Why the Ramsays?

[Eagle1]

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'.

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........
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.

.

Amen to those last two paragraphs, and to the general point, that both sides seemed to be involved in coverups. This is always my main point as well.

Will we ever find out WHY?

It really seems to me, frankly, that a lot of people somehow knew what was coming down in advance, and made excuses, some of which seemed to be, shorthanded BPD during Christmas, excuses not to open that door, etc.

If so, who or what could be so powerful, and/or probably more wealthy than either the Whites or the Ramseys?

(And this is beside that point, but I'm afraid I would have been suspecting all my so-called friends too! Who'd been conspiring to go to PR after Christmas and object to the going overboard with pageants. Wouldn't we sense something like that even if they didn't, except for Priscilla, come right out with it? People really do presume to try to force you to conform to their norms, be just like them. Underachievers or whatever the friends we chose may be. I don't know if PR should have chosen more pageant mothers as friends, with whom she'd seem and feel normal, probably. Or would they have been just as competitive? Anyway, I hope this parenthetical question doesn't distract us from the main one, above. Why were both sides, LE and the suspects, apparently covering up?)

 

[BBB167893]

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

Like I've said before: a hit dog barks.

 

[Eagle1]

Just wanted to address these red responses by LinasK. I have responded in blue.............The 'prior evidence of vaginal trauma/abuse' is subjective and it is documented that JBR suffered thrush and similar infections.....


Isn't thrush a mouth infection only?

Maybe I'm wrong about that, not sure, but if not, does it suggest oral sex in addition to all the other abuse? :truce:

 

[BBB167893]

Isn't thrush a mouth infection only?

Maybe I'm wrong about that, not sure, but if not, does it suggest oral sex in addition to all the other abuse?

Highly likely, Eagle1. Good catch.

 

[Eagle1]

Yep, probably it's highly likely there was forced oral sex. If JB was always sedated except at the party on the 23rd, she might not even remember, or be able to describe to anyone what happened. Seems to me that school nurse should have been thoroughly questionned. Seems she was playing it safe like the Barnhills and Melody Stanton recanting their information.

 

[JMO8778]

Yep, probably it's highly likely there was forced oral sex. If JB was always sedated except at the party on the 23rd, she might not even remember, or be able to describe to anyone what happened. Seems to me that school nurse should have been thoroughly questionned. Seems she was playing it safe like the Barnhills and Melody Stanton recanting their information.

These ppl were hushed up for some reason(?)
Was the school nurse(s) ever called to testify about JB's visits?

 

[Toltec]

I believe it was Patsy and Patsy alone who accidently killed JonBenet and staged a fake kidnapping.

John explalins to the police how he found JonBenet wrapped in her blanket "papoose style". If he were guilty of the staging, he would have said he found JonBenet with a blanket over her.

John also explains away the pineapple...he says JonBenet would never had eaten pinepple with a stranger because as soon as she opened her mouth, she would have screamed bloody murder. "I just don't buy that...that a stranger could have fed JonBenet pineapple."

Johns was thinking out loud when he told Detective Linda Arndt that it was "an inside job". He knew someone in the home commited this murder.

"Why?...Why?...Why?...was all John could say.

 

[JMO8778]

John also explains away the pineapple...he says JonBenet would never had eaten pinepple with a stranger because as soon as she opened her mouth, she would have screamed bloody murder. "I just don't buy that...that a stranger could have fed JonBenet pineapple."

I kinda wonder if he wasn't already thinking of framing someone he knew,like the Santa across the st. from them.

Johns was thinking out loud when he told Detective Linda Arndt that it was "an inside job". He knew someone in the home commited this murder.

same as above,IMO.I even wonder if he felt Arndt could see right thru him,so he said that just in case he needed to tell on PR to save his own arse. They did have separate lawyers.
BTW,I don't think I ever heard that anyone on PR's side of the family ever hired lawyers,while everyone on JR's side did????
[/QUOTE]

 

[JMO8778]

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

.

I think JR himself said it best,when he said in DOI that he'd made a mistake when he put business(money) before family.

 

[rashomon]

I believe it was Patsy and Patsy alone who accidently killed JonBenet and staged a fake kidnapping.

John explalins to the police how he found JonBenet wrapped in her blanket "papoose style". If he were guilty of the staging, he would have said he found JonBenet with a blanket over her.

John also explains away the pineapple...he says JonBenet would never had eaten pinepple with a stranger because as soon as she opened her mouth, she would have screamed bloody murder. "I just don't buy that...that a stranger could have fed JonBenet pineapple."

Johns was thinking out loud when he told Detective Linda Arndt that it was "an inside job". He knew someone in the home commited this murder.

"Why?...Why?...Why?...was all John could say.

But since it is obvious that John covered up for Patsy (at least passively - for why then would he have stayed married to a woman whom he suspected of having murdered his own child?), why would he direct the police's attention to this being an inside job done by a family member?
I believe John's 'inside job' comment was intended to throw suspicion on the housekeeper. LHP was among the first people the Ramseys threw under the bus. Even before JB was found, Patsy named her as the prime suspect.
Or it was meant to point to an access graphic employee who knew about the sum of John's bonus.

In addition, forensic evidence links John Ramsey to the crime scene: incriminating fibers from his shirt were found in the crotch area of JB's size 12 underpants.
This points to his involvement too (at least in the staging of the scene, if not in much more).

 

[Eagle1]

I don't remember which thread, but someone suggested that JonBenet must have been usually sedated so she wouldn't remember, at least not clearly, what all was being done to her. Maybe it was the Klonopin thread.

Someone suggested that a drug was put into the pineapple, reason she was given pineapple. Sure sounds possible, doesn't it?

 

[icedtea4me]

I don't remember which thread, but someone suggested that JonBenet must have been usually sedated so she wouldn't remember, at least not clearly, what all was being done to her. Maybe it was the Klonopin thread.

Someone suggested that a drug was put into the pineapple, reason she was given pineapple. Sure sounds possible, doesn't it?

No.

-Tea

 

[coloradokares]

I suspect that the Ramsays DIDN'T do it.
Even if it was an inside job, why oh why did the police have to blame the Ramsays.:doh: It could have been any of the people they had working for them.
Or a guest at the party?
It may not have been a classic intruder but that doesnt mean it was the Ramseys.
???
Thats what I think anyway.:dance:

That is because all evidence points to the Ramseys. No irrefutable evidence has ever surfaced to put an intruder in that house that night. Close as they have come is one boot print ( later turned out to be Burkes Hi Teks) One palm print on door ( Melinda Ramseys ) and the male DNA that remained on panties mixed in minute amount with JB's blood. Degraded DNA that is highly speculated was on the panties prior to the murder as it was highly degraded. Which DA Lacy clarified may well be artifact DNA. Nothing to do with the murderer. Find proof beyond any doubt that anyone else was in that home that night and they will jump I guarantee to research it. Look at the lengths they went based on a false confession of John Mark Karr. If you can't put the intruder there at the scene in a way that proves beyond all doubt there was one. The murderer had to be someone there. John Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey, Burke Ramsey that is the list.

 

[Eagle1]

That is because all evidence points to the Ramseys. No irrefutable evidence has ever surfaced to put an intruder in that house that night. Close as they have come is one boot print ( later turned out to be Burkes Hi Teks) One palm print on door ( Melinda Ramseys ) and the male DNA that remained on panties mixed in minute amount with JB's blood. Degraded DNA that is highly speculated was on the panties prior to the murder as it was highly degraded. Which DA Lacy clarified may well be artifact DNA. Nothing to do with the murderer. Find proof beyond any doubt that anyone else was in that home that night and they will jump I guarantee to research it. Look at the lengths they went based on a false confession of John Mark Karr. If you can't put the intruder there at the scene in a way that proves beyond all doubt there was one. The murderer had to be someone there. John Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey, Burke Ramsey that is the list.

You have not proved beyond all shadow of doubt that no intruder or "friend" was in the Ramsey house that night!

Why should the other sidebe able to at this point or have to prove beyond all shadow of doubt that at least one other person WAS in the house?

None of us can prove either way! That is the whole problem! Seems to me you're saying if one side can't prove their case it means the other side is right. Not at all. You can't prove your case at this point either. We are all stuck, and all of LE got stuck. There's just no proving anything either way.

Editing to add that they are not saying the boot print was Burke's. That was a rumor. And Burke's not one-legged. How would he put one print in the mold? We don't know how far it was from the edge. Someone could have put a boot on a pole, enjoying puzzling everyone about how it was done.

All that was showing was a logo, not even the size of the boot.

 

[Camper]

I don't remember which thread, but someone suggested that JonBenet must have been usually sedated so she wouldn't remember, at least not clearly, what all was being done to her. Maybe it was the Klonopin thread.

Someone suggested that a drug was put into the pineapple, reason she was given pineapple. Sure sounds possible, doesn't it?

--->>>IF it was a regular procedure to give monkeyed with pineapple to JonBenet just prior to fiddling. Then WE have the medication and the medical syringe to deliver it to the pineapple, in the missing column of thingies that should have been found somewhere in the house.

There was apparently nothing found in the remaining bowl of pineapple that would support your thoughts here, BUT BUT this comment of mine ASSUMES that BPD tested the pineapple found in the BOWL, for any drug. Hmmm.

Rest in peace, little JonBenet.

.

 

[coloradokares]

You have not proved beyond all shadow of doubt that no intruder or "friend" was in the Ramsey house that night!

Why should the other sidebe able to at this point or have to prove beyond all shadow of doubt that at least one other person WAS in the house?

None of us can prove either way! That is the whole problem! Seems to me you're saying if one side can't prove their case it means the other side is right. Not at all. You can't prove your case at this point either. We are all stuck, and all of LE got stuck. There's just no proving anything either way.

Editing to add that they are not saying the boot print was Burke's. That was a rumor. And Burke's not one-legged. How would he put one print in the mold? We don't know how far it was from the edge. Someone could have put a boot on a pole, enjoying puzzling everyone about how it was done.




All that was showing was a logo, not even the size of the boot.

The testimony regarding Burkes boot was not my editing. It was a fact. They tried to stop that line of questioning however point made. He in fact owned a pair of them. Patsy purchased them herself for Burke. Glad to see you accepted Melindas partial palm print. No we cannot prove that another pair of hi teks never were in that basement on a pole even yet. But at some point when there is no prints or evidence that works to put an intruder there.... you have to consider the only one who could have done this to JonBenet was someone who was at least present to get it done. Nothing sinister about Burke having that print there. He lived there for Petes Sake. Only thing is it eleminates that possibility of an intruder yet again. So far in 10 years nothing has placed an intruder there on that night. Believe me I want to believe an intruder did this. It fits better in my view of the world than trying to think that not only did the parent(s) do this they lied about it all these years. Patsy went to her grave without a confession of knowledge or guilt if she in fact participated in any way.

 

[rashomon]

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. )

These hygiene issues are not normal for a six-year-old child - they're highly abnormal: not even being able (or wanting) to wipe herself after a bowel movement, but instead asking even non-family members to do this, or wetting herself constantly during the day.
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.[/color]
A friend of the Ramseys in fact commented on JB's sexualized behavior. If I remember correctly, it was Judith Philips.

 

[rashomon]

Quote:
"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.

It depends on where you find these fibers. And the fibers found in the Ramsey case were found in very incriminatng locations at the crime scene: fibers from the jacket Patsy had been wearing to the Whites' Christmas party were found in the wrappings of the garrote handle, in the paint tray, on the sticky side of the duct tape and on the blanket which was covering JB.
And fibers from John's shirt were found in the crotch area of JB's size 12 underwear.

"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.

You have to look at the whole picture. The wrist ligatures around JB's hands were only loosely tied, with a space of cord between the hands measuring more than 15 inches. Therefore JB could easily have freed her hands when waking up from unconsciousness and pulled that small piece of tape off her mouth.

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.

Just about everything points to the Ramseys' involvement. Patsy Ramsey quite obviously wrote the note:
http://www.acandyrose.com/02182003dh911motion.pdf

So according to an IDI theory, the intruder took the trouble to learn and copy her handwriting to absolute perfection, only to ask for a measly sum of $118, 000?
And why should an intruder leave a faked ransom note behind anyway?
This reminds me of what SuperDave wrote to E. Moriarty:

<<I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.>>

Remember this comes from a poster who was once a Ramsey supporter. SD has been on the other side of the fence, but his in-depth study of the case has led him to the conclusion that the Ramseys must be involved.

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...

It would not have meade sense for Patsy to attribute the note to some known terrorist group, for they would have denied their involvement and the note would have been unmasked as faked even sooner.
Better concoct something like S.B.T.C. instead and let people rack their brains what it might mean ...
I don't think SBTC means anything, and that is why Patsy put it there as just another red herring.

 

[coloradokares]

These hygiene issues are not normal for a six-year-old child - they're highly abnormal: not even being able (or wanting) to wipe herself after a bowel movement, but instead asking even non-family members to do this, or wetting herself constantly during the day.
[/i] 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.[/color]
A friend of the Ramseys in fact commented on JB's sexualized behavior. If I remember correctly, it was Judith Philips.

I wasn't going to comment on this but have thought better of it. For as normal as "everyone" who ever "they" are said JonBenet's behavior was. Why then is there so much commentary about not only her potty issues...but also that she would be vocal with Patsy and indeed was seen kicking her at a pageant. JonBenet was a precious little girl but there is so much commentary regarding her sexualized behavior that you just have to wonder why people were not asking the questions prior to her death. Hindsight I guess is always 20/20 I guess.

 

[BBB167893]

JonBenet was a precious little girl but there is so much commentary regarding her sexualized behavior that you just have to wonder why people were not asking the questions prior to her death. Hindsight I guess is always 20/20 I guess.

Because no one wants to face it.

This reminds me of what SuperDave wrote to E. Moriarty:
<<I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.>>

You like that one, huh?

Remember this comes from a poster who was once a Ramsey supporter. SD has been on the other side of the fence, but his in-depth study of the case has led him to the conclusion that the Ramseys must be involved.

And don't anyone forget it.

While we're at it, here's a question for the DA:

if your criticism against the police is that they haven't been objective, why hire a man who has PROVEN he is not objective, and is, in fact, proud of it?