What if...

[aussiesheila]

I don't think JR or PR killed JonBenet.
I'm not 100% convinced they are part of a cover up.

But I get the distinct feeling they know more then what they're saying.

I would love to know what,and why they feel they can't come out with it.

I agree Capps,
I think Patsy knew more from the word go and I think John, being an intelligent man, worked things out for himself as time went by. I don't think he has come out with anything because of his wife's illness and his concern for his son. I think he has worked it all out for himself by now and that, for the time being he is focussed on doing his best for his living children. I think he realises his wife's days are numbered and is staying quiet so as not to add to her personal pain and suffering.

 

[aussiesheila]

Okay, I thought that JR molested her also, but then I look back on Beth and Melinda and it sounds like he was totally appropriate and decent with them. You think he would have had some prior history. I guess it just surprises me that he would start with JBR. That's the only reason I didn't think he did, but you never know with the Rams!

In addition to this astute observation of yours ellen13, perhaps you are not aware of this as you are new to this forum, but the BPD went through John Ramsey's home AND office with a fine toothcomb and seized all his computer hard drives looking for evidence of of any kind and found ..... absolutely ZERO, ZILCH, nothing.

IMO, when pedophiles are investigated, other evidence invariably comes to light, as in is found on their computers, or hard copy is found lying around their home and/or office. In John Ramsey's case they found NOTHING.

Since the BPD were hell-bent on finding evidence that incriminated John Ramsey as being involved in the murder when they did this search, the fact that they didn't find a thing should tell you something, ie and IMO that while John Ramsey might have had an affair and lied to his wife about it, and could therefore be accused of being an adulterer and a liar, he WAS NOT A PEDOPHILE and was not involved in the murder of his daughter.

 

[aussiesheila]

And suppose Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet (which is a very likely possibility imo), is it that far a stretch to imagine that she could have snapped and lost it to the point of striking a violent blow to her head?
A blow so severe that she instantly realized the point of no return had been reached? JonBenet in a coma, possibly nearing death?
Patsy doesn't want to be exposed as her killer, and John doesn't want to be exposed as JB's chronic abuser. So they decide to cover up for each other.

And it is their common guilt which has tied them together up to the present day.
It has been brought up that they as parents would only have covered up for Burke, and that any other cover-up would not make any sense.
But how about covering up for each other? This would make sense too imo.
I suppose they initially wanted to dump the body somewhere, which is why they wrote the ransom note. Snowfall and the fear of being seen made them decide otherwise, which is why they staged the garroting.

Such a scenario seems far more likely imo than having an 'intruder' walking around in that house full of people at Christmas, obviously without any fear of being seen, or claiming that Burke, a nine-year-old kid was engaged in EA games with JB as the willing participant.

rashomon, can you please explain how staging the garroting by the Ramsey's would help cover up their murder of their daughter?

If as you say, it makes sense that they might be covering up for each other, how would staging a garotting help?

It might be clear to you, but it isn't to me. Could you please post your theory on the member's theory thread?

 

[capps]

Please note Capps, that it was PATSY (and NOT John) who said "We may have." I don't remember."

SHE is the one who knows something, IMO.

And if Patsy's sister DID say (I'm not sure about this) on a talk show, that Patsy knows who the killer is, then I think the sister probably knew about the pedophile group that was abusing JonBenet prior to and right up to her death, and knew that Patsy knew about it also, IMO

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.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

rashomon, can you please explain how staging the garroting by the Ramsey's would help cover up their murder of their daughter?

If as you say, it makes sense that they might be covering up for each other, how would staging a garotting help?

It might be clear to you, but it isn't to me. Could you please post your theory on the member's theory thread?

Any theory that takes what started out as an accident and stages it to look like a capital murder, and then adds an open invitation to the FBI with a fake kidnapping, seems highly doubtful.

To allow otherwise normal people (no histories of criminality) to be suspects IMO fails to characterize the murderer (brutal, cold-blooded, etc.) and fails to account for missing evidence (cord, tape, etc.).

While we've all seen child abuse, adultery, filicide, etc., "I've never in my career seen anything like this," is what Robert Ressler said of JBR's murder.

More likely, JBR fell victim to the same type of person that killed Bobby Franks: an 'intellectual' follower of a 'false ideology.' One who was somehow able to place absolutely no value on JBR's life, in the same way Loeb was able to place no value on Franks' life.

 

[Jayelles]

More likely, JBR fell victim to the same type of person that killed Bobby Franks: an 'intellectual' follower of a 'false ideology.' One who was somehow able to place absolutely no value on JBR's life, in the same way Loeb was able to place no value on Franks' life.

Someone who killed that one time and thengave up the "false ideology" and went back to normal life?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Someone who killed that one time and thengave up the "false ideology" and went back to normal life?

What makes you think the perp has never killed before or since? Do you know him?

 

[Jayelles]

What makes you think the perp has never killed before or since? Do you know him?

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.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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.

Your claim that there was "Someone who killed that one time..." is just a claim. Without knowing who the perp is, you can't say if they killed before or since. Many SK's victims cases aren't linked until after the perp is caught.

 

[Jayelles]

Your claim that there was "Someone who killed that one time..." is just a claim. Without knowing who the perp is, you can't say if they killed before or since. Many SK's victims cases aren't linked until after the perp is caught.

That is true but as yet, there is no suggestion that Jonbenet's killer is responsible for any other murders. San Augustin's Mr X was an appalling piece of fraud.

There are many aspects of the Ramsey case which simply do not match any other crimes. No other child has been garotted in her own home with a vague attempt at sexual assault thrown in for good measure then wrapped in a blanket, hidden in her basement and a 3 page ransom note written.

IMO, this was not a serial killer, but someone close to her.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon, can you please explain how staging the garroting by the Ramsey's would help cover up their murder of their daughter?

If as you say, it makes sense that they might be covering up for each other, how would staging a garotting help?

It might be clear to you, but it isn't to me. Could you please post your theory on the member's theory thread?

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.

 

[sandraladeda]

<snip> .... I think the sister probably knew about the pedophile group that was abusing JonBenet prior to and right up to her death, and knew that Patsy knew about it also, IMO

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...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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...

You're not wrong.

 

[trixie]

trixie,

But all their friends are going to know anyway, we have the corpse of a 6-year old girl, she did not accidentally fall out of bed, and whack her head on the floor, thus requiring her human diginity to be ignored, because John and Patsy stood there wailing, gnashing teeth, hands on brow, cheeks red in anticipation of the social disgrace that would be visited upon Burke, which has been anyway, along with comments on his dress code.

Consider the percentages if you are Patsy, how do you know if the staging and coverup will succeed, does she have prior experience to fall back on, why does she think taking a chance with portraying JonBenet's death as the result of a sadistic, violent pedophile, is better than that of telling it like it is e.g. an accident?

Either way social disgrace is their reward, why make matters worse, if its simply an accident, then tell it like it is, that route has no risks, no percentages to calculate, no forensic evidence to remove, no body to relocate. Or do you think Patsy calculated if it all unravelled she would put her hands up, and say it was John!, it was John! he was molesting JonBenet, he is a monster, he made me go along with his coverup?

Armed with information and opinions that have arisen regarding the Ramsey's after the death of JonBenet, its a no-brainer to cite these as reasons why some things should be so, but those are ad-hominem arguments, and on that basis, vast numbers of the american middle classes, even corporate levels would find themselves arraigned in court because they aspired but had extra-marital affairs, cooked the books, setup dodgy companies to funnel political funds, or like Enron itemised liabilities as capital, etc etc.


Its not that its not a popular opinion, it also does not square with the forensic evidence, and guess what, contrary to your argument JonBenet's homicide ranks as one of the most famous in history, the publicity generated exceeds that of any domestic accidental homicide!

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.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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.

Did they decide that 'brutal strangulation' staging might not be enough, so they invited the FBI with the 'kidnapping for ransom ' staging too? I doubt it.

 

[trixie]

In addition to this astute observation of yours ellen13, perhaps you are not aware of this as you are new to this forum, but the BPD went through John Ramsey's home AND office with a fine toothcomb and seized all his computer hard drives looking for evidence of of any kind and found ..... absolutely ZERO, ZILCH, nothing.

IMO, when pedophiles are investigated, other evidence invariably comes to light, as in is found on their computers, or hard copy is found lying around their home and/or office. In John Ramsey's case they found NOTHING.

Since the BPD were hell-bent on finding evidence that incriminated John Ramsey as being involved in the murder when they did this search, the fact that they didn't find a thing should tell you something, ie and IMO that while John Ramsey might have had an affair and lied to his wife about it, and could therefore be accused of being an adulterer and a liar, he WAS NOT A PEDOPHILE and was not involved in the murder of his daughter.

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?

 

[trixie]

Did they decide that 'brutal strangulation' staging might not be enough, so they invited the FBI with the 'kidnapping for ransom ' staging too? I doubt it.

They needed to explain why there was a dead body in the basement. The note explains it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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?

Brutal strangulation staging points away from the R's. Kidnap for ransom staging, with the brutal ransom note terms, points away from the R's. No evidence of pedophilia points away from the R's.

So its either a totally unprecedented parental coverup of an accident or a filicide, or a totally precedented brutal murder/kidnap scheme (Leopold & Loeb).

 

[trixie]

Can you tell me how any staging points away from the Ramseys?

 

[UKGuy]

They needed to explain why there was a dead body in the basement. The note explains it.

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?



.