The Ramsey case in general

[borndem]

Oops, please excuse.

 

[borndem]

So glad to see this new thread about the JonBenet mystery.
It's uncanny -- I was looking at the "old" threads here yesterday without a thought about Tricia (Thanks!) or anyone bringing it up again.

I have had Burke in the back of my mind for a long time.
He was always "second best," and I think he had just had it with his sister and the parents, and on & on.
Certainly the ransom note was written by Patsy. The note pad was in the house, IMO and IIRC, and the ransom amount should have given the whole thing away...

 

[borndem]

Welcome to Websleuths,​

KristopherKolumbo !!​

 

[borndem]

Welcome to Webseuths
Ambrochia01 !!​

​

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Exactly. Why kill someone twice. Does not make sense unless one was accidental and the other was to protect the guilty party. We already know she was definitely alive for the head blow causing the intracranial haemorrhage. This is an extremely severe injury.

Determining whether a garrotte is applied while alive or dead can be challenging. There are scientific articles written about it. The Coroner called her alive but in reality he did not take the specimens that would have proven this beyond doubt.


You cannot be sure of motive unless you know who was responsible for both the killing and the staging. I suspect the motive/cause for the killing was impulsivity and emotional dysregulation. I doubt it was intentional.

Exactly. Why kill someone twice. Does not make sense unless one was accidental and the other was to protect the guilty party. We already know she was definitely alive for the head blow causing the intracranial haemorrhage. This is an extremely severe injury.

Determining whether a garrotte is applied while alive or dead can be challenging. There are scientific articles written about it. The Coroner called her alive but in reality he did not take the specimens that would have proven this beyond doubt.


You cannot be sure of motive unless you know who was responsible for both the killing and the staging. I suspect the motive/cause for the killing was impulsivity and emotional dysregulation. I doubt it was intentional.

I agree 100% the motive being impulsively and emotional dysregulation as I'm very familiar with these behaviors. I have difficulty connecting an emotionally dysregulated child with a parent staging a sexual assault i.e. performing SA to cover for a dysregulated kid whom quite possibly had a medical history. I don't buy into the status or damaged reputation as reason for covering up the killing.
Either it was all done by one person and was to heinous to admit to or the parents did atrocious things to their deceased child that seems more agregeous than a dysregulated child striking her.. If so , why? And both parents in agreement that this was the best way out of the situation.
IMHO, there has to be a reason that this elaborate ruse was necessary.

 

[Lamima]

If it was done accidentally by someone on impulse and with emotional dysregulation, then the parent(s) may have done the staged part to keep the impulsive person from being taken away and put in mental health facility or even detention facility or jail. John had already lost 1 daughter to accident and now another daughter to this so losing someone else may have been unimaginable. And there was already the possibility of losing Patsy to cancer as well.

 

[Ponytale]

If it was done accidentally by someone on impulse and with emotional dysregulation, then the parent(s) may have done the staged part to keep the impulsive person from being taken away and put in mental health facility or even detention facility or jail. John had already lost 1 daughter to accident and now another daughter to this so losing someone else may have been unimaginable. And there was already the possibility of losing Patsy to cancer as well.

I agree with you. And I also think that Ramsey's cared very much about their image and what others thought about them. I can not see neither John or Patsy as anyone else than victims in this crime. They chose to stay the victims and play that role the moment they had realized the severity of the accident and decided to cover it up. And for that role they needed a monster to be created who did all this to their beloved child (the intruder).

They knew very well by the reputation they had already built up, that none of their friends would ever believe Patsy or John would have been able to do it, so they just went along with their narrative. Being a victim is much more acceptable for them than having to explain their whole lives that an accident happened in their house resulting in the death of their child. It would have meant that they would always be under the guilt. If Patsy was the one who caused the accident and had called the 911, she would always be seen as a "bad mom". Her, and her family's, reputation would be ruined forever. She had an image to hold. Same for John, who was an admired and successful businessman. If it was Burke who caused the accident, they'd be both forever the "bad parents" for letting it happen. Questions like "Where were you when it happened? "Why did you let it happen?" etc would never leave them. Again, they would not be seen as the victims.
I believe they chose that role mutually. Even with JB gone, it serves them all the best. IMO

 

[FMB]

I agree with you. And I also think that Ramsey's cared very much about their image and what others thought about them. I can not see neither John or Patsy as anyone else than victims in this crime. They choose to stay the victims and play that role the moment they had realized the severity of the accident and chose to cover it up. And for that role they needed a monster to be created who did all this to their beloved child (the intruder).

They knew very well by the reputation they had already built up, that none of their friends would ever believe Patsy or John would have been able to do it, so they just went along with their narrative. Being a victim is much more acceptable for them than having to explain their whole lives that an accident happened in their house resulting in the death of their child. It would have meant that they would always be under the guilt. If Patsy was the one who caused the accident and had called the 911, she would always be seen as a "bad mom". Her, and her family's, reputation would be ruined forever. She had an image to hold. Same for John, who was an admired and successful businessman. If it was Burke who caused the accident, they'd be both forever the "bad parents" for letting it happen. Questions like "Where were you when it happened? "Why did you let it happen?" etc would never leave them. Again, they would not be seen as the victims.
I believe they chose that role mutually. Even with JB gone, it serves them all the best.

Yes, create the " Monster" Tell everyone an intruder did it over and over...maybe it is a coping mechanism for themselves...

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I agree with you. And I also think that Ramsey's cared very much about their image and what others thought about them. I can not see neither John or Patsy as anyone else than victims in this crime. They chose to stay the victims and play that role the moment they had realized the severity of the accident and decided to cover it up. And for that role they needed a monster to be created who did all this to their beloved child (the intruder).

They knew very well by the reputation they had already built up, that none of their friends would ever believe Patsy or John would have been able to do it, so they just went along with their narrative. Being a victim is much more acceptable for them than having to explain their whole lives that an accident happened in their house resulting in the death of their child. It would have meant that they would always be under the guilt. If Patsy was the one who caused the accident and had called the 911, she would always be seen as a "bad mom". Her, and her family's, reputation would be ruined forever. She had an image to hold. Same for John, who was an admired and successful businessman. If it was Burke who caused the accident, they'd be both forever the "bad parents" for letting it happen. Questions like "Where were you when it happened? "Why did you let it happen?" etc would never leave them. Again, they would not be seen as the victims.
I believe they chose that role mutually. Even with JB gone, it serves them all the best. IMO

I think you do a great job of building a narrative and you address a lot of questions. I have lingering questions as to the staging. Why the SA with the paint brush handle ? In my mind that length of abuse to a corpse wasn't necessary to imply SA by an intruder. Why not just uncloth her or remove her bottoms? I think the staging could have been achieved without that element. If you are of the theory BDI by accident , the SA staging is more monstrous than the accident.
It may be accurate but something to me is off. They went from victim to monster IMO.

 

[borndem]

Welcome to Websleuths,​

Ponytale !!​

 

[Ponytale]

I think you do a great job of building a narrative and you address a lot of questions. I have lingering questions as to the staging. Why the SA with the paint brush handle ? In my mind that length of abuse to a corpse wasn't necessary to imply SA by an intruder. Why not just uncloth her or remove her bottoms? I think the staging could have been achieved without that element. If you are of the theory BDI by accident , the SA staging is more monstrous than the accident.
It may be accurate but something to me is off. They went from victim to monster IMO.

Thank you! I try my best.

If you ask what I think of this, I believe that the SA was a separate occasion from the staging itself. There is no clear evidence that there was any SA that night. Yes, she had been abused as there were signs of chronic SA and acute SA that had happened at some time shortly before, but we do not know exactly when it happened. Yes, there was blood that had been wiped down from her thighs and that was seen with the UV light, but again, we do not know for certain that this blood had resulted from the SA in the time period between when they got home from the Whites and when she was killed.
She could have been bleeding at any time between her last bath and the time she was killed. And so she could have been wiped clean also in that time period. We know she did not take a bath that night after arriving home from the Whites, so she could have possibly been abused the night before, in the morning of 25th or at the Whites. The size 6 underwear has never been found, so it is again possible that she could have bled a lot more on them (and maybe that's why they are not found). The size 12's that she had on had only a few small droplets of blood, witch could indicate that no SA happened during the staging. It is a possibility of course that it did happen, but I somehow tend to believe that no SA happened during the staging part. And the reason I think that is exactly what you said - the staging did not need that part. And, they were still parents who had just lost their daughter. I just can not believe they'd be thinking of sexually assaulting her body for the purpose of staging.

We also do not have any factual forensic evidence to connect the paintbrush to SA. Yes, there was a very small birefringent cellulose material found, but that so far is the only thing that connects the paintbrush with the SA and we can not say for sure that the paintbrush was the object used to penetrate her. Again, why? I still see other possibilities how it could have gotten there as well. And, IMO, if she was SA'd with the paintbrush I'd think there would be a lot more evidence of it happening than just this one small found material.

So I really do not see SA as part of the monstrous act here. I think they (probably John, with Patsy being present) just strangled her down in the basement, where the urine stain was found, because they believed truly that she was already dead and that made it "easier" for them to do so. Ugly thought to say, I know. They were her parents and they loved her. I believe that they were in absolute shock and devastation, but as they came to the mutual decision that all this needs to be staged and they all need to be/stay the victims in this crime, they needed the "monster" who came to their house. IMO They had to do strangle her, write the note, tie her hands and place the duct tape because there had to be evidence of that act, of a "monster".

I did write more of how I see the night unfolding in the post explaining my theory.

 

[JacksonFentry]

It's a good idea to go over a few things about the Ramsey forum/case every so often.
Law enforcement has not cleared anyone in the Ramsey house. Law enforcement has not identified any suspects outside of the Ramsey house.
Therefore, in accordance with Websleuths rules, we do not allow accusations of random people outside the house. That is why if someone brings up anyone outside of the house that night and accuses them of being the killer, their post is removed.
As a reminder the DNA in the Ramsey case has been called a red herring by many. Here is a great article about the DNA

New analysis challenges DA’s exoneration of Ramseys in JonBenet case

The DNA evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case doesn’t support a pivotal and controversial development in Colorado’s most vexing unsolved murder.

www.denverpost.com

The ransome note is the key in my opinion.
I will be posting a few more links in the next couple of days.
It is very frustrating when an organization like CrimeCon gives John Ramsey a platform. Everything he says about an intruder I can disprove with the truth. The problem is no one is allowed to challenge Ramsey when he is given a huge platform.
Don't let the recent John Ramsey comments that have been covered by mainstream media fool you.
There was no intruder. Patsy wrote the note.
All in my opinion of course.
Take care,
Tricia

I have often wondered, had there not been a ransom note, wouldn't this case have already been solved based upon the evidence found out the scene ?. The Grand Jury might have also taken the ransom note as just a red herring. A non issue. Might something so incredibly heinous, harmful, and seemed to be so ruinous, though they themselves were not actually involved at all the death, (which I believe was most likely to have been unintended, even an accidental one) yet they actually felt it best to do whatever was needed to protect someone or maybe some two ?. Was it a matter perhaps truth be told, it seemed like it would have only made an unchangeable horrifically unimaginable situation so much worse, only causing so much more harm than the irreversible death of Jon Benet ?. Just my thoughts. I can't imagine handling something so incredibly awful in such a way as that. But, not all people handle difficult and horrific situations the same. Under enormous emotional stress people can go to great lengths making an already awful situation into something far worse in the moment of shock, panic, fear, and all manner of emotions. You could almost call this case solved, just never to be able to be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not a lawyer, or detective. I am not a mind reader either. Not a college graduate either. But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.