What if...

[trixie]

You know, John Ramsey did a chat session one time long ago and I asked him if he thought they were being framed. He said no, if someone wanted to frame us they wouldn't have left a note. I'm still trying to figure this one out. Maybe someone can help me?

 

[trixie]

The ransom note states that JonBenet has been removed from her house, it offers no reason or rationale as to why the basement is of any more importance than JonBenet's bedroom!

Patsy could have phoned 911 without ever having a ransom note and reported JonBenet missing, the result may have been the same?



.

okay, let me take a stab at this again. The basement is not the issue. The Ramseys knew eventually the dead body of their daughter would be found in their house, on their property, whatever. AT HOME. Well, look here! We have a note from kidnappers! The kidnappers did it!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

okay, let me take a stab at this again. The basement is not the issue. The Ramseys knew eventually the dead body of their daughter would be found in their house, on their property, whatever. AT HOME. Well, look here! We have a note from kidnappers! The kidnappers did it!

I'm not sure how anybody would 'explain' their daughter in the basement. I don't think a fake kidnapping would have been selected in any coverup attempt, though. That's because its an automatic invite to the FBI and everybody knows it. Maybe a hate note or a revenge note, but not a kidnapping note.

 

[UKGuy]

Hi UKGuy, first of all, all their friends and family would know is that they were the victims of a horrible crime. That someone came in to thier house while they were sleeping and attempted to kidnap but then killed their daughter. The ransom note was written to try to point to someone outside the house, that's one reason why they wrote it, to point away from themselves and show themsleves to be victims, not perps. They needed to be seen as victims, still do. I hope this answered your first paragraph, because I'm not sure what you mean.
Percentages for Patsy it will succeed? This is actually very interesting, since have you read all of Johns interviews and DOI? It's amazing how many times he uses percentages in his everyday language. There are also percentages mentioned in the ransom note, as you know. I'm starting to beliveve that Patys did not act alone in the cover-up, therefore, John would have been the one in charge. So as for what percentage Patsy would succeed, I don't know.. if it were just her. I think it was both of them. I think each one did their own thing in the cover-up. I think a garrote fits John more than Patsy. Subic Bay and all that....I think that's also why it is such a bizarre crime and crime scene. There's never been anything else like it. Maybe that's because there were two perps, each putting in their own personal touch, without them realizing that was what they were doing, of course.
As for this being an accident and why not just cop to it....well, if it happened the way this theory or rumor says it did then thats not an accident . Patsy would have coommitted an assault. And if Jonbenet were to die from that assault, then that's murder.
Both were in a desperate situation because of Patsys sudden violence. They both had something to hide and so the cover-up begins.

OK if you think a garrote fits John more than Patsy, but if John garrotted JonBenet then thats no accident, and she was garrotted, I think we can all agree on that much, e.g. her garrotting was no accident, you dont accidently fall over a pedophile to garrote your own daughter.

But the intruder theory is after the fact, it was concieved by Lou Smit, after devout prayer sessions with the Ramsey's.

Lou Smit states that the ligature was constructed precisely and expertly by someone who knew what he was doing, he says that the killer was a "sexual sadist." That there is evidence to indicate the garrote was made in the basement, strongly suggesting the killing happened there?

Other people have offered variations upon this theme, e.g that the ligature and rod was an Erotic Asphyxiation device precisely because thats how they look and are applied, and that the addition of the rod or paintbrush handle rules out its design as that of a garrote!!

But that theory is dead in the water, if you care to read about the historical development of the garrote , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrote , you will find it does indeed include a wooden rod!

Not only that but also JonBenet's hair was so tightly embedded in the knotting that the Coroner Dr. John Meyer, had to cut her hair to remove the cord. And JonBenet's gold chain and cross were tangled in the ligature.

Which contradicts Lou Smit's statement that it was "constructed precisely and expertly"!

That is Lou Smit is guilty of employing staged evidence to strengthen his assertion that a sexual sadist murdered JonBenet.

As have other people who have followed after him. To have a theory is fine but to justify it by reference to forensic evidence that is patently staged, decieves not only yourself but misleads others who arrive after you.

Think of all the sleuthers who are off chasing moonbeams searching for a sexual sadist who likes to torture and stun-gun little girls, then sexually assault them as he applies his EA Device for his own devious personal pleasure!

Sadly the forensic evidence contradicts this theory, it helps a lot in JonBenet's case to separate the staged evidence from the actual evidence.


.

 

[trixie]

OK if you think a garrote fits John more than Patsy, but if John garrotted JonBenet then thats no accident, and she was garrotted, I think we can all agree on that much, e.g. her garrotting was no accident, you dont accidently fall over a pedophile to garrote your own daughter.

But the intruder theory is after the fact, it was concieved by Lou Smit, after devout prayer sessions with the Ramsey's.

Lou Smit states that the ligature was constructed precisely and expertly by someone who knew what he was doing, he says that the killer was a "sexual sadist." That there is evidence to indicate the garrote was made in the basement, strongly suggesting the killing happened there?

Other people have offered variations upon this theme, e.g that the ligature and rod was an Erotic Asphyxiation device precisely because thats how they look and are applied, and that the addition of the rod or paintbrush handle rules out its design as that of a garrote!!

But that theory is dead in the water, if you care to read about the historical development of the garrote , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrote , you will find it does indeed include a wooden rod!

Not only that but also JonBenet's hair was so tightly embedded in the knotting that the Coroner Dr. John Meyer, had to cut her hair to remove the cord. And JonBenet's gold chain and cross were tangled in the ligature.

Which contradicts Lou Smit's statement that it was "constructed precisely and expertly"!

That is Lou Smit is guilty of employing staged evidence to strengthen his assertion that a sexual sadist murdered JonBenet.

As have other people who have followed after him. To have a theory is fine but to justify it by reference to forensic evidence that is patently staged, decieves not only yourself but misleads others who arrive after you.

Think of all the sleuthers who are off chasing moonbeams searching for a sexual sadist who likes to torture and stun-gun little girls, then sexually assault them as he applies his EA Device for his own devious personal pleasure!

Sadly the forensic evidence contradicts this theory, it helps a lot in JonBenet's case to separate the staged evidence from the actual evidence.


.

uh...I agree? I dunno, ya lost me here. I don't support Lou Smits theory.

 

[aussiesheila]

Aussiesheila,

If you read the interview you will see that it was John that first chimed in with "We may have",not Patsy.

Another comes to mind,in another interview when John tried six ways from Sunday to avoid saying that the Stines were even aquaintances of theirs,let alone friends.

In my opinion,John has held his own with being vague with his answers.

OK Capps, I did not read the interview again immediately prior to posting this but I have read John's interview in it's entirety and IMO when he is vague with his answers it is because he honestly can't remember or really doesn't know the answer.

It seemed to me that for all his vagueness he was genuinely trying to come up with as much information as he could. IMO the fact that he didn't know much detail about Ramsey domestic issues is totally consistent with his always being preoccupied with his work at Access Graphics and Patsy being the one who managed all the household affairs.

I just don't see why people think he was being evasive about the Stines. The fact is IMO, they weren't close before the murder and it seemed strange to many people, John included, that they became so close afterwards. John acknowledges that it is strange somewhere in the interview and IMO he then struggles to explain it to himself and to the detectives. I would be more suspicious of a person who had all his answers off pat as it seems to me someone who is guilty would have rehearsed everything.

John's long and rambling answers come across to me as someone who is concentrating on tapping into his memory and trying to dredge up as much information as he can to help the investigation. This, IMO is in contrast to a guilty person who gives the shortest possible answer to avoid inadvertantly giving away some detail that might incriminate him or herself.

This I must point out, is in stark contrast to Patsy's answers which, IMO fall into the category of those given by a guilty person.

 

[trixie]

I'm not sure how anybody would 'explain' their daughter in the basement. I don't think a fake kidnapping would have been selected in any coverup attempt, though. That's because its an automatic invite to the FBI and everybody knows it. Maybe a hate note or a revenge note, but not a kidnapping note.

Yeah, but Jonbenet was missing. She was not in her bed that morning. (And the Ramseys knew it.) So a hate note or a revenge note would not make sense. Making it look like a kidnapping gone wrong makes more sense and fits with the note. (IMO, the note was written AFTER to fit the crime scene.)I don't think the Ramseys were afraid of the FBI. I mean, eithor this was giong to fly, or it wasn't, and if it didn't what difference did it make? They're screwed anyway.

 

[Brefie]

I'm not sure how anybody would 'explain' their daughter in the basement. I don't think a fake kidnapping would have been selected in any coverup attempt, though. That's because its an automatic invite to the FBI and everybody knows it. Maybe a hate note or a revenge note, but not a kidnapping note.

Many people believe the Rams were / are narcissistic. Perhaps they thought even the FBI couldn't touch them.

 

[UKGuy]

uh...I agree? I dunno, ya lost me here. I don't support Lou Smits theory.

No but you proposed an intruder theory as part of the reason why they would use it to coverup that they may hae accidently killed JonBenet

Hi UKGuy, first of all, all their friends and family would know is that they were the victims of a horrible crime. That someone came in to thier house while they were sleeping and attempted to kidnap but then killed their daughter. The ransom note was written to try to point to someone outside the house, that's one reason why they wrote it, to point away from themselves and show themsleves to be victims, not perps. They needed to be seen as victims, still do.

The above post tries to illustrate why this is not backed up by any forensic evidence.

.

 

[trixie]

LOL! Well, don't tell me! Tell the Ramseys! LOL!

 

[aussiesheila]

but you fail to acknowlege the legacy left behind for Burke and the others. If that is what happened the Ramseys would never live down the shame. All their friends, and family would know what had been going on in that house. The Ramseys were wealthy, well liked people with a stellar reputation and as much as some of us don't want to believe it, sometimes with some people their name and reputation is EVERYTHING to them. Even more important than the truth. Especially in the south, if you believe DOI.
I can also envision a scenario where Patsy and John realize Jonbenet is never going to be the same after the head injury. Can you see Patsy caring for a brain injured child the rest of her life? Do you think she could see herself dooing that? Maybe at some point Jonbenet ceased being the Jonbenet they knew and became a burden when faced with all the possibilities of what the future holds for a brain injured child. I am sorry, but yes, I DO think Patsy is shallow enough to only want the very best, the best children, I mean. The winners. I also think she is tough enough to do what had to be done at the time to save Jonbenet from a life of being a vegetable and to save herself from a life of caregiving. After all, she had herself and her own cancer to worry about, and IMO Patsy always took care of herself first.
I know this won't be a popular opinion but I think we have got to stop assuming everybody is like ourselves and that everybody would do what we would do. The Ramseys are not like US, people! And don't think like US! Not in a million years. So let's open up that Pandoras box and see what ugly truths really could be inside.

trixie,
I agree with what you say about Patsy, but I think you are wrong when you extend the same criticisims to John. IMO Patsy was involved in the coverup for all the reasons you give. But I don't think she was covering up for a murder committed by John or Burke or even herself.

I think Patsy was covering up for a group of pedophiles that she knew had been abusing JonBenet for years - the pedophiles who had inadvertently allowed a psychopath to join in their activities on that Christmas night, an unfortunate mistake that resulted in the death of JonBenet, in what the regular pedophiles had planned to be just another 'ordinary' night of 'ordinary' abuse.

IMO when these regular pedophiles convinced Patsy to write the ransom note she was thinking of herself and her social standing, as you say. IMO John knew absolutely nothing about the abuse and had absolutely nothing to do with the coverup.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yeah, but Jonbenet was missing. She was not in her bed that morning. (And the Ramseys knew it.) So a hate note or a revenge note would not make sense. Making it look like a kidnapping gone wrong makes more sense and fits with the note. (IMO, the note was written AFTER to fit the crime scene.)I don't think the Ramseys were afraid of the FBI. I mean, eithor this was giong to fly, or it wasn't, and if it didn't what difference did it make? They're screwed anyway.

Well you better not be afraid of a bunch of FBI and cops if your plan is to call 911 to report a kidnapping.

Why wouldn't they just leave a hate/revenge note on JBR, maybe throw some crime scene evidence down the street, and then call 911 to report JBR simply missing?

 

[aussiesheila]

My point was: suppose Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet. She hits JonBenet, either accidentally or on purpose. The blow is so severe that she instantly realizes that the child will die from it or suffer permanent brain damage. Patsy doesn't want to be exposed as a killer, and John doesn't want to be exposed as a child molester.
Trixie's last posts here on this thread describe very convincingly what could have gone on in John and Patsy's minds and led them to their decision not to call the police.
They probably initially wanted to dump the body somewhere, which is why they concocted the ransom note.
But then they didn't dare to do this after all, either for fear of being seen or because the snow outside would show their footprints.

They now have a dead body in their house, a body which would be thoroughly examined during the autopsy. It is clear to them that the doctors will find out about the chronic abuse.
So they have to build in this abuse into their staging, which is why they choose
the garroting scenario: to make it appear as a bizarre sex crime done by a maniac - to focus the attention away from the family. The injury to JB's vagina is inflicted to hide signs of chronic sexual abuse.

And in terms of no child being found on John's computer: molesters can be extremely careful, not wanting to leave behind any clues and traces.

I think one of the main flaws with this scenario is that according to the autopsy evidence, the strangulation and head-bashing were virtually simeltaneous events, even that the strangulation occurred slightly prior to the head-bashing.
In your scenario I would expect an interval of something like 15 to 30 minutes to elapse between the head-bashing which killed her and the staged garrotting. Your scenario doesn't fit the evidence.

 

[aussiesheila]

The Ramsey case is unique - I think most of us are agreed upon that. There is no evidence to link the Ramsey case to any other case. No-one has ever suggested that Jonbenet's killer was a serial killer (except for Michael Tracey in his fraudulent documentary which was CHANGED after it was exposed as such).

If you have evidence that jonBenet's killer has killed before or since - bring it on. The burden of proof is with you.

Well I would like to know what happened to the boarder from across the road who gatecrashed the Ramsey Christmas party and who was supposedly sick with flu at the time of the murder and who left town several weeks? months? afterwards. Where did he go? Where is he now? Does anyone know?

 

[Jayelles]

We have members here who probably know the answer to your question. Will they post? I don't know. If the guy was cleared, he's entitled to his privacy.

 

[aussiesheila]

The theory of a "pedophile group" abusing JBR, and with PR's full knowledge is, as far as I have ever been able to determine, based on absolutely nothing in evidence. Please correct me if I am wrong...

Since this the theory that I initially put forward, I will try to answer.

There is autopsy evidence to suggest that JonBenet had suffered chronic sexual abuse. If this is true then there has to be an abuser or abusers. IMO John has been ruled out as an abuser because he was thoroughly investigated by the BPD and no evidence was found that he was a pedophile.

So if the autopsy findings are correct and John Ramsey did not sexually abuse his daughter there must be another pedophile or pedophiles living in Boulder at the time that had access to JonBenet. IMO the fact that none have been arrested is that for at least five months after the murder the BPD collected only evidence that pointed towards John Ramsey, allowing other evidence that pointed to other abusers to become lost or covered up and allowing the other pedophiles to go to ground.

There are other non-conclusive bits of information such as the strange behaviour of Santa, Nedra's supposed comment that JonBenet was 'only a little bit abused' or words to that effect, Patsy's sister's comments about what Patsy knew, Patsy's strange behaviour when asked, I think it was in a television interview, about whether she had been abused as a child, and possibly more that I can't think of at the moment.

But the best bit of evidence I think, is that while other people are struggling to make sense of the whole murder mystery, I am not struggling at all, my scenario makes perfect sense. It fits ALL the evidence that has been made public and it fits in with all the post-murder behaviour of all the people associated with the case.

In addition to this, unlike the situation with ALL other scenarios, not one poster has been able to point out any serious flaws in my scenario, they may not like it, but they have not been able to point to any evidence that conclusively destroys it.

 

[aussiesheila]

I don't know if John Ramsey is a pedophile or not. But are you saying that every time a pedophile is investigated, something like or magazines are found? Everytime? There's never been a case where nothing was found but the perp was still obviously a pedophile? And by the same token if nothing is ever found then he must not be a pedophile? If it is ever proven somehow that JR is a pedophile he will be the only person in all of history to ever have been arrseted for crime against a child without having found on his computer or pedophile mags in his desk drawer? I hope he's not. I hope this didn't happen to JBR. But I don't know. Do you?

Clearly not finding on John Ramsey's computer is not sufficient to say he is not a pedophile.

But the police were trying SO hard to find ANYTHING on John and Patsy, not just pornographic material. The Ramseys were extensively interviewed, as were all their relatives. Their past histories were extensively investigated. There was no evidence found of untoward behaviour by John with respect to his older daughter. There was no evidence found of violent behaviour by either John or Patsy. In fact, investigators could find absolutely NOTHING damning against the Ramsey's in spite of their apparently fanatical determination to do so.

This of course still does not prove that one or other of the Ramseys did not molest and/or kill JonBenet, I agree. So if people want to go on believing that John molested JonBenet and Patsy bashed her over the head I cannot say they are wrong. All I can say is that I think it highly unlikely.

And yes I believe I do know what happened to JonBenet. In my mind I am 99% sure. (Oh dear, I've slipped in a %age there, didn't John do that somewhere and wasn't it indicative of something?)

 

[rashomon]

I think one of the main flaws with this scenario is that according to the autopsy evidence, the strangulation and head-bashing were virtually simeltaneous events, even that the strangulation occurred slightly prior to the head-bashing.
In your scenario I would expect an interval of something like 15 to 30 minutes to elapse between the head-bashing which killed her and the staged garrotting. Your scenario doesn't fit the evidence.

If memory serves, the autopsy report says something about the cause of death being a blow to the head associated with strangulation.
'Associated with' does not have to mean that these things happened simultaneously.
The blow to JB's head caused massive brain hemorrhage, although the blood had been contained within the skull. JonBenet certainly was in a coma after such a blow. Theoretically, she could have stayed in such a coma for hours -near death but with her heart still pumping.
Therefore I don't think that a scenario where she was garrotted some time after the head injury would contradict the evidence.

 

[capps]

Quote from Aussieshiela:
"This of course still does not prove that one or other of the Ramseys did not molest and/or kill JonBenet, I agree. So if people want to go on believing that John molested JonBenet and Patsy bashed her over the head I cannot say they are wrong. All I can say is that I think it highly unlikely."

To have a ring of pedophiles,whom were also Patsy's friends,routinely molest JonBenet,while Patsy passively allowed this,and then also helped her "friends" cover up the murder of her daughter,because she wanted to save face and her social standards ... All I can say is that I think it highly unlikely.

 

[aussiesheila]

OK if you think a garrote fits John more than Patsy, but if John garrotted JonBenet then thats no accident, and she was garrotted, I think we can all agree on that much, e.g. her garrotting was no accident, you dont accidently fall over a pedophile to garrote your own daughter.

But the intruder theory is after the fact, it was concieved by Lou Smit, after devout prayer sessions with the Ramsey's.

Lou Smit states that the ligature was constructed precisely and expertly by someone who knew what he was doing, he says that the killer was a "sexual sadist." That there is evidence to indicate the garrote was made in the basement, strongly suggesting the killing happened there?

Other people have offered variations upon this theme, e.g that the ligature and rod was an Erotic Asphyxiation device precisely because thats how they look and are applied, and that the addition of the rod or paintbrush handle rules out its design as that of a garrote!!

But that theory is dead in the water, if you care to read about the historical development of the garrote , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrote , you will find it does indeed include a wooden rod!

Not only that but also JonBenet's hair was so tightly embedded in the knotting that the Coroner Dr. John Meyer, had to cut her hair to remove the cord. And JonBenet's gold chain and cross were tangled in the ligature.

Which contradicts Lou Smit's statement that it was "constructed precisely and expertly"!

That is Lou Smit is guilty of employing staged evidence to strengthen his assertion that a sexual sadist murdered JonBenet.

As have other people who have followed after him. To have a theory is fine but to justify it by reference to forensic evidence that is patently staged, decieves not only yourself but misleads others who arrive after you.

Think of all the sleuthers who are off chasing moonbeams searching for a sexual sadist who likes to torture and stun-gun little girls, then sexually assault them as he applies his EA Device for his own devious personal pleasure!

Sadly the forensic evidence contradicts this theory, it helps a lot in JonBenet's case to separate the staged evidence from the actual evidence.


.

Sorry UK Guy, you've probably posted this somewhere, but to save me searching could you please tell me what evidence you think is staged? Do you mean the ligature? If you do, why do you think this? I don't understand how you could think so because to me it looks like the real thing. OK so Lou Smit put his interpretation on the ligature which you don't agree with and which I don't think is entirely accurate but I still don't understand why you think the ligature was only staging.