Why the Ramsays?

[JMO8778]

Let me explain.

No, there is too much.

Let me sum up:

Corruption

Weakness

Naivete

Bad combination!

Can I throw stupidity in there too? I can't beleive Lacy could take one look at that ransom note and think for one moment Karr could have been involved or could have written it.It doesn't even make any sense,much less that he would write something as dumb as "use that good southern common sense of yours".That was obviously from someone who knows him well.

 

[BBB167893]

Go ahead and throw it in!

 

[luckyeight]

That's the thing. An RDI can point to other (frequently less plausible) causes for the various clues pointing to the Ramseys. In other words, they can play defense. But can anyone play offense for the Ramseys? Swing the bat. Make me scramble to explain why some bit of evidence points to the Rs, rather than to an intruder.

That's what I would like to see. And if no one can produce such a demonstration -- if IDIs can only defensively produce alternative explanations for evidence that mostly points to the Rs -- then doesn't the conclusion speak for itself?

"Well...to start off with, there is no forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night. No hair, no prints, no fibers, nothing that can be solidly sourced to anyone other than a Ramsey. The tape and cord used in the murder and staging could very well have come from inside the house - we know the flashlight the killer used while moving around belonged to the Ramseys - why wouldn't a kidnapper/killer bring his own flashlight? The paintbrush used to assault and kill JonBenet came from the house, as did the ransom note. This kidnapper/killer didn't have his own "tools" for the job?"



As it was the Ramsey's house, it is to be expected that there would be lots of Ramsey DNA and fibers found. Also, the majority of DNA evidence found and tested was contaminated and compromised, so cannot prove or disprove an intruder. The tape and cord were not found anywhere in the house, so this is incongruous with the idea of everything coming from inside the house. It is documented that Polly Paugh was allowed to remove items from the house, but these were monitored by LE, and so unless the Ramsey's had premeditatedly hidden the tape and cord inside dolls or tiaras, it seems unlikely that these items were in the house.





"The DNA under JonBenet's fingernails does not match the DNA in her underwear, and the DNA in her underwear is fragmented and degraded, while JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete, indicating the two samples of DNA were deposited on the underwear at different times. When Dr Henry Lee tested packages of underwear identical to those JonBenet was found in, brand new and unwashed straight from package (as the pair on JB had been also), he discovered they also had DNA on them."



The arguments over DNA are fundamentally inconclusive - this is proved by the whole 'worker in an underwear factory sneezing on the production line' evidence. It will never be able to prove anything, unfortunately.



"Fibers from the clothing both John and Patsy were wearing that evening were found on the body and in the crime scene, and no, they didn't just float around and end up tied in the knot of the cord strangling JonBenet. The knot itself was uncomplicated and could have been tied by anyone who knows how to tie a shoe. There is no evidence that JonBenet struggled against the person strangling her at all - there are no defensive wounds on her hands or feet, there is very little damage to the interior of her neck, her tongue and cheeks were smooth and unblemished, and the head wound was fully developed, with three separate layers of pooled blood and her brain so swollen it was pressing against the inside of her skull - indicating the head wound preceded the strangulation. While her wrists were tied, they were tied very loosely, and with 15 inches of length between them. There is no evidence on JonBenet's wrists that she struggled against the restraints at all, no bruising or abrasions."



Just because there is 'no evidence that JBR struggled against the person strangling her, is that supposed to mean that she'd lie down and take it if it was one of her parents doing it? Surely it just means that she had been mortally wounded and incapacitated by the blow to the head and/or the strangulation? I don't understand the thinking that she would have struggled against an intruder trying to kill her but not her parents. That makes no sense. Also, by JR's testimony, when he found the body he tried to untie the cord around his daughter's wrist, which would account for that aspect. Also, there were wounds and marks on the body - scratches on the legs, marks on the neck, the 'stun gun' abrasions etc.



"The tape over JonBenet's mouth showed that she never struggled against it, with a perfect impression of her lips on it (and four fibers from Patsy's jacket.) There was mucus from JonBenet's nose and/or mouth on the tape as well, indicating it had placed over her mouth after she was dead. Why tape the mouth of a child who can't struggle against the taper? Staging."



There is no professional agreement on when JBR died, or what killed her - ie blow to head or strangulation. It is perfectly reasonable to presume that the child may have appeared unconsious but the killer decided to tape her mouth either for gratification or incase she came back to consciousness and screamed. A killer could tape the mouth of a child who isn't struggling for insurance purposes - he is in someone else's basement and doesn't want to risk JBR coming back to consciousness.



"The body. JonBenet had been wiped down and redressed, then tucked inside a blanket that was normally on her bed, with her favorite nightgown beside her. Pedophiles who assault children for a sexual thrill don't stay in the child's house with the parents asleep upstairs while they assualt the child, they take the child to their own place where they feel safe. They don't stop and redress the child afterwards, either, and certainly don't walk around in the house seeking out the child's favorite items to leave with them. That was done by someone who cared about JonBenet. And the medical evidence of prior molestation! JonBenet had five or six vaginal exams (Beuf couldn't remember the exact number!) in three years time! Now Beuf claims that isn't abnormal, but it is! I can't think of any other girl under the age of seven that has had five or six vaginal exams in just three years. That's insane, poor JonBenet. Not to mention her serious toileting issues...I could see it id she just wet the bed, but she didn't - she was known to soil herself at any time of day. There was something seriously wrong going on there."



It's interesting that the RDI theory emphasises all the effort that goes into the cover up and staging and yet accepts that the Ramsey's left the body with their favourite toys and wrapped in blankets. It doesn't make sense that the parents could violate their child with a paint brush handle, but care enough to leave her with a teddy.. Anyway, there is no evidence as to how the body was left, because of how it was found. Also, if the Ramsey's worked so hard to stage this murder,then why did John tear off the tape, move the body, untie the wrist cord, etc. Stage and then ruin the staging? Why? He could have screamed that he had found the body and then let the plan go ahead. Why stage so excessively then ruin it by bringing the body upstairs instantly? If an intruder did do this, they committed outrageous behaviour all round with a sick mind, and that would account for these contradictions too.

The 'prior evidence of vaginal trauma/abuse' is subjective and it is documented that JBR suffered thrush and similar infections, which may not necessarily point to abuse, but possibly be a result of too many bubble baths, or sleeping in wet clothes due to bedwetting. Also, the bedwetting and toileting issues are fairly normal for six year old children. They do not necessarily point to child abuse at all.



"The pineapple. Not only did John and Patsy originally say that JonBenet had been awake when they got home that night (only to contradict themselves four months later), but so did her brother Burke, and the pineapple found in her small intestine and on the breakfast table in the Ramsey house says so too. Why would J & P feel the need to change their story and lie about whether JonBenet had been awake or not? Would a murderous pedophile take the time to feed his victim a snack, wait around for an hour or two for it to digest (because that's how long it took to get to her small intestine), and then kill her - and then stage the crime scene, and write a three page ransom note, seemingly totally unconcerned with being caught by the victim's family members? "



Just because there was evidence of pineapple having been eaten by JBR doesn't mean her parents killed her. She could have eaten pineapple at the White's party, or helped herself to it. An intruder known to JonBenet may well have lured her out of bed with the promise of some fresh pineapple.

Also, a lot of witnesses in this case have changed their stories - Melody Stanton, Linda Arndt, (off the top of my head), as well as other LE officers who kept putting in amended reports as the case went on.

 

[luckyeight]

"John and Patsy Ramsey have told numerous contradicting stories as the events of Christmas night and the following day. They have been caught telling outright lies, in fact. They hired PIs and attorneys not to search for the killer of their daughter, but the to keep them out of prison. They have hindered the investigation from day one, refusing to meet with police for interviews for months, and only under non-standard conditions set up to benefit the Ramseys themselves - such as demanding they be allowed to re-read previous statements they made before answering any questions, and there were certain questions they would not allow to be asked. Why, unless they have something to hide? They had trouble passing polygraphs, and ended up shopping around til they found an expert who would play the game their way - no drug test required, and when the R's answers didn't give them an immediate pass, he tested them again, dropping those questions."



The Ramsey's have actively solicited for information on the murder of their daughter. Their lawyer friend advised them that they should get legal counsel, and did so for their own good during the immediate aftermath of the murder. He knows the legal system. From a non-US citizen's point of view, I am not surprised. Anyone involved in a murder investigation needs legal representation, whether they are innocent or not. Although initially neither John or Patsy would take lie detector tests, when they did so they passed in the sense that it was confirmed they did not kill their daughter and did not know who did, so it is inaccurate to say that 'they had trouble passing polygraphs'.



"Then there's the ransom note. Out of 90-some people who gave handwriting samples, Patsy was the only person who could never be excluded, not even by experts hired by the Rs. It looks like her handwriting, and it sounds like her style of speech. It was written in standard American writing form by someone who knew proper spacing, indentation, capitalization, punctuation...and Patsy had a degree in journalism, and would have known the proper form. The note was supposedly written by a foreign faction, but uses some rather American phrases and includes inside knowledge of the Ramsey family, including John Ramsey's bonus amount."

The ransom note is a veritable cornucopia of distraction. It can be analysed in terms of visual connection to handwriting but also linguistically. If someone was going to write a ransom note, would they write it to make it sound like them?

Or would they write it to sound like someone that wasn't them? How is 'attache' an American phrase? And John was not from the South, so didn't have 'good Southern common sense'. How can it be argued that the note was written by Patsy in an attempt to throw people off the trail, but then see so definitively that it was written by her?



"There's the 911 call. Patsy says she hasn't read the note, but knows how it ends. She never once mentions to the 911 operator that the RN has made a threat to decapitate JonBenet if anyone calls the police, and as soon as hangs up on the operator (!), she proceeds to call over some 5 - 7 other people, completely heedless of the threat against her child's life. And I don't buy the story that she didn't know JonBenet's head was threatened to be cut off, because John was supposedly on the floor on his knees (as if) reading the note - surely he would have seen the threat to cut off JB's head and told Patsy. On top of throwing an impromptu tea party, John and Patsy send Burke off to the White's, not knowing where the kidnapper is, but that he's watching the house and will KILL JonBenet if the Rs don't play the game his way. They did not request a police escort at all. How could they be sure that the kidnapper wasn't waiting somewhere, watching, and would take the opportunity to attack Burke as well? How could a parent with a child supposedly kidnapped allow their other child out of their sight at all?"

It's easy to see how this note is signed. You don't have to read it all to just check the bottom and see the signing off. If an operator asks who has written the note, it's easy to see. If the note is from a genuine kidnapper and most middle class white American families read it or skim read it, their first port of call and reassurement surely would be the police. Can it really be suggested that John and Patsy wake up, get a ransom note and shouldn't call the police? What are they supposed to do? Sit and wait by themselves with no advice or emotional support or trained help? I don't think there is anyone who would do that. If these parents were desperate and wanted their little girl back, they would panic, call LE and ask their friends for advice. In this kind of panic, people don't trust their own judgement, and they need help. It's natural to turn to your friends and people you trust, or people you are told you should trust ie emergency services who have expertise in this kind of situation. If your daughter has just been taken out of your house without you knowing about it, you are unlikely to feel that your son would be safe in the same place. Sending him to stay with close friends just around the corner is surely understandable and the best thing. You wouldn't want your son to witness the horror and upset that would follow your daughter being kidnapped. You would want him to be looked after but not right with you because you are with LE and trying to recover your daughter, which is something no 9 year old should have to contend with.



"And why wasn't Burke attacked also? The author of the RN claims to be a foreign faction, and claims this crime has been committed out of anger and hatred for John Ramsey. If this kidnapper can get in the house and grab a kid and feed her a snack and then wait for it to digest before he molests and strangles her then goes and finds a fresh pair of bloomies to dress her in, why didn't he really stick it to JR and grab the son as well? A little girl means NOTHING to a foreign faction - they would go for the SON of the man they want to hurt. They might even attack John Ramsey himself. And why John Ramsey? There are many more affluent people than some relatively unknown businessman in Boulder, Colorado."

The attack was sexual and JBR was the target, for whatever reason. The note was inherently contradictory and nonsensical because JBR was dead by the time it was found. How does the fact that Burke was unharmed make it more likely that the Ramsey's killed Jon Benet? It doesn't. Most paedophilic, sexual assault murders are committed by men to little girls. Fact.



"This isn't even mentioning the enormous amount of police work that was done that kept bringing the police back to the conclusion that the Rs were involved. FBI's CASKU unit agreed with police, believing the parents were the ones to look at, seeing as how the crime scene was criminally unsophisticated with many elements of staging (staging within staging, in fact.) Why would an intruder stage a murder, and why would an intruder stage a murder to look like an intruder did it?"

The crime scene, and all accompanying evidence was sullied and ruined. This was not the Ramseys' fault. This was the fault of BPD, who failed to follow any kind of appropriate procedure for either a kidnapping or a homicide. The evidence left was compromised and is not conclusive to any theory unfortunately, as the evidence is incomplete. The FBI is analysing incomplete evidence and a travesty of a crime scene. If it's viable and believable to presume that the Ramsey's killed JBR and staged her murder, then it's certainly as viable to presume that an intruder killed her and staged the scene to frame the parents.



"That's all I can think of right now, but in my opinion, all of this points to one thing and one thing only - the Ramseys either did this, or they know exactly who did. There is no other explanation for why this entire scene indicates their guilt as strongly as it does. If I have forgotten something, please add it on, and keriekerie, I would love to hear the reasons why you think the Ramseys didn't do this thing to their child.[/QUOTE]"

IMO all of this certainly doesn't point to the fact that the Ramsey's did this or knew exactly who did. It points the same way as all the 'evidence/facts' in this case... uncertain.

 

[JMO8778]

Also, if the Ramsey's worked so hard to stage this murder,then why did John tear off the tape, move the body, untie the wrist cord, etc. Stage and then ruin the staging? Why? He could have screamed that he had found the body and then let the plan go ahead. Why stage so excessively then ruin it by bringing the body upstairs instantly?

I think he wanted to pretend he'd found her but wasn't sure she was dead.IOW...he didn't want it to appear he already knew she was dead.Let someone else confirm that,which he did.He was trying to appear helpful and unknowledable about her death,both at the same time.As well as as shocked.

 

[JMO8778]

The ransom note is a veritable cornucopia of distraction. It can be analysed in terms of visual connection to handwriting but also linguistically. If someone was going to write a ransom note, would they write it to make it sound like them?

Or would they write it to sound like someone that wasn't them? How is 'attache' an American phrase? And John was not from the South, so didn't have 'good Southern common sense'. How can it be argued that the note was written by Patsy in an attempt to throw people off the trail, but then see so definitively that it was written by her?

I think she tried really hard to make it sound as if it wasn't her..by use of the foreign faction phrase,beheading, etc.Iow,no parent would say that. The thing is,everyone has their own personal dictionary in their head,and the liguistics of it all...style,words,manner of writing...don't change,no matter how hard the person tries,as their own unique style is still there...no matter what.It's like trying to write a note in spanish when you don't know spanish,if you're trying to make it appear to be someone else.Therefore it would be very difficult ,if not impossible, for anyone to try and make it *appear to be PR,even if they knew her,and have the note be beleivable.It surely *isn't beleivable,and it has her style and manner of writing all over it.I think she just should have signed the note ..." love,patsy"

 

[LinasK]

Just because there is 'no evidence that JBR struggled against the person strangling her, is that supposed to mean that she'd lie down and take it if it was one of her parents doing it? Surely it just means that she had been mortally wounded and incapacitated by the blow to the head and/or the strangulation? I don't understand the thinking that she would have struggled against an intruder trying to kill her but not her parents.
If your father has been having incest with you for quite awhile, maybe you do begin to accept it and not struggle.

It's interesting that the RDI theory emphasises all the effort that goes into the cover up and staging and yet accepts that the Ramsey's left the body with their favourite toys and wrapped in blankets. It doesn't make sense that the parents could violate their child with a paint brush handle, but care enough to leave her with a teddy.
Yes it does. It's called guilt. Besides, where did you hear she was left with a teddy bear? I read that it was her Barbie nightgown, which they probably wanted to re-dress her in, but she was already in rigor mortis.

Also, if the Ramsey's worked so hard to stage this murder,then why did John tear off the tape, move the body, untie the wrist cord, etc. Stage and then ruin the staging? Why? He could have screamed that he had found the body and then let the plan go ahead. Why stage so excessively then ruin it by bringing the body upstairs instantly? If an intruder did do this, they committed outrageous behaviour all round with a sick mind, and that would account for these contradictions too.
The Ramsey's worked hard to contaminate the crime scene with their fibers in case their staging wasn't believed. Why do you think John carried JB up the stairs instead of calling for Linda Arndt? Why do you think Patsy threw herself across JB's body?

The 'prior evidence of vaginal trauma/abuse' is subjective and it is documented that JBR suffered thrush and similar infections, which may not necessarily point to abuse, but possibly be a result of too many bubble baths, or sleeping in wet clothes due to bedwetting.
Sorry, a broken hymen isn't caused by bubblebaths! And sleeping in wet clothes would cause diaper rash, not thrush. Thrush is a yeast infection.

Also, the bedwetting and toileting issues are fairly normal for six year old children.
Not when they also involve soiling and wetting yourself during the day- that points to sexual abuse.! JonBenet had five or six vaginal exams (Beuf couldn't remember the exact number!) in three years time! Now Beuf claims that isn't abnormal, but it is! I can't think of any other girl under the age of seven that has had five or six vaginal exams in just three years.

My replies are in red.

 

[LinasK]

How is 'attache' an American phrase? And John was not from the South, so didn't have 'good Southern common sense'. How can it be argued that the note was written by Patsy in an attempt to throw people off the trail, but then see so definitively that it was written by her?
Attache' is a French phrase, JonBenet is a made up name by Patsy made to sound French. Patsy was telling John in the note that he (she is from the South) wasn't using his good Southern common sense- inside reference.

The attack was sexual and JBR was the target, for whatever reason. The note was inherently contradictory and nonsensical because JBR was dead by the time it was found. How does the fact that Burke was unharmed make it more likely that the Ramsey's killed Jon Benet? It doesn't. Most paedophilic, sexual assault murders are committed by men to little girls. Fact.
Agree with you here, I think it definitely was a man who sexually assaulted and killed JonBenet- that man being her own father John Ramsey!

The crime scene, and all accompanying evidence was sullied and ruined. This was not the Ramseys' fault. Ah,but contaminating the crime scene by carrying the body and falling on top of it was the Ramsey's fault. Linda Arndt didn't know John had found the body yet.

This was the fault of BPD, who failed to follow any kind of appropriate procedure for either a kidnapping or a homicide. I do blame Linda Arndt for allowing John to search the house without her.

My responses are in red.

 

[Eagle1]

There's a list of fallacy arguments in the rules of debate, I learned by accident while looking up something else. One is Hasty Generalization.

I don't remember who said it, maybe most of us, but the statement that pedophile killers take their targets out of their home can be disproved within this case. Do you remember the nearby 14-yr old whose mother heard a sound and went to the girl's room with some mace or something, the intruder jumping from their balcony?

He was doing it right there.

Another thing, if killers brought a lot of equipment, we all know they'd look suspicious to some alert person they'd meet on the way, right? Never heard of any of them coming to the scene carrying anything. Afraid none of this proves anything. Are we getting a little bit bored?

As UK Guy said in another thread, there could even have been another Wednesday pair of panties in the drawer for all we know, so we can't decide anything definite about her underpants being changed.

 

[BBB167893]

As it was the Ramsey's house, it is to be expected that there would be lots of Ramsey DNA and fibers found.

But they claimed they never went to those places with that clothing on.

The tape and cord were not found anywhere in the house, so this is incongruous with the idea of everything coming from inside the house.

Evidence is strong that the tape and cord were bought by Patsy weeks prior and that they were taken from household objects; a doll, et al.

It is documented that Polly Paugh was allowed to remove items from the house, but these were monitored by LE, and so unless the Ramsey's had premeditatedly hidden the tape and cord inside dolls or tiaras, it seems unlikely that these items were in the house.

We have no idea what they might have been hidden in.

Just because there is 'no evidence that JBR struggled against the person strangling her, is that supposed to mean that she'd lie down and take it if it was one of her parents doing it?

I don't think that was the point. I think the point was to demonstrate that she'd been knocked out first.

There is no professional agreement on when JBR died, or what killed her - ie blow to head or strangulation. It is perfectly reasonable to presume that the child may have appeared unconsious but the killer decided to tape her mouth either for gratification or incase she came back to consciousness and screamed. A killer could tape the mouth of a child who isn't struggling for insurance purposes - he is in someone else's basement and doesn't want to risk JBR coming back to consciousness

They used a two-inch square piece. That wouldn't restrain a baby.

It's interesting that the RDI theory emphasises all the effort that goes into the cover up and staging and yet accepts that the Ramsey's left the body with their favourite toys and wrapped in blankets. It doesn't make sense that the parents could violate their child with a paint brush handle, but care enough to leave her with a teddy..

It's good old-fashioned guilt. And since when does crime have to make sense?

Also, if the Ramsey's worked so hard to stage this murder,then why did John tear off the tape, move the body, untie the wrist cord, etc. Stage and then ruin the staging? Why? He could have screamed that he had found the body and then let the plan go ahead. Why stage so excessively then ruin it by bringing the body upstairs instantly? If an intruder did do this, they committed outrageous behaviour all round with a sick mind, and that would account for these contradictions too.

I can never figure how anyone says they "ruined" the staging. All the important stuff was still there, and he made sure Fleet had enough time to see it, AND he couldn't let on to the idea that he knew. But he did: he screamed BEFORE he hit the light switch.

The 'prior evidence of vaginal trauma/abuse' is subjective and it is documented that JBR suffered thrush and similar infections, which may not necessarily point to abuse, but possibly be a result of too many bubble baths, or sleeping in wet clothes due to bedwetting.

My eye! Sleeping in wet clothes and bubble baths don't wear a hymen away to near-nothingness.

I hear tell that when Lacy was first elected (or succeeded Hunter, whichever you prefer), she was approached by several sex abuse experts. She dismissed them all. That's not her job, last I heard.

Although initially neither John or Patsy would take lie detector tests, when they did so they passed in the sense that it was confirmed they did not kill their daughter and did not know who did, so it is inaccurate to say that 'they had trouble passing polygraphs'.

Good heavens, you're not going to try and sell that bill of goods, are you? A bought-and-paid-for lie detector test, which took them three tries to pass, after failing another one?

The ransom note is a veritable cornucopia of distraction. It can be analysed in terms of visual connection to handwriting but also linguistically. If someone was going to write a ransom note, would they write it to make it sound like them?

That's simple enough: most people have no idea about linguistic analysis. I can tell you that before this case, I'd never even HEARD of it. I imagine they hadn't either.

Or would they write it to sound like someone that wasn't them?

You mean like referencing Islamic terror and extreme-leftwing terror?

How is 'attache' an American phrase? And John was not from the South, so didn't have 'good Southern common sense'.

That was a little joke in the family.

How can it be argued that the note was written by Patsy in an attempt to throw people off the trail, but then see so definitively that it was written by her?

Because, like I said, people really don't realize that they write the way they speak. It's subconscious.

If it's viable and believable to presume that the Ramsey's killed JBR and staged her murder, then it's certainly as viable to presume that an intruder killed her and staged the scene to frame the parents.

Intruders don't stage crime scenes, per the FBI.

I think she tried really hard to make it sound as if it wasn't her..by use of the foreign faction phrase,beheading, etc.Iow,no parent would say that. The thing is,everyone has their own personal dictionary in their head,and the liguistics of it all...style,words,manner of writing...don't change,no matter how hard the person tries,as their own unique style is still there...no matter what.It's like trying to write a note in spanish when you don't know spanish,if you're trying to make it appear to be someone else.Therefore it would be very difficult ,if not impossible, for anyone to try and make it *appear to be PR,even if they knew her,and have the note be beleivable.It surely *isn't beleivable,and it has her style and manner of writing all over it.I think she just should have signed the note ..." love,patsy"

You said it better than I did.

If your father has been having incest with you for quite awhile, maybe you do begin to accept it and not struggle.

I know of at least two cases where the kids said they got to like it.


Another thing: a lot of assumptions about how intelligent people wouldn't do certain things. But they don't appreciate that there's a difference between being smart and knowing what you're doing. It's the difference between knowledge and wisdom...

 

[JMO8778]

That's simple enough: most people have no idea about linguistic analysis. I can tell you that before this case, I'd never even HEARD of it. I imagine they hadn't either

I didn't know there was a term for it,but I was familiar with it and that's what got me in this case..in fact it hit me square in face when I saw that RN..I used to chat host a room online,and sometimes ppl would change names,but I would still always know who they were, even if they didn't tell me.I could usually even guess right,even if they changed the font or color.What they didn't realize are that the linguistics ..manner of writing,words used, etc., are always the same.When I saw the RN and then read some of PR's writings,(the two letters online I think it was)I was just blown away.That's all I needed to see,that was enough...I KNEW right then she wrote it,no doubt in my mind whatsoever.I'd have been willing to bet my life savings on it! On top of that,being female it appears to be written by a woman,as the language is too soft(I think a man writing it would be much tougher),and being from the south,I think it sounds like someone southern wrote it too,esp. the word gentleman.I don't think I've ever heard that used anywhere else.Just my .02 worth.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't have a clue as to why ML or any of the handwriting experts could ever have thought for one split second that Karr wrote that utter nonsense.And IMO..it all starts with the note.Are these ppl just not very intelligent or what???I've been a SAHM for most of my life and even I can see the truth in this case....I can't figure out for the life of me why anyone else can't or won't(other than being bought off and having no morals,even and esp. in the name of a murdered child). ..That leads me to Jameson(I don't personally know her and I don't care to) ...we live in the same state(NC) and she most certainly has a formidable opponent in me if she wants one..I want the rest of the world to know that I don't think, and am quite sure that, everyone else in this state IS NOT AS STUPID AS SHE IS.She's totally disgracing our state by defending the guilty.It wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit if she ever packed up and moved,preferably to a deserted island. ..TYVM for listening

 

[JMO8778]

If I'm not allowed to say some of the above,then by all means,pls delete it,I understand...ty.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

It's prolly okay, JMO. You didn't go too postal, and we all rant at times.

I've noticed the same thing about the way people write as you have. I've been on boards where people have several names (and use them all), and you can still tell who's who by the things they say and the way they say them (like spelling and punctuation.)

And most of us would never look down on NC or those who live there just because Jameson's giving herself a bad name with her words and actions.

 

[JMO8778]

It's prolly okay, JMO. You didn't go too postal, and we all rant at times.

I've noticed the same thing about the way people write as you have. I've been on boards where people have several names (and use them all), and you can still tell who's who by the things they say and the way they say them (like spelling and punctuation.)

And most of us would never look down on NC or those who live there just because Jameson's giving herself a bad name with her words and actions.

Thank you NP

 

[keriekerie]

Wow
I just came back after a long while,and found these responses.
Wow.I am only new to the Ramsay case.I don't know as much about it as you guys do, and I am trying to learn more by reading all your threads.I thought I would just give my opinion on what I suspect, not claiming I KNOW at all.And yeah, I wanted you all to
reply as to whether you believe I am wrong.Because I want to know about this
(horrible) case.
I'm so sorry my post has upset people.
Wow..

 

[luckyeight]

Just wanted to address these red responses by LinasK. I have responded in blue.

How is 'attache' an American phrase? And John was not from the South, so didn't have 'good Southern common sense'. How can it be argued that the note was written by Patsy in an attempt to throw people off the trail, but then see so definitively that it was written by her?
Attache' is a French phrase, JonBenet is a made up name by Patsy made to sound French. Patsy was telling John in the note that he (she is from the South) wasn't using his good Southern common sense- inside reference.
Interesting point about the French connection to JonBenet's name. Still don't see why Patsy would write a note trying to blame outsiders, then make 'inside jokes' to John - that the public know about because ppl close to the Ramsey's knew they made this joke together!

The 'prior evidence of vaginal trauma/abuse' is subjective and it is documented that JBR suffered thrush and similar infections, which may not necessarily point to abuse, but possibly be a result of too many bubble baths, or sleeping in wet clothes due to bedwetting.
Sorry, a broken hymen isn't caused by bubblebaths! And sleeping in wet clothes would cause diaper rash, not thrush. Thrush is a yeast infection.
I'm certainly not suggesting that a broken hymen is caused by bubble baths. What I'm saying is that there is no way of knowing if the hymen had been broken by consistent previous abuse, or if it was broken at the time of the murder. So the only proven 'evidence' that suggests previous sexual abuse is thrush - yes, a yeast infection, which can commonly caused by heavily scented baths or wearing tights etc- It is reported that JBR had many scented baths, slept in long johns and wore tights - all of which could easily cause vaginal infection. Also, it can certainly be caused by sex or penetration of the vagina - so yet again, none of this proves anything...

Also, the bedwetting and toileting issues are fairly normal for six year old children.
Not when they also involve soiling and wetting yourself during the day- that points to sexual abuse.! JonBenet had five or six vaginal exams (Beuf couldn't remember the exact number!) in three years time! Now Beuf claims that isn't abnormal, but it is! I can't think of any other girl under the age of seven that has had five or six vaginal exams in just three years.
Still have to disagree. I maintain that these hygiene issues are fairly normal for children this age. It is true however that soiling and wetting can indicate distress, including sexual abuse. But I would imagine that JBR's behaviour generally would be more indicative of sexual abuse - eg withdrawn, agressive, sexually provocative etc (oh, horrible thought. Have just thought about her at the pageants. That certainly could be described as sexually provocative - the winking, flirting behaviour etc. ) But I do mean in everyday life. Wouldn't her teachers or other adults noticed some sort of behaviour that might point to sexual abuse? Everyone has described her as very well adjusted and happy.
As to the Dr B vaginal exams - surely if he suspected sexual abuse he would report it to the authorities? Can her testify re whether or not her hymen was intact etc? The number of visits to the paediatrician seem excessive to me, but the Ramsey's were wealthy and obviously quite fastidious about looking after JBR... Dr B never reported any serious health problems, bruising, injury or sexual abuse indicators.

 

[luckyeight]

Quote:
As it was the Ramsey's house, it is to be expected that there would be lots of Ramsey DNA and fibers found.

"But they claimed they never went to those places with that clothing on."

Don't understand you here - which places? Their own home? Fibers can be transferred anyway.

Quote:
The tape and cord were not found anywhere in the house, so this is incongruous with the idea of everything coming from inside the house.

"Evidence is strong that the tape and cord were bought by Patsy weeks prior and that they were taken from household objects; a doll, et al."

This statement is a contradiction. Either she bought these items specifically, or they were retrieved from household objects to use in the murder/staging. How is evidence strong that the tape and cord were bought by Patsy weeks prior to the murder? I don't think so. There is evidence that she bought many items from a local hardware store previously, but that's about it.

Quote:
It is documented that Polly Paugh was allowed to remove items from the house, but these were monitored by LE, and so unless the Ramsey's had premeditatedly hidden the tape and cord inside dolls or tiaras, it seems unlikely that these items were in the house.

"We have no idea what they might have been hidden in."

If the Ramsey's have happily left the notepad, pen, paintbrush etc, lying around for LE to find, then why would they suddenly have the presence of mind to hide cord and tape in household items? - that they didn't know, remember, that they would be allowed to remove (again, a staggering LE decision which should not have been made. Every single item should have remained untouched in that house.) Also, if we are surmising that they were hidden in the house, and not removed, I find it very hard to believe that they weren't found, bearing in mind plumbing was ripped apart etc.
Actually, you know what - either John or Patsy could have had them in their pockets for all we'd know. :doh:


Quote:
Just because there is 'no evidence that JBR struggled against the person strangling her, is that supposed to mean that she'd lie down and take it if it was one of her parents doing it?

"I don't think that was the point. I think the point was to demonstrate that she'd been knocked out first."



Quote:
There is no professional agreement on when JBR died, or what killed her - ie blow to head or strangulation. It is perfectly reasonable to presume that the child may have appeared unconsious but the killer decided to tape her mouth either for gratification or incase she came back to consciousness and screamed. A killer could tape the mouth of a child who isn't struggling for insurance purposes - he is in someone else's basement and doesn't want to risk JBR coming back to consciousness

"They used a two-inch square piece. That wouldn't restrain a baby."

Duct tape over a child's mouth would stop them screaming if they were starting to come back to consciousness, I think.

Quote:
It's interesting that the RDI theory emphasises all the effort that goes into the cover up and staging and yet accepts that the Ramsey's left the body with their favourite toys and wrapped in blankets. It doesn't make sense that the parents could violate their child with a paint brush handle, but care enough to leave her with a teddy..

"It's good old-fashioned guilt. And since when does crime have to make sense?"

LOL Crime rarely does make sense, but if we're talking about which theory seems more probable or believable, objective credulity becomes important. Ironically the contradictions of this murder could support either intruder or Ramsey guilt... The Ramsey's could have staged the scene cynically and then wrapped the child lovingly, or an intruder could have killed then also wrapped the child lovingly. Either way I guess you're talking about unbalanced minds.

Quote:
Also, if the Ramsey's worked so hard to stage this murder,then why did John tear off the tape, move the body, untie the wrist cord, etc. Stage and then ruin the staging? Why? He could have screamed that he had found the body and then let the plan go ahead. Why stage so excessively then ruin it by bringing the body upstairs instantly? If an intruder did do this, they committed outrageous behaviour all round with a sick mind, and that would account for these contradictions too.

"I can never figure how anyone says they "ruined" the staging. All the important stuff was still there, and he made sure Fleet had enough time to see it, AND he couldn't let on to the idea that he knew. But he did: he screamed BEFORE he hit the light switch."

It's interesting to ponder staging intentions.... I suppose the RDI theory is that the wine cellar was staged in the hope/expectation that someone else would find the body (presumably LE), but as time wore on maybe John realised he could do even better than the early hours staging - why not 'discover' the body and make the crime scene so questionable and contaminated that any potential flaws would be lost forever... No one will ever know how that body was left, because of Linda Arndt's suggestion that they search the house, and John bringing the body upstairs.
There are lots of inconsistencies with the staging though... Little things like a practise RN.. Why would you leave that in the pad? Why not open a window or leave a door ajar to suggest an intruder?

Quote:
The 'prior evidence of vaginal trauma/abuse' is subjective and it is documented that JBR suffered thrush and similar infections, which may not necessarily point to abuse, but possibly be a result of too many bubble baths, or sleeping in wet clothes due to bedwetting.

"My eye! Sleeping in wet clothes and bubble baths don't wear a hymen away to near-nothingness."

Like I said to LinasK, I'm certainly not suggesting that a broken hymen is caused by bubble baths. What I'm saying is that there is no way of knowing if the hymen had been broken by consistent previous abuse, or if it was broken at the time of the murder. So the only proven 'evidence' that suggests previous sexual abuse is thrush - yes, a yeast infection, which can commonly caused by heavily scented baths or wearing tights etc- It is reported that JBR had many scented baths, slept in long johns and wore tights - all of which could easily cause vaginal infection. Also, it can certainly be caused by sex or penetration of the vagina - so yet again, none of this proves anything...

"I hear tell that when Lacy was first elected (or succeeded Hunter, whichever you prefer), she was approached by several sex abuse experts. She dismissed them all. That's not her job, last I heard."

This is interesting, as I think that this would be an important analysis in terms of this case. The only real information I have seen is autopsy reports and (contradictory) interpretation. However, a coroner is not a sexual abuse expert. If it could be established that JBR was being abused, that would be a crucial piece of EVIDENCE in this case.

Quote:
Although initially neither John or Patsy would take lie detector tests, when they did so they passed in the sense that it was confirmed they did not kill their daughter and did not know who did, so it is inaccurate to say that 'they had trouble passing polygraphs'.

"Good heavens, you're not going to try and sell that bill of goods, are you? A bought-and-paid-for lie detector test, which took them three tries to pass, after failing another one?"

'Took them three tries to pass after failing another one?' So they failed it four times then passed it once? What's your source for this? In the US, is it fairly common to resort to lie detectors outside of court?

Quote:
The ransom note is a veritable cornucopia of distraction. It can be analysed in terms of visual connection to handwriting but also linguistically. If someone was going to write a ransom note, would they write it to make it sound like them?

"That's simple enough: most people have no idea about linguistic analysis. I can tell you that before this case, I'd never even HEARD of it. I imagine they hadn't either."

You don't have to have heard of linguistic analysis to try to write a note that doesn't sound like you. Fair enough, she was stressed, but it is almost like someone has sat down and tried to write a ransom note like Patsy would write it. (Maybe a small foreign faction has got the last laugh, and these gentlemen were setting her up....)
Did she really think that note sounded not like her? That is so pathetically sad, and so breathtakingly arrogant.

Quote:
Or would they write it to sound like someone that wasn't them?

"You mean like referencing Islamic terror and extreme-leftwing terror?"

I just would have expected her to try a little bit harder... You can't just declare you are an individual of a group of foreigners and then go on to quote bad kidnap films, all the while writing in your normal tone (and correcting your manuscript - too many 'deliveries' in one paragraph - clumsy journalism!) :doh:

Quote:
How is 'attache' an American phrase? And John was not from the South, so didn't have 'good Southern common sense'.

"That was a little joke in the family."

This is what I mean though; I can accept that subconsciously, over three pages you might give away lots of your personality inadvertantly, but to include one of your familial private jokes? I mean, why would you do that? Is the idea that it's supposed to sound like the faction don't know John isn't Southern? Seems a dangerous game to put this line in the note, when it is so close to home. Again, it almost sounds like someone's framing Patsy.

Quote:
How can it be argued that the note was written by Patsy in an attempt to throw people off the trail, but then see so definitively that it was written by her?

"Because, like I said, people really don't realize that they write the way they speak. It's subconscious."

For the record, IMO, the note is crazy and the most solid piece of evidence. Without it, there would probably be a lot less belief in RDI. With it, it is virtually a confession by Patsy. Apart from linguistics, handwriting (including that q/8) etc, it is the fact that there was no kidnapping and never would be. Even if there was going to be, the small foreign faction wouldn't ever have written that laughable crap. IMO it's all about the psychology of trying to prove that this was an outside job, and to throw doubt 'the parents must have done it'.

Quote:
If it's viable and believable to presume that the Ramsey's killed JBR and staged her murder, then it's certainly as viable to presume that an intruder killed her and staged the scene to frame the parents.

"Intruders don't stage crime scenes, per the FBI."

I suppose if you believe that this was a staged scene, then you have to believe RDI.

Quote:
I think she tried really hard to make it sound as if it wasn't her..by use of the foreign faction phrase,beheading, etc.Iow,no parent would say that. The thing is,everyone has their own personal dictionary in their head,and the liguistics of it all...style,words,manner of writing...don't change,no matter how hard the person tries,as their own unique style is still there...no matter what.It's like trying to write a note in spanish when you don't know spanish,if you're trying to make it appear to be someone else.Therefore it would be very difficult ,if not impossible, for anyone to try and make it *appear to be PR,even if they knew her,and have the note be beleivable.It surely *isn't beleivable,and it has her style and manner of writing all over it.I think she just should have signed the note ..." love,patsy"
"You said it better than I did."
A little point that I have often wondered, is about the S.B.T.C. On the one hand, if Patsy wrote this note and is so keen to attribute it to some ruthless foreign faction, I am surprised she didn't sign it something like Al-Quaeda or a recognisable terrorist group... But no one has ever been able to attribute the acronym to anything. So that would suggest it was 'made up'. If she was so subconsciously transparent with the note, then I am quite surprised that the initials didn't end up meaning something almost without her realising. If she was trying to just put down random four letters to make it sound like a terrorist group it must have been quite hard to pick them and not relate them back to her somehow. Just a thought, that I havent' heard mentioned or discussed before.

Quote:
If your father has been having incest with you for quite awhile, maybe you do begin to accept it and not struggle.
I understand this point now; it is in the context of presumed chronic previous sexual abuse.

"I know of at least two cases where the kids said they got to like it. "


"Another thing: a lot of assumptions about how intelligent people wouldn't do certain things. But they don't appreciate that there's a difference between being smart and knowing what you're doing. It's the difference between knowledge and wisdom..."

Like this final point, SuperDave. Appreciate all your responses to my responses (likewise LinasK). And thanks to Nuisance Poster who started these nuggets of debate in the first place on this thread!

 

[BBB167893]

Interesting point about the French connection to JonBenet's name. Still don't see why Patsy would write a note trying to blame outsiders, then make 'inside jokes' to John - that the public know about because ppl close to the Ramsey's knew they made this joke together!

She just couldn't stop herself. How good a job do you expect a first-timer to do?

I'm certainly not suggesting that a broken hymen is caused by bubble baths. What I'm saying is that there is no way of knowing if the hymen had been broken by consistent previous abuse, or if it was broken at the time of the murder.

Oh, there isn't?

I quote:

According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.

So the only proven 'evidence' that suggests previous sexual abuse is thrush - yes, a yeast infection, which can commonly caused by heavily scented baths or wearing tights etc- It is reported that JBR had many scented baths, slept in long johns and wore tights - all of which could easily cause vaginal infection. Also, it can certainly be caused by sex or penetration of the vagina - so yet again, none of this proves anything...

I read on:

There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim.

It is true however that soiling and wetting can indicate distress, including sexual abuse. But I would imagine that JBR's behaviour generally would be more indicative of sexual abuse - eg withdrawn, agressive, sexually provocative etc (oh, horrible thought. Have just thought about her at the pageants. That certainly could be described as sexually provocative - the winking, flirting behaviour etc. )

Could be and ARE! It's not a big leap of imagination.

But I do mean in everyday life. Wouldn't her teachers or other adults noticed some sort of behaviour that might point to sexual abuse? Everyone has described her as very well adjusted and happy.

You mean like Judith saying she was a different kid after returning from Texas? The frequent trips to the school nurse?

As to the Dr B vaginal exams - surely if he suspected sexual abuse he would report it to the authorities? Can her testify re whether or not her hymen was intact etc?

No, because by his own admission, one, he never gave her an internal exam, and two, he hadn't examined her for months before the murder.

Don't understand you here - which places? Their own home? Fibers can be transferred anyway.

The tape they claimed they never owned, the cord they claimed they never saw before, the paint box and the white blanket. Patsy always said she never wore those clothes down there. Never. For the fibers to just transfer like you suggest would require magic. And those fibers were in the knots, not just lying on the cord. IN, not on.

This statement is a contradiction. Either she bought these items specifically, or they were retrieved from household objects to use in the murder/staging.

I don't see how it's contradictory. I use stuff like that all the time around here.

How is evidence strong that the tape and cord were bought by Patsy weeks prior to the murder? I don't think so. There is evidence that she bought many items from a local hardware store previously, but that's about it.

Yes, there is a receipt showing those price matches.

If the Ramsey's have happily left the notepad, pen, paintbrush etc, lying around for LE to find, then why would they suddenly have the presence of mind to hide cord and tape in household items?

two different things. The pad pen and paintbrush were part and parcel to the scenario. The tape and cord would have been pushing it.

Actually, you know what - either John or Patsy could have had them in their pockets for all we'd know.

Like many before you have said.

Duct tape over a child's mouth would stop them screaming if they were starting to come back to consciousness, I think.

But there's no point on putting it on someone who is obviously dead.

LOL Crime rarely does make sense, but if we're talking about which theory seems more probable or believable, objective credulity becomes important.

You're absolutely right. When you have a child killed in her house with household items and a staged crime scene, which would you gravitate towards?

Ironically the contradictions of this murder could support either intruder or Ramsey guilt... The Ramsey's could have staged the scene cynically and then wrapped the child lovingly, or an intruder could have killed then also wrapped the child lovingly.

Guilt I can see. The crime scene was inconsistent. That doesn't happen in real crimes, per the FBI. Plus, what reason would an intruder have to wrap the child lovingly?

Either way I guess you're talking about unbalanced minds.

No argument.

It's interesting to ponder staging intentions.... I suppose the RDI theory is that the wine cellar was staged in the hope/expectation that someone else would find the body (presumably LE), but as time wore on maybe John realised he could do even better than the early hours staging - why not 'discover' the body and make the crime scene so questionable and contaminated that any potential flaws would be lost forever... No one will ever know how that body was left, because of Linda Arndt's suggestion that they search the house, and John bringing the body upstairs.

I think that's correct.

There are lots of inconsistencies with the staging though... Little things like a practise RN.. Why would you leave that in the pad?

I think that was found in a pen impression, not the actual note being left there.

Why not open a window or leave a door ajar to suggest an intruder?

Who says they didn't?

This is interesting, as I think that this would be an important analysis in terms of this case. The only real information I have seen is autopsy reports and (contradictory) interpretation. However, a coroner is not a sexual abuse expert. If it could be established that JBR was being abused, that would be a crucial piece of EVIDENCE in this case.

Well, about eight experts have said she was. What more do you need?

'Took them three tries to pass after failing another one?' So they failed it four times then passed it once?

YEAH!

What's your source for this?

Right here:

http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/polygraph/index.html

In the US, is it fairly common to resort to lie detectors outside of court?

Yes, it is, but only if they are conducted by a recognized authority, such as the FBI. The offer was made many times. The Ramseys said no. Also, here in America, lie detectors are not admissable in court.

You don't have to have heard of linguistic analysis to try to write a note that doesn't sound like you. Fair enough, she was stressed, but it is almost like someone has sat down and tried to write a ransom note like Patsy would write it. (Maybe a small foreign faction has got the last laugh, and these gentlemen were setting her up....)

Well, it's a more subtle procedure than you make it out to be. Besides, how well would you do if you had no real idea what an RN sounds like?

Did she really think that note sounded not like her? That is so pathetically sad, and so breathtakingly arrogant.

I think she did, and you're right. But that describes a lot of the actions she took.

I just would have expected her to try a little bit harder... You can't just declare you are an individual of a group of foreigners and then go on to quote bad kidnap films, all the while writing in your normal tone (and correcting your manuscript - too many 'deliveries' in one paragraph - clumsy journalism!)

That's easy to say. Who knows what was in her head at the time?

This is what I mean though; I can accept that subconsciously, over three pages you might give away lots of your personality inadvertantly, but to include one of your familial private jokes? I mean, why would you do that? Is the idea that it's supposed to sound like the faction don't know John isn't Southern? Seems a dangerous game to put this line in the note, when it is so close to home. Again, it almost sounds like someone's framing Patsy.

My answer to that is that it's likely she was trying to frame someone else.

For the record, IMO, the note is crazy and the most solid piece of evidence. Without it, there would probably be a lot less belief in RDI. With it, it is virtually a confession by Patsy. Apart from linguistics, handwriting (including that q/8) etc, it is the fact that there was no kidnapping and never would be. Even if there was going to be, the small foreign faction wouldn't ever have written that laughable crap. IMO it's all about the psychology of trying to prove that this was an outside job, and to throw doubt 'the parents must have done it'.

You just nailed it, imo.

I suppose if you believe that this was a staged scene, then you have to believe RDI.

Like the Feds told the cops: intruders don't stage scenes.

A little point that I have often wondered, is about the S.B.T.C. On the one hand, if Patsy wrote this note and is so keen to attribute it to some ruthless foreign faction, I am surprised she didn't sign it something like Al-Quaeda or a recognisable terrorist group...

Perhaps she wanted to, but couldn't remember how it was spelled.

But no one has ever been able to attribute the acronym to anything. So that would suggest it was 'made up'. If she was so subconsciously transparent with the note, then I am quite surprised that the initials didn't end up meaning something almost without her realising. If she was trying to just put down random four letters to make it sound like a terrorist group it must have been quite hard to pick them and not relate them back to her somehow. Just a thought, that I havent' heard mentioned or discussed before.

Maybe not: an open Bible in the house contained that acrostic backwards.

 

[Eagle1]

Yup, those are some of the main reasons this isn't solved.

On Pg 2 we were saying "Money Talks" as the main reason the case isn't solved. Corruption. But hasn't it also been said that FW had even more money, and he couldn't get anywhere with LE with all his long letters and other efforts? (I know, some will say "The Fix was already in." )

There really was no smoking gun and it seems to me LE were somehow afraid to look for one, for some reason we haven't yet thought of.

How convenient that it was Christmas and they could say they were shorthanded, which didn't explain why they made excuses not to open that door to the windowless room. It's almost like they knew this was coming down, even before it happened. I can't really think why or how.

Editing to speculate that maybe someone who had more money than either the Whites or the Ramseys orchestrated it all? Something unprecedented?

 

[Camper]

I have been taking some well needed R and R from this case, and nearly all other horrid criminal cases. After ten years of intense travel down one theoretical path after another into seeming oblivion and non solving of JonBenet's murder/death, here is a thought from one of those turns in the road to nowherefor this little girl.

IF IF LE really did cover for an underage/non prosecutable actual 'accidental' 'experimental' snuffer of JonBenet's life, we have other fingers pointing to the same diversional tactic.

WE have the parents suing everyone in sight who EVEN spoke up about such a 'thing'.

Throw in the breakup of the tight friendship of the White's with the Ramseys.

WE have the possibility of the R's covering up 'in their own' home (covering for an accidental/experimental snuffer of life), hoping to transfer 'everyones' thought processes to believe in UN IDENTIFIED outside person having done this.

JR sold his plane at a discount to his pilot, at a great discount, so we were told, to raise money for legal expenses. YET their money seemed to be unending LONG after the the dust was still floating to the ground about the who, the what, the where etc. of this murder. Karr fluffed up the dirt a bit and made more dust.

JR, in his mystery expertise from reading murder mystery books, said in the very beginning to LE, 'IT looks like an inside job'. BUT BUT then he and PR began the throw the good people UNDER the bus, Mr. M from Access Graphics was one of the first. Mr. M. had thrown AG under the bus by whistle blowing improper 'activities' by AG.

The wrong turns taken down ALL of the roads in this case all lead to an 'as yet' unsolved murder of a little girl, who did not deserve her life being ended at the age of 6.

The moral of this story in my view is that children deserve BETTER care and attention by the people who brought them into existance.

Climbing the social ladder, building a monolith of a huge business somehow the family life gets thrown under its own bus.

.