What if...

[rashomon]

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?)

Their past histories were "extensively investigated"? I doubt that.
OK, we have their superficial CVs, but were they ever psychologically tested and evaluated from a psychiatric point of view by experts? No they weren't.
What influences shaped their character, how was their own sexual history - did they ever talk about this to anyone (like they would have to talk about it in a testing situation)? No they didn't.

And the fact that John Ramsey obviously did not abuse his older daughters doesn't mean a thing.
I don't know if you have read Nehemiah's post on this. In the sexual abuse cases this poster worked, there was always another daughter in the home who wasn't molested by the father.
I can provide some info about this too: I know of a child abuse case in our neighborhood where the father had abused one daughter (in that case it was the older daughter), but never abused the younger daughter.
This man is a doctor of physics doing research work, a respected member of society, so to speak.
I know this man from school activities because the younger daughter went to elementary school with my daughter.
A somewhat quiet man, but with nice manners. I never would have thought it possible that he could have done that.
He abused the older daughter from the time she was an infant until she was four years old.
She later became anorectic and tried to commit suicide when she was 19 years old. And it was only after she went into therapy that she confided in her therapist and it all came out.
Sexual child abuse occurs in all classes of the population, among the poor and among the rich.

And btw, wasn't there a dictionary found in the Ramsey home, opened at the page where 'incest' was listed?

 

[aussiesheila]

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, how long after the murder was this chat session? Do you remember? Any chance of posting the dialogue on this forum?

 

[aussiesheila]

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.

Yes Holdontoyourhat, very good point (ie I hadn't thought of that).

Of course IF John and/or Patsy were responsible for the murder and/or molestation it would make FAR more sense when doing the coverup to write a hate note and not a kidnapping note. And I'm sure John would have been smart enough to have thought of that.

Responses please RDIs? Holdontoyourhat has exposed a VERY weak point in all your scenarios.

 

[aussiesheila]

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.

Actually rashomon, it was the other way around - 'asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma'.

 

[trixie]

Yes Holdontoyourhat, very good point (ie I hadn't thought of that).

Of course IF John and/or Patsy were responsible for the murder and/or molestation it would make FAR more sense when doing the coverup to write a hate note and not a kidnapping note. And I'm sure John would have been smart enough to have thought of that.

Responses please RDIs? Holdontoyourhat has exposed a VERY weak point in all your scenarios.

My only response to this one is why would you say you think John would have been smart enough to think of that, when before in an earlier post you said you didn't think John was involved in the cover-up?

Oh, and I already have answered this post from holdontoyourhat. You'll find it if you go up and look around.

 

[rashomon]

Yes Holdontoyourhat, very good point (ie I hadn't thought of that).

Of course IF John and/or Patsy were responsible for the murder and/or molestation it would make FAR more sense when doing the coverup to write a hate note and not a kidnapping note. And I'm sure John would have been smart enough to have thought of that.

Responses please RDIs? Holdontoyourhat has exposed a VERY weak point in all your scenarios.

People trying to stage a crime scene after killing are always in an exceptional state of mind, so to speak: Dr. Sheppard, Jeffrey MacDonald, Diane Downs, Darlie Routier, Susan Smith, to name but a few - they all made horrible mistakes in their staging because they were no professional criminals who would have known how a real murder scene looks like. Instead, they (unlike professional criminals) were in a state of total panic, and very often these people tend to stage too much.
The Ramseys were no exception here: they staged too much. A sexual assault crime and a ransom note just don't go together.
Another aspect to be considered is the time pressure: suppose they initialily wanted to stage it as a kidnapping, which is why they wrote the ransom note.
But for whatever reason, they decided against dumping the body somewhere.
But they simply leave the ransom note as it is (not being able to think too clearly about the damning implications - don't forget one of them just fatally injured Jon Benet), and stage the garroting.

 

[trixie]

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.

No offense but you're kinda all over the place here. Why, if you say the police FBI, etc. investigated the Ramseys up, down and sideways and could never come up with anything on them would you have a theory of Patsy allowing Jonbenet to be abused by a pedophile ring and then on Christmas night it got out of hand? Eithor they were investigated and came up clean(like you said) or Patsy loaned JB out to pedophiles periodically, but somehow this pedophile ring flew under the radar of the police, FBI and, well everybody else you mentioned who investigated the Ramseys. So on one hand you're saying it wasn't them becuse they're spotless.... oh yeah, unless you want to count that pesky ole pedophile ring Patsy is in cahoots with. But shhhhh, the authorities don't know about that yet. ??????? C'mon! Like I said , you're all over the place with your theory.

 

[rashomon]

Actually rashomon, it was the other way around - 'asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma'.

The pivotal point in the Ramsey case is which came first: the blow to JB's head or the strangulation. Seeing it described like that does not clear it up. All it says is that JB was still alive when strangled, a scenario which could be possible supposing she was in a coma after the blow to her head.

 

[trixie]

trixie, how long after the murder was this chat session? Do you remember? Any chance of posting the dialogue on this forum?

I'm sorry, I really don't remember anything else about it other than my question and his answer. I think it was back like in 1999 or 2000 or something. Quite awhile ago.

 

[rashomon]

No offense but you're kinda all over the place here. Why, if you say the police FBI, etc. investigated the Ramseys up, down and sideways and could never come up with anything on them would you have a theory of Patsy allowing Jonbenet to be abused by a pedophile ring and then on Christmas night it got out of hand? Eithor they were investigated and came up clean(like you said) or Patsy loaned JB out to pedophiles periodically, but somehow this pedophile ring flew under the radar of the police, FBI and, well everybody else you mentioned who investigated the Ramseys. So on one hand you're saying it wasn't them becuse they're spotless.... oh yeah, unless you want to count that pesky ole pedophile ring Patsy is in cahoots with. But shhhhh, the authorities don't know about that yet. ??????? C'mon! Like I said , you're all over the place with your theory.

Excellent points, trixie! And I'd be very interested in IDI posters' answers to that argument of yours based on logic and common sense.

 

[aussiesheila]

Their past histories were "extensively investigated"? I doubt that.
OK, we have their superficial CVs, but were they ever psychologically tested and evaluated from a psychiatric point of view by experts? No they weren't.
What influences shaped their character, how was their own sexual history - did they ever talk about this to anyone (like they would have to talk about it in a testing situation)? No they didn't.

And the fact that John Ramsey obviously did not abuse his older daughters doesn't mean a thing.
I don't know if you have read Nehemiah's post on this. In the sexual abuse cases this poster worked, there was always another daughter in the home who wasn't molested by the father.
I can provide some info about this too: I know of a child abuse case in our neighborhood where the father had abused one daughter (in that case it was the older daughter), but never abused the younger daughter.
This man is a doctor of physics doing research work, a respected member of society, so to speak.
I know this man from school activities because the younger daughter went to elementary school with my daughter.
A somewhat quiet man, but with nice manners. I never would have thought it possible that he could have done that.
He abused the older daughter from the time she was an infant until she was four years old.
She later became anorectic and tried to commit suicide when she was 19 years old. And it was only after she went into therapy that she confided in her therapist and it all came out.
Sexual child abuse occurs in all classes of the population, among the poor and among the rich.

And btw, wasn't there a dictionary found in the Ramsey home, opened at the page where 'incest' was listed?

It is true, everything that has been investigated in this regard has only produced a 'no evidence found' result, which can only be taken as INDICATIVE of the parents innocence and not PROOF of it. I have to concede that.

Nevertheless, I still find it surprising that people remain so convinced of Ramsey guilt in the absence of any concrete evidence. One explanation that has come to me is, that when someone is murdered, and particularly when it is a child, people's natural instinct to protect children becomes deeply disturbed and they become extremely angry. If an identifiable killer does not emerge soon after the murder people have no-one to project their anger towards. The need to have an identifiable killer leads them to focus on the most visible culprits and they go for the parents.

Australians have been through all this with the Azaria Chamberlain case where the mother was selected as being the killer and the father the accomplice in the coverup. The mother especially, became the target of all manner of viscious attacks and accusations. One of the most telling indicators of her guilt as far as I could see, was that she dressed too smartly and didn't weep enough at the inquest, and she had also on one occasion apparently dressed her 3 week old daughter in a black dress. Ultimately, but only after many years, the parents' innocence was finally established and acknowledged.

The notion that the dictionary in Patsy's bedroom was opened at the page listing 'incest' equates in accuracy to the one that the name Azaria meant 'sacrifice in the wilderness' IMO.

As for the case you cite, I don't for one minute doubt that it is true and the man who was seemingly proven to be a pedophile was just as you described him to be. I just don't believe that with respect to this case that John Ramsey is a pedophile and was abusing his daughter. I think the pedophile(s) were outside of the immediate family.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

A sexual assault crime and a ransom note just don't go together.

The Leopold and Loeb murder/sexual assault/ransom scheme is the subject of this thread. So apparently they do go together, or at least there is a precedent for this behavior.

There is no precedent for parental coverup using a staged kidnapping for ransom overlaying a staged brutal strangulation.

 

[sandraladeda]

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?

His name was Glenn Meyer, he cooperated with the police, gave writing and hair samples, passed a polygraph, and was cleared.

 

[aussiesheila]

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.

We're even then Capps.

But if you were to read around reports by abused girls you would find the 'mother knows about abuse but does nothing to stop it' phenomenon is not unknown. It actually DOES happen.

And can you direct me to a case where a pedophile is found guilty of abusing a child and absolutely no other evidence ever came to light that he has engaged in other instances of abberant behaviour?

 

[capps]

"We're even then Capps."

I never look at these discussions,as one point for you,one point for me. I'm not keeping score.

"But if you were to read around reports by abused girls you would find the 'mother knows about abuse but does nothing to stop it' phenomenon is not unknown. It actually DOES happen."

I'm not naive,I'm well aware that what you state above happens all the time.My post stated that I think it is highly unlikely,that a mother would passively let a GROUP of her FRIENDS,continually abuse her six year old daughter,and then out of nowhere,a new member joins the group and kills her daughter,and then the mother willingly helps cover up the murder,and is selected to write a bogus ransom note.All this ... so she can keep her social standing intact.Yes,I think it is highly unlikely.This is totally different than a mother knowing and denying sexual abuse by,for example, her spouse.


"And can you direct me to a case where a pedophile is found guilty of abusing a child and absolutely no other evidence ever came to light that he has engaged in other instances of abberant behaviour?"

For the record,as I feel right now,I don't believe JR molested JB.I think this is a discussion you were having with another poster,but to answer your question,I have no idea,because I never had reason to research it.

 

[aussiesheila]

My only response to this one is why would you say you think John would have been smart enough to think of that, when before in an earlier post you said you didn't think John was involved in the cover-up?

Oh, and I already have answered this post from holdontoyourhat. You'll find it if you go up and look around.

Oh dear this is where we start going around in circles.

Yes you are absolutely correct, I do not believe and I have never believed that John was involved in the coverup.

When I said I thought 'John would have been smart enough to think of that' I was talking about other people's RDI theories which are that John and/or Patsy molested and killed JonBenet and tied a ligature around her neck and covered up with writing a ransom note.

Holdontoyourhat suggested that if they HAD done this crime and HAD been trying to cover up, it would have been a far better idea to have written a hate note rather than a ransom note. And I agreed wholeheartedly.

And I am saying that the RDI scenario is very flawed because IMO, John would definitely not have written a ransom note, and an absurdly long and rambling one at that, he would most definitely have written a hate note because it would have been a far cleverer thing to do and John was clever enough to think of it. A hate note would have been so much more believable than a ransom note.

So I am asking the RDIs to answer the question "Why write a dumb ransom note when they could have written a much more believable hate note?"

And I am quite certain they will be unable to come up with a logical answer because IMO, all of the variations of the scenarios that have John and Patsy molesting and killing their daughter either accidentally or on purpose and then writing that absurd ransom note in attempt to shift the blame to a failed kidnapper is so absurd that there can be no logical explanation.

A short hate note from a revengeful pedophiliac-psychopath maybe I could go along with; but a long ransom note from a failed pedophiliac-kidnapper? No, sorry the Ramseys would never be that stupid even if they weren't thinking straight IMO.

 

[aussiesheila]

People trying to stage a crime scene after killing are always in an exceptional state of mind, so to speak: Dr. Sheppard, Jeffrey MacDonald, Diane Downs, Darlie Routier, Susan Smith, to name but a few - they all made horrible mistakes in their staging because they were no professional criminals who would have known how a real murder scene looks like. Instead, they (unlike professional criminals) were in a state of total panic, and very often these people tend to stage too much.
The Ramseys were no exception here: they staged too much. A sexual assault crime and a ransom note just don't go together.
Another aspect to be considered is the time pressure: suppose they initialily wanted to stage it as a kidnapping, which is why they wrote the ransom note.
But for whatever reason, they decided against dumping the body somewhere.
But they simply leave the ransom note as it is (not being able to think too clearly about the damning implications - don't forget one of them just fatally injured Jon Benet), and stage the garroting.

Yes and all those people made horrible mistakes in their staging and were caught out by them and were arrested and convicted. So why, if the Ramseys made horrible mistakes haven't their horrible mistakes caught them out too, just as the other five you have mentioned were caught out by their own horrible mistakes?

 

[Brefie]

Yes and all those people made horrible mistakes in their staging and were caught out by them and were arrested and convicted. So why, if the Ramseys made horrible mistakes haven't their horrible mistakes caught them out too, just as the other five you have mentioned were caught out by their own horrible mistakes?

Because money didn't just talk - it held court for the whole investigation.

 

[aussiesheila]

No offense but you're kinda all over the place here. Why, if you say the police FBI, etc. investigated the Ramseys up, down and sideways and could never come up with anything on them would you have a theory of Patsy allowing Jonbenet to be abused by a pedophile ring and then on Christmas night it got out of hand? Eithor they were investigated and came up clean(like you said) or Patsy loaned JB out to pedophiles periodically, but somehow this pedophile ring flew under the radar of the police, FBI and, well everybody else you mentioned who investigated the Ramseys. So on one hand you're saying it wasn't them becuse they're spotless.... oh yeah, unless you want to count that pesky ole pedophile ring Patsy is in cahoots with. But shhhhh, the authorities don't know about that yet. ??????? C'mon! Like I said , you're all over the place with your theory.

trixie, I have posted my theory on the member theories thread, three times actually since I keep revising it. Just read the latest one please (post 16). If you want to have another go at me after you have read it please do, I won't take offence. It is really difficult to explain what I mean when I say that I think Patsy knew about the abuse and people always interpret it in ways I hadn't intended. I don't mean it was a situation where "Patsy loaned JB out to pedophiles periodically". But I think there would be situations where people close to Patsy (relative, friend, associate) would have access to JonBenet at say a party or when babysitting and Patsy would not alarm herself should JonBenet disappear from her sight for periods up to an hour or so. Patsy could let herself believe that JonBenet was off somewhere else in the house playing with other children or watching a video or whatever and she wouldn't go and check on her.

The police WERE onto the fact (I think it is a fact) that JonBenet had suffered prior sexual abuse but early on were chasing up JOHN as the pedophile. This leads me to another aspect of my theory which I don't think I elaborated on in my member's theory, and that is that I believe the BPD were in cahoots with the pedophile ring and so avoided targetting them at the beginning of the investigation so evidence that might have been found that incriminated one of the true pedophiles was lost or was given time to be destroyed.

Later in the investigation Patsy was interviewed about possible sexual abuse of JonBenet and she was IMO, her usual evasive lying self and so cleverly avoided incriminating herself.

 

[trixie]

Oh dear this is where we start going around in circles.

Yes you are absolutely correct, I do not believe and I have never believed that John was involved in the coverup.

When I said I thought 'John would have been smart enough to think of that' I was talking about other people's RDI theories which are that John and/or Patsy molested and killed JonBenet and tied a ligature around her neck and covered up with writing a ransom note.

Holdontoyourhat suggested that if they HAD done this crime and HAD been trying to cover up, it would have been a far better idea to have written a hate note rather than a ransom note. And I agreed wholeheartedly.

And I am saying that the RDI scenario is very flawed because John would definitely not have written a ransom note, and an absurdly long and rambling one at that, he would most definitely have written a hate note because it would have been a far cleverer thing to do and John was clever enough to think of it. A hate note would have been so much more believable than a ransom note.

So I am asking the RDIs to answer the question "Why write a dumb ransom note when they could have written a much more believable hate note?"

And I am quite certain they will be unable to come up with a logical answer because IMO all of the variations of the scenarios that have John and Patsy molesting and killing their daughter either accidentally or on purpose and then writing that absurd ransom note in attempt to shift the blame to a failed kidnapper is so absurd that there can be no logical explanation.

Circles? No, I think you've tried spin though. Especially in this post. As to your question, I've already answered it as to my opinion. Apparently no answer will be good enough for you so I'm not going to continue to repeat myself. I guess the only thing to say to you is if you have any other questions that you want to address to me I will now refer you to practically all my posts in this whole thread because you are spinning and rehashing, and my time is too valuable to continue conversing with a brick wall. No hard feelings, though. I used to be married to someone just like you and I loved him to pieces for a little while.