The danger of a closed mind

  • #121
UKGuy said:
Kind of but there is nothing to stop the body being placed outdoors, then the Ramseys stating they searched outdoors on foot for her, thereby obsfucating the forensic evidence, then they drove in the car, could not find her gave up, and dialled 911.
UKGuy said:
I beleive the garage can be accessed from inside the house, and they can state they were simply out searching for JonBenet?
Jmo, but I don't think the police would have bought that from the Ramseys. For the time line was such that JonBenet would have 'disappeared' in the middle of the night and not in broad daylight, and they would have asked the R's why in such a case they didn't call the police right away, but drove around instead first. Or why one parent didn't call 911 at once and stayed in the house while the other drove in the car looking for JB.
 
  • #122
rashomon said:
But for example, JB's favorite Barbie nightgown being placed next to her body in the basement would not fit into a scenario where parents had planned to dump her somewhere outside. How would you explain the nightgown?
Profilers have pointed out that parents who have killed their children often wrap up their bodies in blankets, or tuck them in in their beds because there is a psychological 'undoing' mechanism at work.

rashomon,

The topic title is The danger of a closed mind and this applies to the views and opinions of Profilers and Investigators.

Consider the damage done by Lou Smit and his Intruder theory, the media promoted it, the tabloids sold in millions, dubious suspects were being flushed out everywhere, even here on websleuths the Intruder Theory morphed into DS did it, or/and NI etc.

Not all Profilers are psychologists and they have to put food on the table, so emotively satisfying rationales such as 'undoing' mechanism or 'adaptive' mechanism are simply behaviouristic truisms or skinnerisms. While they may apply in some cases, common sense should suggest there may be other more compelling reasons why blankets or nightgowns were present where they should not really be?

JonBenet may have been wrapped in a blanket to prevent cross-contamination of forensic evidence, particularly important if she is to travel in a car.

When you review the where JonBenet's body was discovered bear in mind you are looking at an alleged crime-scene, one which imo, is staged, anything discovered at the crime-scene is not there by accident, the stager selected those elements, I would propose if the Barbie nightgown arrived there by accident say by static on a blanket, then the stager would have simply removed it on the way out, and dropped it somewhere else, a simple thing to do e.g her underwear was removed.

The Barbie nightgown was there because JonBenet was intended to be found wearing it, this was to more fully reflect the staging of a victim being abducted sleeping from her bed, as it was she was still wearing her white gap top, and you can speculate about who removed her black velvet pants and underwear, the Ramseys had to contradict themselves, all three, making statements that JonBenet was carried sleeping into the house, on returning from the Whites, and placed semi-dressed into bed!

The wine-cellar staging was possibly the 2nd if not the 3rd in a sequence, this is why I mentioned JAR's bedroom as a possible intermediate location, someone else had JonBenet dressed in her day-clothes, her hair re-styled, wrapped in a blanket ready for dumping outdoors, but I speculate this was vetoed, and what you see in the wine-cellar is the result of an ad-hoc staging with amendments to try and reflect more an intruder bedtime abduction and homicide.



.
 
  • #123
rashomon said:
Jmo, but I don't think the police would have bought that from the Ramseys. For the time line was such that JonBenet would have 'disappeared' in the middle of the night and not in broad daylight, and they would have asked the R's why in such a case they didn't call the police right away, but drove around instead first. Or why one parent didn't call 911 at once and stayed in the house while the other drove in the car loking for JB.

rashomon,

Possibly not they never bought much else from the Ramseys did they? But your criticism is excellent since it adds to what they could have done e.g. Patsy remains in the house John goes outdoors looking for JonBenet, and they could communicate by cellphone. It could even be done twice 1st to dump JonBenet early in the morning, 2nd to cover up the previous dumping journey's tracks.



.
 
  • #124
BlueCrab said:
Jayelles,

I agree there are barely enough markers (10) in the Ramsey case to enter it into the FBI's CODIS bank of DNA listings, and since it was mixed DNA there could be some bogus markers, but it's all we have. The Ramsey crime scene DNA has to be given some weight because it COULD be from the killer.

The mixed DNA from JonBenet's panties, although it will never likely be able to be used to convict a suspect, CAN be used to tentatively exclude suspects. For instance, if a suspect doesn't have even one marker that matches the crime scene DNA, then it's extremely unlikely he is the killer. If one or two markers match then he should become a person of interest. Some LE agencies go to trial with only three matching markers, and get a conviction.

True, 13 matching markers put the odds into the billions to one that the crime scene sample was likely donated by the suspect, but a sample that puts the odds at several thousand to one isn't too shabby and cannot be ignored.

It's not a perfect world. It has to be assumed the mixed foreign DNA in the panties is from the killer, and just wait to see if CODIS gets a hit, despite the result being tentative. It's all we have.

BlueCrab



--------->>>I have only just found this thread and read only two posts so far, will be back, in a time crunch.

SOOO, IF they would but put it in and some slump who helped manufacture or package the panties gives up a 'match', THEN we would have at least made some sort of real time progress.

On the other hand IF it matches to some slump who is already in the system, the standard questions could apply, such as: Where were you on Christmas Day 1996 etc.?

Amazing how frustrating this whole case is, so many years later.

I also assume that the unworn panties from the 'weekday' package were checked for dna too, huh, hmmm.

BC would be good too to have some dna from the tutor, huh.

.
.
 
  • #125
UKGuy said:
rashomon,
Possibly not they never bought much else from the Ramseys did they? But your criticism is excellent since it adds to what they could have done e.g. Patsy remains in the house John goes outdoors looking for JonBenet, and they could communicate by cellphone. It could even be done twice 1st to dump JonBenet early in the morning, 2nd to cover up the previous dumping journey's tracks.
But they would have had to give the police a time line. "When did you discover your daughter was missing?" would have been the question.
Suppose JB was killed around midnight - do you think the Ramseys would have waited until early in the morning to dump her body? Or do you mean by early in the morning the 'very early hours' of the next day: 1 am, 2 am ...(excuse me for asking, but English is not my first language)?
 
  • #126
Let's not compare Elizabeth Smart to JonBenet....let's compare her to Danielle Van Damm. She was taken from her bed, sexually assaulted for a couple of days, then dumped and left to the elements. By the time she was discovered, she had been partially eaten by animals.

The Van Damms were suspect #1. They quickly cleared themselves so that Police could move forward. The Ramseys did the complete opposite.

Patsy's statement to Det. Haney...."I screamed, he screamed as he came up from the basement."...to John's "I ran upstairs to get a blanket to cover JonBenet before Patsy saw her."

Taking these two statements and putting them together within the same time-frame would indicate to me that John found JonBenet before 5:30 that morning. Add a third by Burke...."What did you find?"

Any one of you posters who has the most knowledge of this case can put together what had happened Christmas night/early morning.
 
  • #127
[all quotes from UKGUY]

The topic title is The danger of a closed mind and this applies to the views and opinions of Profilers and Investigators.

Consider the damage done by Lou Smit and his Intruder theory, the media promoted it, the tabloids sold in millions, dubious suspects were being flushed out everywhere, even here on websleuths the Intruder Theory morphed into DS did it, or/and NI etc.

Not all Profilers are psychologists and they have to put food on the table, so emotively satisfying rationales such as 'undoing' mechanism or 'adaptive' mechanism are simply behaviouristic truisms or skinnerisms. While they may apply in some cases, common sense should suggest there may be other more compelling reasons why blankets or nightgowns were present where they should not really be?

JonBenet may have been wrapped in a blanket to prevent cross-contamination of forensic evidence, particularly important if she is to travel in a car.

I agree with you that Lou Smit did irreparable damage to the investigation of this case with his unsubstantiated intruder theory which was based on his 'the Ramseys are innocent' attitude.

Re profilers: Not all profilers are psychologists, but they all have to possess profound psychological knowledge. And it is a known fact based on homicide statistics that parents who have killed their child, often (not always!) show care in the afterward handling of the body (tucking the child in, etc.), which can be interpreted as 'undoing'. Profilers are paid to solve homicide cases, which is why I think we can trust them to look at the cases from every possible angle. The fact that 'undoing' happens often doesn't make it an irrelevant 'truism', but simply something to be taken into account.
Therefore of course no serious profiler would make the simplistic equation: child in blanket = undoing, without looking at other possible explanations.

It is of course possible that JB was wrapped in a blanket because the Ramseys originally wanted to get her body out of the house (but then decided against it). But would the Barbie nightgown placed next to JB's body fit into such a scenario?
When you review the where JonBenet's body was discovered bear in mind you are looking at an alleged crime-scene, one which imo, is staged, anything discovered at the crime-scene is not there by accident, the stager selected those elements, I would propose if the Barbie nightgown arrived there by accident say by static on a blanket, then the stager would have simply removed it on the way out, and dropped it somewhere else, a simple thing to do e.g her underwear was removed.
The Barbie nightgown was there because JonBenet was intended to be found wearing it, this was to more fully reflect the staging of a victim being abducted sleeping from her bed, as it was she was still wearing her white gap top, and you can speculate about who removed her black velvet pants and underwear, the Ramseys had to contradict themselves, all three, making statements that JonBenet was carried sleeping into the house, on returning from the Whites, and placed semi-dressed into bed!
- If the Barbie nightgown was there because JB was intended to be found wearing it, then why didn't the Ramseys put her body in that nightgown?
- If on the other hand their story was that JB was placed semi-dressed in her bed, why did they put the nightgown in the wine-cellar at all? In that case there would have been no need to do so.
The wine-cellar staging was possibly the 2nd if not the 3rd in a sequence, this is why I mentioned JAR's bedroom as a possible intermediate location, someone else had JonBenet dressed in her day-clothes, her hair re-styled, wrapped in a blanket ready for dumping outdoors, but I speculate this was vetoed, and what you see in the wine-cellar is the result of an ad-hoc staging with amendments to try and reflect more an intruder bedtime abduction and homicide.
[/QUOTE]
Who was that 'someone else' in your opinion?
Restyling the child's hair in two ponytails would contradict a 'child abducted from her own bed' scenario. But it was in the middle of the night. What did the person ('someone else' - who was that??) that styled the dead JB's hair have in mind in our opinion?

Does anyone know how JB's hair was done at the Whites' Christmas party?
Do there exist pictures? Were the Ramseys or the Whites interviewed and asked about it?
 
  • #128
Noone knows how JBR's hair was done for the White's party.
The BPD didn't release the photo's from that party.
 
  • #129
rashomon said:
[all quotes from UKGUY]
- If the Barbie nightgown was there because JB was intended to be found wearing it, then why didn't the Ramseys put her body in that nightgown?
- If on the other hand their story was that JB was placed semi-dressed in her bed, why did they put the nightgown in the wine-cellar at all? In that case there would have been no need to do so.

rashomon,
I've recounted this aspect in other threads, but note when items like the flashlite, not found in the wine-cellar, are included in theories and given an active role to play in some theory this is fine, but the nightgown found next to the body just arrived there accidently!

This is a staged homicide crime-scene, JonBenet was wiped down, her underwear probably changed and removed, a fake garrote is applied, her wrists are looped with cord to make it appear she was bound!

She was meant to have arrived in the wine-cellar by the hands of an intruder, but leaving her in any of her day-clothes does not sound right does it?

Nobody has ever mentioned where her socks or shoes went, so wiped down, socks and shoes removed, redressed down below, all thats needed is some pijamas, and the person who engineered this last staging brought the barbie nightgown to the wine-cellar intending to finish re-dressing her, but something prevented this, suggesting this may have been done after the 911 call, remember Fleet White said he saw no body in the wine-cellar when he first looked.

I'm speculating there was probably two or three stagings, depending on what you are willing to accept as evidence, a timeline of sorts can be constructed that demonstrates she was redressed on more than one occassion!

rashomon said:
Who was that 'someone else' in your opinion?
Restyling the child's hair in two ponytails would contradict a 'child abducted from her own bed' scenario. But it was in the middle of the night. What did the person ('someone else' - who was that??) that styled the dead JB's hair have in mind in our opinion?

Well going out on a limb here , I would speculate that Patsy did this upstairs, then this was vetoed by John, so she started some of the staging downstairs, maybe what she had to do to JonBenet really freaked her out, so John finished it off in an ad-hoc manner with illicit visits to the wine-cellar after the 911 call.

rashomon said:
Does anyone know how JB's hair was done at the Whites' Christmas party?
Do there exist pictures? Were the Ramseys or the Whites interviewed and asked about it?

Her hair would never have been styled as it was when she was discovered in the wine-cellar, no self-respecting pageant-princess would turn out to any event with her hair like that. And as if it needs saying, no intruder would restyle her hair either.


.
 
  • #130
rashomon said:
But they would have had to give the police a time line. "When did you discover your daughter was missing?" would have been the question.
Suppose JB was killed around midnight - do you think the Ramseys would have waited until early in the morning to dump her body? Or do you mean by early in the morning the 'very early hours' of the next day: 1 am, 2 am ...(excuse me for asking, but English is not my first language)?


rashomon,

This is where everyone applies there own theory since its difficult to be precise as to when she was killed!

The earlier you consider she was killed, the more scope you have for allowing the Ramseys to conspire and do a staging.

They could lie to police and state more or less what they stated already, possibly with some changes. The important aspect is that if JonBenet is dumped after the snowfall then if they say they did a search by car, after being unable to find her in the house, then say patsy dialled 911 as per events. The search is simply a ruse to cover up the snow tracks.

But this is obviously speculation and that it did not occur, and that they did not take JonBenet's corpse onto the flight and out of state, tells you more.


.
 
  • #131
I promise not to ever make a post to this thread again, as you are all such experts and I should have gotten my facts straight before I did so. I obviously did not think before comparing JonBenet to Elizabeth Smart--my Bad. Happy Sleuthing!
 
  • #132
lilsister said:
I promise not to ever make a post to this thread again, as you are all such experts and I should have gotten my facts straight before I did so. I obviously did not think before comparing JonBenet to Elizabeth Smart--my Bad. Happy Sleuthing!

lilsister,

No please contribute, Toltec was suggesting another more relevant victim e.g. one who was killed!


.
 
  • #133
Elizabeth Smart is a good comparison, thank God she lived, it may not have turned out so well.
The best ,IMO, is Jaclyn Dowaliby. From the moment the child went missing the parents were under "scrutiny", the cops egotistical approach assured it would become a cold case.
Elizabeth Smart...cops...looks like the screen was cut from the inside
Dowaliby....cops...looks like the window was broken from the inside
Jonbenet...cops..looks like the window was broken from the inside..

I think they should have a window breaking class, since this subject seems to send them off in the wrong direction every time.
 
  • #134
Jayelles said:
Absolutely there is a third category - that of Fencesitter - people who retain an open mind based upon the evidence (or lack of).

However, it would seem that the RST (Ramsey Spin Team) often consider that anyone who doesn't give the Ramseys an honorary pass based upon "the kind of people we are" - are therefore evil minded BORGs who are jealous of the Ramsey's wealth and status and who simply WANT them to be guilty. i.e. if you aren't for them - you're against them.

If you have read any of my posts over the past 6 years, you will see that I have never believed the ramseys to be guilty of murdering their daughter and in fact, I have never moved from one particular intruder theory. I'll leave you to do the research if you are interested.
I think we should dispense with the terms RST and BORG - they are both derogatory and don't seem to serve any useful purpose. I'd rather put my energies into solving this crime than taking cheap shots at those who don't agree with my theory.
 
  • #135
Jayelles,

I asked you "if they couldn't get rid of the body then why didn't they stage a killing by a child molester and write a hate note?". You replied:

Jayelles said:
Colour me stupid - but aren't you describing the Ramsey murder?
I don't think I am Jayelles. The body was hidden and there was a RANSOM note left. The evidence of sexual molestation was cleaned up and the body was hidden. They called 911 and said their daughter had been kidnapped.

The point I was trying to make was - why stage a kidnapping? I have asked you this question twice now, but you seem to be avoiding answering it.
 
  • #136
Jayelles said:
28 hours? Please tell me how you arrive at that figure. The ETD is between 10pm and 1am. The naote said the kidnapper would call at 10pm the next morning which gave just 9-12 hours not 28 hours.
The Ramseys found a note at the bottom of the stairs at 5:45 am on December 26. The note said "I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow...." So they had until 10 am on December 27 to get rid of the body and then call the police and say "We were afraid to call the police because they said they would kill her. We waited until 10 am this morning but the kidnapper still hasn't called. So we decided we would have to call you after all."
 
  • #137
The R's had a flight they had to cancel 12/26 AM and the children were flying to meet up with them, so they couldn't wait until 12/27 IMO
 
  • #138
sharpar said:
Yes - I believe all the staging, the fake RN, the ligatures and garotte and the abuse with the paintbrush and the actual murder were all done by Patsy.
It might have started as an accident but failing to render aid made it murder.

John's part was going along with the story of what occurred . He didnt deny Patsy's version of events. He also may have also moved JB body during the time Det lost track of him into the room where she was discovered. Telling the lame story to Fleet of the basement window.

The autopsy tells us how she was murdered -- no mystery there - strangled and her skull bashed with blunt force trauma, preceeded by sexual abuse.

JMO
I won't argue with you about the ransom note - I believe that Patsy wrote it for sure. But I don't agree that Patsy killed JonBenet.

For argument's sake though, even if Patsy had killed her and told John and he went along with it as you say, I just can't believe that when Patsy showed John the note she had written, that he wouldn't have said "Oh Patsy, this ransom note is absolutely ridiculous! Ransom notes are never three pages long! We'll have to write another one, you can write it but I'll tell you what to write."
 
  • #139
Cranberry said:
The R's had a flight they had to cancel 12/26 AM and the children were flying to meet up with them, so they couldn't wait until 12/27 IMO
I think they could have cancelled, made some phone calls to their own pilot and left messages for their children at the airport to the effect that - "Something has happened, we can't talk about it, please don't try to contact us, stay away, we'll get back to you and explain everything as soon as we can"
 
  • #140
I think that would make it look even worse than it was, buying more time like that.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
103
Guests online
2,421
Total visitors
2,524

Forum statistics

Threads
632,774
Messages
18,631,645
Members
243,292
Latest member
suspicious sims
Back
Top