, Europe and Morocco. Could this girl in the prom dress in Georgia be JonBenet?

So if you find yourself in this kind of situation we now know you should ideally try for three things. Obtain the services of good lawyers very early (political and public relations power is more important than court room skills), conduct an active and aggressive public relations campaign, and if at all possible, get rid of the body. Concern for the child is completely optional.

 

[BOESP]

With the Madeleine McCann situation in the news, I'm wondering if John isn't wondering how much easier things would have been if there would have been the opportunity to get rid of the body. He would be blessed with incessant sightings of JonBenet in every state of the Union, Europe and Morocco. Could this girl in the prom dress in Georgia be JonBenet?

So if you find yourself in this kind of situation we now know you should ideally try for three things. Obtain the services of good lawyers very early (political and public relations power is more important than court room skills), conduct an active and aggressive public relations campaign, and if at all possible, get rid of the body. Concern for the child is completely optional.

Albert, I'm still wondering why John Ramsey publicly showed so much sympathy for John Mark Karr. He tried to sue the pants off everyone else who "insulted" him, Patsy, or Burke (I do think Burke was probably victimized in this situation so will give them a pass on Burke). He and Patsy, if the desired outcome was to appear to be grieving parents, missed the mark in my book. I know that is controversial but the only description I think that fits is "well prepared theatrics."

Maybe disposing of the body was the desired outcome. I also still wonder why, since Arndt asked John to look top to bottom for anything that might be out of place or missing, his immediate thought was to go to the farthest room in the basement to start looking for something out of place.

 

[JMO8778]

Maybe disposing of the body was the desired outcome.

the WC door was found latched...why latch it if you want someone to look in there,for that matter,why not just leave it open,if only a bit? and then the chair was placed in front of that room,(or was it the room where the suitcase was found?).anyway,combined w. the note,it appears they were hoping she might not be found,and would get the chance to figure out what to do later,and I think as 1pm came,JR was just getting tired of the whole charade...LE was still there,(maybe they thought perhaps they might leave sometime after 10am when no call came?)and the day was just dragging on and on...he wanted it to end somewhere.

 

[DeeDee249]

JR's sympathy for Karr was disgusting, IMO. Do you remember the sickening way Karr spoke about JBR and what he wanted to do to her, and how he fantasized about having his way with her?
I believe Karr had NOTHING to do with this crime. He was a JBR -killer wannabe. He wanted to be linked to her forever, and now that she was gone forever, this was his way. He was likely devasted by her death, and this was his last, desparate way to be with her.
But as a parent, and especially to any of you out there who are fathers, how much sympathy would you feel for a man who spoke that way, about having sex with your daughter, especially a 6-year old daughter?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm still trying to figure out how you can have a topic titled "The actual vs. desired outcome" without rationalizing in order to make one's explanation of an unknown desired outcome fit what you believe was the desired outcome.

Maybe you're confusing rationalization with assumptions. Rationalization is when you have this thing that needs to be explained (cord not found to be household item, unlike pen, paper, and paintbrush), so you obviously simply invent an explanation (PR bought it to make painting slings, hadn't used it yet, used up the roll, had a friend take the remnants out) that suits your needs (cord needs to be among household items to support accident/coverup), without effectively demonstrating any basis in truth, reality, evidence, etc.

There's no basis in truth, reality, evidence to support 'painting slings,' 'hadn't used it yet,' 'used up the roll,' or 'had a friend take it out.' Its all an invention, a rationalization, and not an explanation, as to why the cord was not found to be a household item.

If an intruder killed JBR, then the fact that the cord was not found to be a household item has an explanation: an intruder is able to bring it with him.

If an intruder killed JBR, then you can assume he brought the cord with him, and didn't find it among household items. Because there's no truth, reality, evidence to suggest it ever was.