Jon Benet Ramsey
tinydancer
condemning the Ramsey's. What a jerk he is.
The DNA found, in JonBenet's blood in her panties, is not contaminated, it
is male DNA, and it has many of the same markers as the DNA found under
JonBenet's fingernails.
No one in the know is saying 'it's the Ramsey's' anymore. Anyone interested
should watch the program tomorrow night on the Ramsey case, I believe it's a
48 Hours program.
Nine months after JonBenet's death, there was another incident, IN BOULDER,
identical to the Ramsey case. Man hid out in the house for hours, waiting
for mother and child to return home. Waited hours more, entered girls
bedroom, molested girl in exactly the same way JonBenet was sexually
molested, was interrupted by mother who heard a noise and got up to
investigate. This girl had even taken dance classes *with* JonBenet.
Where are all 'the Ramsey's did it' cult now?
td
tinydancer
voice and manner. Listening to him on Abrams right now. He was ALWAYS
condemning the Ramsey's. And now he's trying to lie his way out of it.
td
"tinydancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4LJwd.191953$jE2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
cro...@earthlink.net
"ransom" note in the mother's handwriting w/ exact mention of $ figure of
father's Christmas bonus...and stuff like that...
"tinydancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4LJwd.191953$jE2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
tinydancer
<cro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_TJwd.2696$Z47...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> outside noticing there are NO footprints in the snow...and reading a
> "ransom" note in the mother's handwriting w/ exact mention of $ figure of
> father's Christmas bonus...and stuff like that...
There was no snow around the outside of the house. The walks had been
shoveled. I hate to tell you this, but when that jerk Craig Silverman is
even back-tracking and trying to weasel out of it, you've got to admit
something is wrong here. He was one of the biggest Ramsey' blasters.
Listen carefully, 'another girl was assaulted in exactly the same manner as
JonBenet, in Boulder, 9 months later'. And most importantly, the killers
DNA was found in JonBenet's blood.
td
Robert St. James (la ira de Dios)
>
> <cro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:_TJwd.2696$Z47...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > outside noticing there are NO footprints in the snow...and reading a
> > "ransom" note in the mother's handwriting w/ exact mention of $ figure of
> > father's Christmas bonus...and stuff like that...
>
>
> There was no snow around the outside of the house. The walks had been
> shoveled. I hate to tell you this, but when that jerk Craig Silverman is
> even back-tracking and trying to weasel out of it, you've got to admit
> something is wrong here. He was one of the biggest Ramsey' blasters.
>
> Listen carefully, 'another girl was assaulted in exactly the same manner as
> JonBenet, in Boulder, 9 months later'. And most importantly, the killers
> DNA was found in JonBenet's blood.
>
> td
It's a hopeless cause, td. Ramsey bashers seem immune to reason.
People who are normally rational about any other case completely
check out of reality on this one. Lacking any kind of physical evidence
at all pointing to the Ramseys, they routinely blather on about that
ransom note.
The case will eventually be solved. That DNA will match someone.
I'm just glad we had Alex Hunter back then, a guy with the balls to
stand up to this "investigation" and actually search for the truth,
hampered as he was by a smug, incompetent, police force.
RstJ
tinydancer
"Robert St. James (la ira de Dios)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:hdKwd.588516$D%.465019@attbi_s51...
And thank god lou smits didn't give up his evidence either. Hopefully, one
day, this case will be solved, and many MANY people will owe the Ramsey's an
apology.
Attention Bo:
td
>
>
Hunter
That is a myth. The fact is that there was no snow at all in front of
the house.
...and reading a "ransom" note in the mother's handwriting
---
No it wasn't. The hand writing experts could not rule her out as the
possible author, not that it matched. If it had matched she would be in
jail awaiting trial.
>
> ... w/ exact mention of $ figure of father's Christmas bonus...and
stuff like that...
---
I believe it was a figure close to that number but not exact. At
anyrate, the father's Christmas bonus was semi-public knowledge.
Read for yourself here:
http://truthinjustice.org/ramsey.htm
---->Hunter
Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com
No, the killer's DNA was not found in JonBenet's blood. Somebody's DNA
- a small speck of it - was found in her underwear. When it got
deposited there, and by whom, is unknown.
Whoever killed her wrapped her in her favorite pink Barbie nightgown.
Doesn't this sound like someone who knew that child?
Whoever killed her fed her pineapple that night. Does this sound like
a stranger?
And in the other case - I'd like a cite for it. Does it bear the
following similarites to the Ramsey case:
1. Ransom note, rather long and claiming to be by a "small foreign
faction"
2. No semen
3. Sexual assault with an inanimate object
4. Garotte
Without seeing the other case, I'll hazard a guess that it has *some*
similarites to the Ramsey intruder theoryh - i.e. that he entered the
house and laid in wait. I'll also guess that it lacks some
similarities, such as the items listed above.
Which would mean it was not *exactly* in the same manner. Give me a
cite for the other case, and I'll be glad to carefully listen for the
parallels. I'd bet your "exactly the same manner" is about as accurate
as your statement that the foreign DNA on her underwear is definately
that of the killer.
Bo Raxo
cro...@earthlink.net
it was the exact, rather unusual, figure of the Christmas bonus and how it
would be "semi-public knowledge" is unfathomable...
in the handwriting analysis business, "cannot be ruled out" is how they say
"matches." For some reason, they do not use the "exact match" language...
however, I have no interest in going on re-hashing all this...them what
believes what they believe believe it, them what don't, don't
"Hunter" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1103329012.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jill
<Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com> wrote
> Whoever killed her wrapped her in her favorite pink Barbie nightgown.
> Doesn't this sound like someone who knew that child?
Wasn't that what she was wearing that night anyway though? Just asking.
>
> Whoever killed her fed her pineapple that night. Does this sound like
> a stranger?
But didn't the Ramseys say that she ate pineapple as a snack right before
going to bed? Just asking.
I am, just asking, because I don't remember from the old news articles. What
makes me consider that the Ramseys may be innocent is the semen in her
underwear not matching- wasn't it tested and didn't match anyone close such
as john Ramsey, etc? I pretty much thought that someone on the case was
almost sure they knew who did it.....it was some handyman or something that
had dressed up as Santa or something and maybe been inside the Ramsey
house before? Or am I mixing this up with something else...
tinydancer
<Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
news:1103331365.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> No, the killer's DNA was not found in JonBenet's blood. Somebody's DNA
> - a small speck of it - was found in her underwear. When it got
> deposited there, and by whom, is unknown.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the evidence bo. It was stated
tonight that the DNA was not deteriorated and was found in JonBenet's blood.
Even Silverman caved on that one.
>
> Whoever killed her wrapped her in her favorite pink Barbie nightgown.
> Doesn't this sound like someone who knew that child?
Getting your facts from the National Enquirer doesn't count bo.
>
> Whoever killed her fed her pineapple that night. Does this sound like
> a stranger?
See above. I thought you were better than this bo.
>
> And in the other case - I'd like a cite for it. Does it bear the
> following similarites to the Ramsey case:
>
> 1. Ransom note, rather long and claiming to be by a "small foreign
> faction"
>
> 2. No semen
>
> 3. Sexual assault with an inanimate object
>
> 4. Garotte
>
> Without seeing the other case, I'll hazard a guess that it has *some*
> similarites to the Ramsey intruder theoryh - i.e. that he entered the
> house and laid in wait. I'll also guess that it lacks some
> similarities, such as the items listed above.
The cops never shared that case with the Boulder DA's office. Suffice to
say, now that the case IS being shared, the experts are the ones who said
the MO was the same.
>
> Which would mean it was not *exactly* in the same manner. Give me a
> cite for the other case, and I'll be glad to carefully listen for the
> parallels. I'd bet your "exactly the same manner" is about as accurate
> as your statement that the foreign DNA on her underwear is definately
> that of the killer.
I am repeating what was said, verbatim, by all the experts on the show
tonight, and what lou smits has said all along. Even the biggest nay-sayers
are flocking to the Ramsey side, think that weasel Silverman, the biggest
local 'Ramsey's are killers' dope. If I were him, I'd be horrifed to even
show my face in public, the big jerk.
Face it bo, you were wrong and you're using the National Enquirer for your
supposed *facts*. They weren't facts bo, they were rumors spread in the
rags, just like the 'no footprints in the snow' crappola.
The DNA guy said the DNA was GOOD, it was not degraded, and when a suspect
is found, they will be able to match up the DNA that was found "in the
childs blood:" In fact it was stated 'in any other case, DNA found in the
victims blood would have been considered the most significant evidence there
was, but because the Boulder cops had screwed up, they tried to diss and
hide the facts/evidence."
td
>
>
> Bo Raxo
>
Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com
Her body was found with the pink barbie nightgown laid on top of her.
So whether she was wearing it that night or not, the killer laid it
over her body. Showing care for the dead body indicates the perp had
feelings of affection for the victim.
The Ramseys said she had not eaten pineapple. They said that she fell
asleep in the car on the way home, and that they carried her in and put
her to bed.
The DNA in her underwear was, I think, never identified as semen. Just
DNA - it could be spit or nasal mucus or anything else. Children -
especially small ones - get their hands in everything.
The guy that was dressed up as Santa, Bill McReynolds, was considered
suspicious by some because JonBenet had supposedly said she was
expecting a special visit from Santa, and because many years before his
wife had written a short story that bore some striking resemblances to
this case. He was recovering from heart surgery and it's doubtful he
could have climbed in and out of that basement window. Additionally,
active pedophiles his age are quite rare, and have always (AFAIK) shown
these tendencies earlier in life. Plus, his wife alibis him (though
that's a weak alibi).
I'm still convinced someone in the house did it, most likely Patsy.
That ransom note is the smoking gun in this case - three pages, very
odd working (attache case, telling John to get plenty of rest,
referring to a family joke about his "southern common sense", asking
for the exact amount of his bonus as a ransom, and other oddities).
But many others, some of whom have pored over this case in great
detail, are convinced the Ramseys are innocent, including veteran
homicide investigator Lou Smit.
Bo Raxo
Robert St. James (la ira de Dios)
<Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
news:1103336752.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Her body was found with the pink barbie nightgown laid on top of her.
No it wasn't. Where the did you get that from?
> So whether she was wearing it that night or not, the killer laid it
> over her body. Showing care for the dead body indicates the perp had
> feelings of affection for the victim.
Yeah. By strangling them and dumping them in a basement. Real affection.
>
> The Ramseys said she had not eaten pineapple. They said that she fell
> asleep in the car on the way home, and that they carried her in and put
> her to bed.
Bo, c'mon. That pineapple stuff is a joke, a Steve Thomas talking point. You
know better than this.
RstJ
tinydancer
<cro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:NFLwd.2778$Z47....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> no use in reading websites that put forth one side or the other...
>
> it was the exact, rather unusual, figure of the Christmas bonus and how it
> would be "semi-public knowledge" is unfathomable...
>
> in the handwriting analysis business, "cannot be ruled out" is how they
say
> "matches." For some reason, they do not use the "exact match" language...
Four out of five handwriting experts said patsy was ruled out. Only one
expert, hired by the boulder pd, said 'patsy couldn't be ruled out.' A
hired gun, one hired gun, said 'patsy couldn't be ruled out.' All the other
handwriting experts ruled her out.
td
Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com
Her body was found with the pink barbie nightgown laid on top of her.
over her body. Showing care for the dead body indicates the perp had
feelings of affection for the victim.
The Ramseys said she had not eaten pineapple. They said that she fell
asleep in the car on the way home, and that they carried her in and put
her to bed.
The DNA in her underwear was, I think, never identified as semen. Just
Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com
tinydancer
> So whether she was wearing it that night or not, the killer laid it
> over her body. Showing care for the dead body indicates the perp had
> feelings of affection for the victim.
>
> The Ramseys said she had not eaten pineapple. They said that she fell
> asleep in the car on the way home, and that they carried her in and put
> her to bed.
>
> The DNA in her underwear was, I think, never identified as semen. Just
> DNA - it could be spit or nasal mucus or anything else. Children -
> especially small ones - get their hands in everything.
>
> The guy that was dressed up as Santa, Bill McReynolds, was considered
> suspicious by some because JonBenet had supposedly said she was
> expecting a special visit from Santa, and because many years before his
> wife had written a short story that bore some striking resemblances to
> this case.
Mostly because their own daughter, the McReynolds daugher, had also been
kidnapped on Christmas when she was a child, and they *forgot* all about it
when the Ramsey incident happened. They were asked on live TV, on LKL,
"didn't they also have a daughter who was kidnapped on Christmas" and mrs.
claus said something like 'hmmmm, now that you mention it, yes we did.' I
mean, jaws dropped on that show, you could've heard a pin drop, the silence.
You could see on their faces, even that dope King, that they just couldn't
believe these people could have had a child kidnapped and FORGOTTEN all
about it until one of the news people brought it up.
He was recovering from heart surgery
He trampped all over Europe, carrying their luggage, shortly afterwards. It
was said that the cops discounted him *because* of his health, but they
didn't know about the extended European vacation.
and it's doubtful he
> could have climbed in and out of that basement window. Additionally,
> active pedophiles his age are quite rare, and have always (AFAIK) shown
> these tendencies earlier in life. Plus, his wife alibis him (though
> that's a weak alibi).
>
> I'm still convinced someone in the house did it, most likely Patsy.
> That ransom note is the smoking gun in this case - three pages, very
> odd working (attache case, telling John to get plenty of rest,
> referring to a family joke about his "southern common sense", asking
> for the exact amount of his bonus as a ransom, and other oddities).
And including lots of lines from movies, movies Patsy Ramsey was unlikely to
have seen. Movies probably seen by someone who enjoyed 'cop-type' violent
movies.
>
> But many others, some of whom have pored over this case in great
> detail, are convinced the Ramseys are innocent, including veteran
> homicide investigator Lou Smit.
I've been convinced the Ramsey's were innocent all along. These poor people
not only lost their child in a very violent manner, but they've been scorned
for years, accused of murder of their own child, rather than given any type
of sympathy. And mostly by people who get their news from the National
Enquirer.
td
>
>
> Bo Raxo
>
tinydancer
>
> <Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
> news:1103336752.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Her body was found with the pink barbie nightgown laid on top of her.
>
> No it wasn't. Where the did you get that from?
National Enquirer gossip.
>
> > So whether she was wearing it that night or not, the killer laid it
> > over her body. Showing care for the dead body indicates the perp had
> > feelings of affection for the victim.
>
> Yeah. By strangling them and dumping them in a basement. Real affection.
>
The experts have always stated this crime was not committed by a parent. It
was far too violent to be a cover-up of anything.
>
> >
> > The Ramseys said she had not eaten pineapple. They said that she fell
> > asleep in the car on the way home, and that they carried her in and put
> > her to bed.
>
>
> Bo, c'mon. That pineapple stuff is a joke, a Steve Thomas talking point.
You
> know better than this.
Apparently not. I'm shocked and dismayed at bo for spreading rumors instead
of checking out the real facts of this case.
td
>
>
> RstJ
>
>
CC Bailey
>
> I've been convinced the Ramsey's were innocent all along. These poor people
> not only lost their child in a very violent manner, but they've been scorned
> for years, accused of murder of their own child, rather than given any type
> of sympathy. And mostly by people who get their news from the National
> Enquirer.
>
> td
I have contempt for the Ramsey's because of the way they sexualized
their daughter from a young age. She looked like a prostitute in those
beauty pageants.
C
OzzieAnnie
"Cult"? I don't know about that part, but otherwise here I am.
OA
OzzieAnnie
I have never gotten ANY news from the Nat'l Enq. I don't appreciate
the implication either.
OA
Hunter
The sight I posted did not put forth a side per se, but it links to
sites that carry the story. In this case it was from the www.law.com
site. Here is another respected site, run by court TV incidently:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/index_1.html?sect=21
Here is another report from www.law.com:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1048518265561
At anyrate, thy wre reporting the finding of the Judge. The finding is
still valid no matter what the opinion of the site.
>
> it was the exact, rather unusual, figure of the Christmas bonus and
how it
> would be "semi-public knowledge" is unfathomable...
---
By that I mean it was not exactly a state secret. I am sure someone
could find out that info relativily easily. If people can steal your
ID, they can find out details of your life, particularly finacial ones.
>
> in the handwriting analysis business, "cannot be ruled out" is how
they say
> "matches." For some reason, they do not use the "exact match"
language...
-----
If they ment match, they would had said so, or at least Pat Ramsey's
handwriting is consistant with the writing on the ramsom note. And I
reiterate: If it did "match" Pat Ramsey would had been arrested a long
time ago.
>
> however, I have no interest in going on re-hashing all this...them
what
> believes what they believe believe it, them what don't, don't
---
Only by flying in the face of the facts.
---->Hunter
Hunter
Which is a big reason why the Ramseys were vilified. The public at
large did not understand the world of child beauty pageants (JoBenet's
mother Patsy was a beauty pagent contestant her self) Because of that,
they reacted out of emotion, not the facts-or more accurately the lack
thereof-of the case. Whatever your opinion of those pageants, it did
not mean they killed there daughter. Also, it is not like JonBenet was
competing alone, those pageants were and are very popular, so JonBenet
was not unusual, just out of context. I was unconfortable with it too,
but I did not let it affect my veiw of the evidence. And I think you
are being a bit too harsh saying that JonBonet was dressed like a
prostitute, dressed far beyond her years yes perhaps too far, but a
prostitute? No.
----->Hunter
Michael T
> DNA - it could be spit or nasal mucus or anything else. Children -
> especially small ones - get their hands in everything.
>
Bull's-eye!
We covered these tracks (pun intended) months ago - including speculation
that DNA contamination could even occur from some unlikely locations such as
the plant where the garment was manufactured.
I am not yet persuaded this is anything startlingly new until (or unless)
they find a DNA match.
Finally, don't overlook the fact Michael Tracey, that the producer of the 48
Hours special, is a professor in Boulder who has professed the Ramsey's
innocence practically from the beginning. Some have suggested his
objectivity may be clouded by being a local with either ties to the
Ramsey's, friends of the Ramsey's or others in the community whose
reputations may have been tarnished.
Hell he **could** be correct. But I don't see enough evidence to make any
irrefutable conclusions about the Ramsey's guilt or innocence at this point.
Michael T.
Mike Ward
news:Q%Jwd.192092$jE2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
>
> <cro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:_TJwd.2696$Z47...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> outside noticing there are NO footprints in the snow...and reading a
>> "ransom" note in the mother's handwriting w/ exact mention of $
>> figure of father's Christmas bonus...and stuff like that...
>
>
> There was no snow around the outside of the house. The walks had been
> shoveled. I hate to tell you this, but when that jerk Craig Silverman
> is even back-tracking and trying to weasel out of it, you've got to
> admit something is wrong here. He was one of the biggest Ramsey'
> blasters.
>
> Listen carefully, 'another girl was assaulted in exactly the same
> manner as JonBenet, in Boulder, 9 months later'.
Do you have a link or a reference or anything like that because I'm not
familiar with this and would like to see the details?
Mike
tinydancer
"Mike Ward" <m@d.w> wrote in message
news:4CVwd.5884$uM5....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I'd suggest you watch the program on the Ramsey case tonight on TV. I
believe the newsclip I saw concerning this second crime was taken from the
program to be televised tonight. Or else check out the website, I believe
it's a 48 Hours program. It's one of those regular news shows. I think
they said 48 Hours. I haven't looked at the morning paper here yet, check
out your TV listings for tonight.
td
Mike Ward
news:ZvYwd.6698$3X5...@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
I doubt I'll have a chance to watch it tonight.
Is there not another source for this? Surely if it's as relevant as you
suggest it is, 48 Hours isn't the only place it's documented.
Can you remember any of the details at all? If I had a little more
information I might be able to find something about it myself.
Mike
tinydancer
"Mike Ward" <m@d.w> wrote in message
> >
> > I'd suggest you watch the program on the Ramsey case tonight on TV. I
> > believe the newsclip I saw concerning this second crime was taken from
> > the program to be televised tonight. Or else check out the website, I
> > believe it's a 48 Hours program. It's one of those regular news
> > shows. I think they said 48 Hours. I haven't looked at the morning
> > paper here yet, check out your TV listings for tonight.
>
> I doubt I'll have a chance to watch it tonight.
>
> Is there not another source for this? Surely if it's as relevant as you
> suggest it is, 48 Hours isn't the only place it's documented.
>
> Can you remember any of the details at all? If I had a little more
> information I might be able to find something about it myself.
>
> Mike
Alright, I did the work for you!
JonBenet: DNA Rules Out Parents
Dec. 16, 2004
Eight years after the death of JonBenet Ramsey, her murder remains unsolved.
But according to a report to be broadcast Saturday by 48 Hours Mystery,
JonBenet's parents, Patsy and John, are no longer the focus of the murder
investigation.
Correspondent Erin Moriarty also reports that there is new evidence that
JonBenet's killer, who investigators now believe was an intruder, may have
tried to kill again. Her report will be broadcast on 48 Hours Mystery,
Saturday at 10 p.m. ET/PT.
The other victim, investigators say, was a little girl identified as "Amy,"
who took dance lessons at the same school as JonBenet, and was attacked and
sexually assaulted at night in her bedroom on Sept. 14, 1997.
An investigator at Denver's police crime lab for forensics says DNA found at
the Ramsey murder scene came from a male who was not associated with the
case, thus ruling out family members as well as a convicted sex offender in
Boulder who had been mentioned as a suspect.
Why are investigators linking the Amy incident with the Ramsey case?
"This guy called her by name, so they think he targeted her," Moriarty said
Friday on The Early Show. "Also, he hid out in the house. He didn't steal
anything. He was there to molest her and that's exactly what the Ramseys say
happened in their case."
"We've gained more information in the last year than probably the prior four
or five years. It's now a whole new era of the JonBenet Ramsey case. We now
have evidence that will tell you who the killer is," says private
investigator John San Augustin, who with Ollie Gray, has been working on the
Ramsey case since 1999.
"What we found was that there were specific DNA samples that pointed to
somebody other than the Ramseys."
Ramsey's parents, Jon and Patsy, have always proclaimed their innocence.
48 Hours reports that Greg LaBerge, of Denver's police crime lab for
forensics, says he was "able to develop a genetic profile that came from a
male that was not associated with the case."
Investigators San Augustin and Gray say there is strong evidence the killer
may have had an accomplice, largely based on two different boot prints found
in the Ramsey basement. They say the men may have also tried to kill again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Private investigator Pete Peterson tells 48 Hours that he also sees many
parallels between the Ramsey case and that of Amy, who was attacked and
sexually assaulted in the same area nine months later.
Peterson, who's been working for Amy's family, says she attended the same
dance school as Ramsey -- and that she was also attacked and sexually
assaulted at night in her bedroom. Amy's mother awakened to scare the
attacker away. 48 Hours has agreed not to reveal Amy's real name.
In silhouette for the broadcast, Amy's father says, "The first thing that
occurred to us was that it was parallel to the Ramsey case, because it was
exactly the same situation."
"When I told the police detectives about the information I had [following
the attack], they were completely uninterested in it," he told 48 Hours.
In fact, the Boulder police dismissed any links to the Ramsey case and
didn't bother to make a composite sketch of the intruder based on the
mother's eyewitness description.
Peterson, who kept surveillance in the victims' community for weeks, noticed
that groups of individuals, some with a history of burglary and theft,
seemed to be casing the area. Peterson says he found that some of them had
at one time worked at the Ramsey home.
The DNA collected from the crime scene, which appears to completely clear
the Ramseys, is now being used to check out dozens of suspects who were
ignored for years.
48 Hours has also learned that investigators are tracking down "people of
interest" in the Ramsey case and demanding a DNA sample from their mouths.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml
Mike Ward
news:lTYwd.6704$3X5....@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>
> "Mike Ward" <m@d.w> wrote in message
> news:1FYwd.1117143$Gx4.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> "tinydancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:ZvYwd.6698$3X5...@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>>
> snipped> >
>> >
>> > I'd suggest you watch the program on the Ramsey case tonight on TV.
>> > I believe the newsclip I saw concerning this second crime was
>> > taken from the program to be televised tonight. Or else check out
>> > the website, I believe it's a 48 Hours program. It's one of those
>> > regular news shows. I think they said 48 Hours. I haven't looked
>> > at the morning paper here yet, check out your TV listings for
>> > tonight.
>>
>> I doubt I'll have a chance to watch it tonight.
>>
>> Is there not another source for this? Surely if it's as relevant as
>> you suggest it is, 48 Hours isn't the only place it's documented.
>>
>> Can you remember any of the details at all? If I had a little more
>> information I might be able to find something about it myself.
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> Alright, I did the work for you!
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml
>
>
I don't see how you can say of this that "another girl was assaulted in
exactly the same manner as JonBenet."
Mike
Robert St. James (la ira de Dios)
"tinydancer" <...>
> JonBenet: DNA Rules Out Parents
> Dec. 16, 2004
>
>
> Eight years after the death of JonBenet Ramsey, her murder remains unsolved.
> But according to a report to be broadcast Saturday by 48 Hours Mystery,
> JonBenet's parents, Patsy and John, are no longer the focus of the murder
> investigation.
>
> Correspondent Erin Moriarty also reports that there is new evidence that
> JonBenet's killer, who investigators now believe was an intruder, may have
> tried to kill again. Her report will be broadcast on 48 Hours Mystery,
> Saturday at 10 p.m. ET/PT.
>
> The other victim, investigators say, was a little girl identified as "Amy,"
> who took dance lessons at the same school as JonBenet, and was attacked and
> sexually assaulted at night in her bedroom on Sept. 14, 1997.
For some reason, I always thought this case was pre-Ramsey. It has been
mentioned before, but in no real detail.
>
> An investigator at Denver's police crime lab for forensics says DNA found at
> the Ramsey murder scene came from a male who was not associated with the
> case, thus ruling out family members as well as a convicted sex offender in
> Boulder who had been mentioned as a suspect.
Denver's lab? Curious. One thing the BPD *never* did was bring in any
actual homicide detectives. They should have. A homicide guy wouldn't
have spent more than five minutes on the Ramseys as suspects. Did any
actual, experienced, investigator ever think the parents did it?
And is the convicted sex offereder Gary Oliva? It seems to have taken
forever to run his DNA.
<...>
> "When I told the police detectives about the information I had [following
> the attack], they were completely uninterested in it," he told 48 Hours.
Yeah, sounds like BPD. Same thing happened with the girl who was beaten
to death with a baseball bat around the same timeframe. BPD putzed around
w/the case, got nowhere, dropped it. It's that whole "things like this never
happen here" attitude.
RstJ
tinydancer
"Mike Ward" <m@d.w> wrote in message
That was what was said on the newsclip I saw. The mother and daughter had
been out at the movies the night of the assault. They returned home I
believe I heard around 11:00 pm. The mother then turned on the burglar
alarm. She was wakened around 3:00 a.m., by a sound in her daughters room
and went to investigate it. Found the man there.
On Dan Abrams show, I believe it was the father of this other child, can't
be sure though, one of the guys on the Abrams show said 'the child was
assaulted in the exact same manner as JonBenet'. There were a number of
people on Abrams last night, the father of this child, a couple detectives,
Craig Silverman, I think even Cyril Wecht maybe? Can't recall if he was
there or if I saw him somewhere else last night, as I was watching a number
of news shows on the baby story too.
I know one of these men also made a point of stating that the DNA of the
unidentifed male was found in Jon Benet's blood in her panties and it was
not a degraded sample as the Boulder PD had stated. It was a good sample
and they got a full DNA profile from it.
td
>
>
>
Mike Ward
news:WnZwd.6708$3X5....@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
But if it isn't true you shouldn't be using it to support your theory.
> The mother and daughter
> had been out at the movies the night of the assault. They returned
> home I believe I heard around 11:00 pm. The mother then turned on the
> burglar alarm. She was wakened around 3:00 a.m., by a sound in her
> daughters room and went to investigate it. Found the man there.
So the only similarity is that an intruder tried to molest a little girl in
her own home. And that's only a simularity if an intruder really did attack
Jon Benet. If she was harmed by one of her parents, there's no similarity
at all.
So all we have is another case which vaguely resembles one theory of the
Jon Benet case. Hardly, "another girl was assaulted in exactly the same
manner as JonBenet."
>
> On Dan Abrams show, I believe it was the father of this other child,
> can't be sure though, one of the guys on the Abrams show said 'the
> child was assaulted in the exact same manner as JonBenet'.
But do you believe that he is correct? If you do, why do you believe it?
And if you don't beleive it, why are you using it to support your point of
view?
Mike
tinydancer
"Mike Ward" <m@d.w> wrote in message
Listen, if you want to find somebody to argue with, you'll have to pick
someone else, as I don't have the time nor patience for it. You expect me
to do your work, find sites/cites for you, and then you want to argue about
'em without watching/reading the evidence. Did you read the document the
judge wrote? Did you read Lou Smits evidence? The judge who reviewed all
the evidence in this case said in her document, that the evidence points
towards an intruder and not the Ramsey's.
Did you view the autopsy photo's of JonBenet? Do you even know what her
cause of death was? Did you view the crime scene photo's of the actual
evidence in this case? Did you view the specific type of knot that was tied
to make the garrott? Did you view the stun gun burns on JonBenets body and
the corresponding stun gun Lou Smits located? Did you view the photo's of
JonBenet taken that day, showing she had no such burns on her body that
corresponded with the burns on the autopsy photo's?
As for similarities between these two cases, the guy was in their home when
they returned home that night. He laid in wait for a number of hours for
the mother and daughter to come home, then waited longer for them to fall
asleep before assaulting the child.
The father of this child stated that his daughter 'was sexually molested *in
the same manner as* JonBenet had been sexually molested. Since the exact
details of that molestation have not been made public, that I've seen
anyway, obviously the father know's them from the ME or investigating
detectives.
If you can't be bothered to watch or tape the program, then find someone
else who also wishes to remain uninformed and argue with them about the
topic, 'm'kay?
td
Mike Ward
news:ig_wd.6732$3X5....@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
I'm sorry I pointed out that your claim about the Ramsey case was both
unfounded and inaccurate. Maybe in the future you shouldn't discuss things
you don't know very much about.
> You
> expect me to do your work, find sites/cites for you,
If you want to make a claim you ought to be able to back it up. I couldn't
find anything that documented your claim because nothing that agrees with
it exist. Even the source that you eventually provided didn't back it up.
> and then you want
> to argue about 'em without watching/reading the evidence.
I haven't argued with you over anything. I've only pointed out that there
was not a case that was indentical to the Ramsey case 9 mo. later. There
was a case that might have some general similarities depending on what you
beleive happen in the Ransey case.
> Did you
> read the document the judge wrote? Did you read Lou Smits evidence?
Do either of those documentws support your claim that there was another
crime exactly like the Ramsey one 9 months later.
> The judge who reviewed all the evidence in this case said in her
> document, that the evidence points towards an intruder and not the
> Ramsey's.
>
> Did you view the autopsy photo's of JonBenet? Do you even know what
> her cause of death was? Did you view the crime scene photo's of the
> actual evidence in this case? Did you view the specific type of knot
> that was tied to make the garrott? Did you view the stun gun burns
> on JonBenets body and the corresponding stun gun Lou Smits located?
> Did you view the photo's of JonBenet taken that day, showing she had
> no such burns on her body that corresponded with the burns on the
> autopsy photo's?
>
> As for similarities between these two cases, the guy was in their home
> when they returned home that night. He laid in wait for a number of
> hours for the mother and daughter to come home, then waited longer for
> them to fall asleep before assaulting the child.
>
> The father of this child stated that his daughter 'was sexually
> molested *in the same manner as* JonBenet had been sexually molested.
> Since the exact details of that molestation have not been made public,
> that I've seen anyway, obviously the father know's them from the ME or
> investigating detectives.
How does he know what was or was not done to Jon Benet? He's obviously just
making it up unless he molested by the girls himself.
>
> If you can't be bothered to watch or tape the program,
I'd like to watch it; I'm just not certain I'll be home. Some of us don't
live in front of the television.
> then find
> someone else who also wishes to remain uninformed and argue with them
> about the topic, 'm'kay?
We'll at least you admit that you're uninformed and wish to remain that
way.
Mike
tinydancer
"Mike Ward" <m@d.w> wrote in message
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtm
> >>
> >> > The mother and daughter
> >> > had been out at the movies the night of the assault. They
> >> > returned home I believe I heard around 11:00 pm. The mother then
> >> > turned on the burglar alarm. She was wakened around 3:00 a.m., by
> >> > a sound in her daughters room and went to investigate it. Found
> >> > the man there.
> >>
> >
> > pick someone else, as I don't have the time nor patience for it.
>
>
> > expect me to do your work, find sites/cites for you,
>
>
> > to argue about 'em without watching/reading the evidence.
>
>
> > Did you
> > read the document the judge wrote? Did you read Lou Smits evidence?
>
>
> > The judge who reviewed all the evidence in this case said in her
> > document, that the evidence points towards an intruder and not the
> > Ramsey's.
> >
> > Did you view the autopsy photo's of JonBenet? Do you even know what
> > her cause of death was? Did you view the crime scene photo's of the
> > actual evidence in this case? Did you view the specific type of knot
> > that was tied to make the garrott? Did you view the stun gun burns
> > on JonBenets body and the corresponding stun gun Lou Smits located?
> > Did you view the photo's of JonBenet taken that day, showing she had
> > no such burns on her body that corresponded with the burns on the
> > autopsy photo's?
> >
> > As for similarities between these two cases, the guy was in their home
> > when they returned home that night. He laid in wait for a number of
> > hours for the mother and daughter to come home, then waited longer for
> > them to fall asleep before assaulting the child.
> >
> > The father of this child stated that his daughter 'was sexually
> > molested *in the same manner as* JonBenet had been sexually molested.
> > Since the exact details of that molestation have not been made public,
> > that I've seen anyway, obviously the father know's them from the ME or
> > investigating detectives.
So that would be big 'no's' as to whether or not you viewed, read,
researched ANY evidence or documents in reference to this case.
> >
> > If you can't be bothered to watch or tape the program,
>
>
> > then find
> > someone else who also wishes to remain uninformed and argue with them
> > about the topic, 'm'kay?
>
> We'll at least you admit that you're uninformed and wish to remain that
> way.
>
> Mike
You are the one who is uninformed and wishes to remain that way, as you've
not admitted to viewing nor reading any of the pertinent evidence or
documents about this case.
Stay dumb, you obviously are happy as such.
td
Mike Ward
news:_J_wd.6743$3X5....@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
You haven't presented any pertinent evidence. There isn't any. I didn't say
that the Ramsey's killed their daughter. I said there was not an indentical
case nine months later. You keep trying to change the subject because on
this particular point you've got nothing. Just admit you were wrong and
move on.
Mike
Robert St. James (la ira de Dios)
"Mike Ward" <...>
> I haven't argued with you over anything. I've only pointed out that there
> was not a case that was indentical to the Ramsey case 9 mo. later. There
> was a case that might have some general similarities depending on what you
> beleive happen in the Ransey case.
It doesn't really matter what *you* believe. It's a matter of what detectives
and judges believe. They state, very clearly, that an intruder was in the Ramsey
house. If that doesn't agree with your Ramsey-did-it theory, then you need
to re-evaluate your theory. You'll find it's based on nothing more than bogus
readings of that ransom note, and even more bogus "handwriting" experts.
td posted the cites. You've done nothing but offer undocumented opinion.
RstJ
Mike Ward
news:6N%wd.282989$R05.70423@attbi_s53:
>
> "Mike Ward" <...>
>> I haven't argued with you over anything. I've only pointed out that
>> there was not a case that was indentical to the Ramsey case 9 mo.
>> later. There was a case that might have some general similarities
>> depending on what you beleive happen in the Ransey case.
>
> It doesn't really matter what *you* believe. It's a matter of what
> detectives and judges believe. They state, very clearly, that an
> intruder was in the Ramsey house. If that doesn't agree with your
> Ramsey-did-it theory,
What Ramsey did it theory? You're as looney as td. I ask for more
information about the case that was exactly like the Ramsey case. When td
finally bothered to provide it. I found out that it was not what she had
represented it to be. So I said so.
> then you need to re-evaluate your theory. You'll
> find it's based on nothing more than bogus readings of that ransom
> note, and even more bogus "handwriting" experts.
>
> td posted the cites. You've done nothing but offer undocumented
> opinion.
I don't know who killed Jon Benet. Even experts can't agree on what
happened. I'm certainly not going to take the opinion of two internet
nutjobs as gospel.
>
>
> RstJ
>
>
>
tinydancer
"Mike Ward" <m@d.w> wrote in message
Then tell that to the detectives and DA investigators who classify it as
such.
td
Sara TG in Md
I still say they did it..Or at least the mother did it. The world is a sick
and twsited place and no matter how strange of a thing you can imagine people
have actually done way stranger things..Perhaps the mother found Jon Benet with
a family friend and chased him out then turned her anger on her daughter..Or
the daughter had been set up with a male friend resisted the situation and the
mother went off..I knwo you`re probably thinking I am sick for imagining these
scenes but trust me this and 100 times worse things happen every day
Mike Ward
news:20041218174630...@mb-m11.aol.com:
It's a wierd case. The Ramsey's are definately hiding something. I can
accept that even innocent people become less than fully cooperative when
they realize they are the prime suspects, but I don't think that explains
their lack of cooperation.
And I think Patsy is the best canidate for having written the note.
But I've yet to hear a scenario in which any member of the family is the
murderer that really makes complete sense. And the foreign DNA is a problem
as well.
Mike
Robert St. James (la ira de Dios)
"Sara TG in Md" <sarat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041218174630...@mb-m11.aol.com...
No they don't. What *does* happen every day is pedophile perp kidnaps/kills
girl. There's nothing even remotely unusual about the Ramsey case. Other
than the bogus "investigation" that is.
RstJ
Hunter
I sure it does, but you have to judge this case and other cases on its
own merits. You can come up with any number of plausible nightmare
senerios but none of them match the evidence at hand. It sounds like
you will condemn them no matter what evidence comes out to the
contrary. That is a gross injustice and totally unfair and perhaps
borne out of prejudice of them.
The world is a twisted place, but to condemn people because you think
the worst is quite twisted in and of itself.
----->Hunter
Hunter
Mike Ward wrote:
> sarat...@aol.com (Sara TG in Md) wrote in
> news:20041218174630...@mb-m11.aol.com:
>
> >>Where are all 'the Ramsey's did it' cult now?<
> >
> > I still say they did it..Or at least the mother did it. The world
is
> > a sick
> > and twsited place and no matter how strange of a thing you can
imagine
> > people have actually done way stranger things..Perhaps the mother
> > found Jon Benet with a family friend and chased him out then turned
> > her anger on her daughter..Or the daughter had been set up with a
male
> > friend resisted the situation and the mother went off..I knwo
you`re
> > probably thinking I am sick for imagining these scenes but trust me
> > this and 100 times worse things happen every day
> >
> >
> >
>
> It's a wierd case. The Ramsey's are definately hiding something. I
can
> accept that even innocent people become less than fully cooperative
when
> they realize they are the prime suspects, but I don't think that
explains
> their lack of cooperation.
There "lack of cooperation" is a myth. They stopped cooperating when it
was clear to them that they were the prime and only suspects, as any
good defense attorney would tell you to do. Here is their history of
cooperation from the website
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/allegations_4.html?sect=21
"The Ramseys were interviewed on the 26th, the Ramseys were interviewed
on the 27th. On the 27th they give samples of physical evidence, blood,
hair and fingerprints. When they returned from Atlanta, the Ramseys
gave five handwriting samples, voluntarily. To say that the Ramseys had
not cooperated in this investigation is a gross mischaracterization."
"The samples of handwriting that John and Patsy provided to the police
were later found to bear no similarities to those on the ransom note."
>
> And I think Patsy is the best canidate for having written the note.
See above. And "candidate" is not good enough. Any handwriting expert
will tell you that it is very difficult to hide your handwriting for
any length of time, especially if you are required to provide fresh
samples under supervision. The fact that the Ramseys gave five
handwriting samples and the note still cannot be conclusively matched
to them is strong evidence for their innocence. At most being a
candidate means that someone has similar handwriting to your own. Short
of like with the old pre DNA serology test that say that you belong to
a blood grouping similar to evidentary blood samples.
>
> But I've yet to hear a scenario in which any member of the family is
the
> murderer that really makes complete sense. And the foreign DNA is a
problem
> as well.
>
> Mike
-----
The foreign DNA will be the crux of the matter.
----->Hunter
Mike Ward
news:1103412960....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
So is the lack of cooperation a myth or not? If they stopped cooperating
then they did not cooperate.
Mike
tinydancer
"Daddy Freddy" <daddy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r8q9s0d3asppkm2js...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:20:49 GMT, Mike Ward <m@d.w> wrote:
>
> >"tinydancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >news:ig_wd.6732$3X5....@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I'd like to watch it; I'm just not certain I'll be home. Some of us don't
> >live in front of the television.
>
>
being
> informed. "Some of us don't live in front of the television". "Some of us
don't
> read newsgroups all day". Well, here's some advice: fuck off. You ever
hear of
> TiVo? Or, wait - even better - a couple decades ago someone invented this
thing
> called a VCR. Look into it. You were leading this branch of the thread
from the
> beginning, playing sly ("I'm not familiar with this...please help me...is
there
> not another source for this...blah blah blah") even as you had your next
reply
> thought out.
>
> Why couldn't you be enough of a man to argue your point from the outset,
rather
> than playing your stupid games?
>
>
> You've done all you can do, td. You can lead a horse to water, but
unfortunately
> you can't hold the fucker's head under until it drowns.
LOL, and believe me, I'd like to!
Hunter
It is a myth. The phrase "lack of cooperation" implies that they never
cooperated. As I said before ,they coperated in the begining but
stopped after it was made clear to them that they were the only
suspects. From the same site:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/allegations_4.html?sect=21
"The Ramseys desire to cooperate with the police did not last long.
Their attitude towards them changed dramatically when they got back to
Boulder and learned from Mike Bynum that the previous week, the police
had refused to release JonBenet's body until John and Patsy agreed to
be interrogated. Even though Bynum had been successful in having the
body released in time for the funeral, the police continued to press
for additional interviews. After hearing this, John and Patsy Ramsey
finallyrealized that the police, to use John's words - "Weren't there
to help us, they were there to hang us." They became very suspicious
and untrusting of the police and made further moves to defend
themselves."
The BPD holding JonBenet's body hostage was the immediate cause of the
Ramsey's *ending* of their cooperation.
---->Hunter
Mike Ward
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:20:49 GMT, Mike Ward <m@d.w> wrote:
>
>>"tinydancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in
>>news:ig_wd.6732$3X5....@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>>>
>>>
>>> If you can't be bothered to watch or tape the program,
>>
>>I'd like to watch it; I'm just not certain I'll be home. Some of us
>>don't live in front of the television.
>
>
> Then piss off already. God, I fucking hate that lame-ass excuse for
> not being informed. "Some of us don't live in front of the
> television". "Some of us don't read newsgroups all day". Well, here's
> some advice: fuck off. You ever hear of TiVo? Or, wait - even better
> - a couple decades ago someone invented this thing called a VCR. Look
> into it. You were leading this branch of the thread from the
> beginning, playing sly ("I'm not familiar with this...please help
> me...is there not another source for this...blah blah blah") even as
> you had your next reply thought out.
>
> Why couldn't you be enough of a man to argue your point from the
> outset, rather than playing your stupid games?
What point are you talking about?
I'm not saying the Ramsey's killed Jon Benet.
But pretending that their was an identical crime 9 months later when their
was not does not accomplish anything.
EnEss
> "Robert St. James wrote:
>> It doesn't really matter what *you* believe. It's a matter of what
>> detectives and judges believe. They state, very clearly, that an
>> intruder was in the Ramsey house. If that doesn't agree with your
>> Ramsey-did-it theory,
> I don't know who killed Jon Benet. Even experts can't agree on what
> happened. I'm certainly not going to take the opinion of two internet
> nutjobs as gospel.
Wow, that's awfully rude. Why do you call them "nutjobs"? They haven't said
anything that suggests they're "nutjobs" in any way, IMO. I haven't seen
evidence of mentally unstable discussion from them. Just because you don't
agree w/ them on a particular point doesn't make them nuts, any more than it
makes you nuts. Why do you want to be rude and insulting?
Anyway, redirecting the discussion back to the topic, I will say that it's
an overstatement to say a second child was molested in exactly the same way
as JonBenet. It doesn't sound identical in most ways to me because the 2nd
child was molested in her bed, not taken down to the basement, and she was
neither garroted to death or bashed over the head, fracturing her skull, and
there's no mention of a lengthy ransom note written on a notepad in the home
of the victim. But there is a very significant point here that merits
recognition:
It sounds as though investigators are certain the perpetrator entered the
home while the family was out for the evening and apparently lay in wait for
the mother and child to return home and go to bed before attacking the
child. This is significant in relation to the JonBenet case because the
Boulder police discounted the notion that a predator would behave thusly,
and a lot of the public agreed, casting greater suspicion onto the Ramseys.
They maintain it's not behavior an intruder would adopt, breaking into a
home stealthily and waiting a long period there before striking. This is
important because it goes to the question of how the ransom note could've
been written by anyone other than the Ramseys. It's been determined the note
was written on a notepad belonging to the Ramseys, and therefore must've
been written inside the Ramsey house, not pre-written before the break-in as
one would expect abductors to do in a planned abduction-for-ransom scheme.
The only way one could accept the idea that an outside stranger wrote the
ransom note is if one can believe an intruder would enter the home while the
people who live there are out and wait a good while in the home until the
family returns, and wait even longer before they all go to bed. If there was
an intruder in JonBenet's murder, he/they would have had to have been in the
home at least an hour before the Ramseys returned because the note was so
long, it's hard to believe it would take less than an hour to complete it,
and it seems unlikely the author was writing away while the Ramseys were in
the main part of the house awake. It's possible, of course, the intruder
could've broken in after everyone was asleep and written the note then, but
that seems even less likely somehow.
So if you rule out an intruder in part due to inability to accept an
abductor would enter a home well in advance of the family's return, then the
attack on the other Boulder child is very significant because it shows that
it's not impossible at all a child molester would use this MO. If nothing
else, the attack on the second child shows that at least one other child
molestor has conducted an attack on a child in this way. Even if you know
for certain this was not the same assailant who murdered JonBenet, you still
know it's not unheard of for an intruder to enter a home while the family is
out and lay in wait, maybe for a lengthy period even, until the family
returns and goes to sleep before making his move.
NS
(add sbc before global to email)
Nancy Rudins
>
> I have never gotten ANY news from the Nat'l Enq. I don't appreciate
> the implication either.
>
> OA
I, on the other hand, never believe anything until it's been
printed in the National Enquirer.
Kind regards,
Nancy
--
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall
(lennon/mccartney)
Nancy Rudins nru...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins/
Robert St. James (la ira de Dios)
"EnEss" <star...@global.net> wrote in message
news:9Pkxd.1148$Y8....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Nobody has any idea what they were basing that on since it is, in fact,
extremely common for exactly this MO to be used.
Of course, BPD, with its non-existent homicide experience, decided it
just couldn't have happened that way. Denver's homicide group would
have told them differently, but they refused to consult them.
RstJ
Mike Ward
news:9Pkxd.1148$Y8....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
> "Mike Ward" wrote:
>
>> "Robert St. James wrote:
>>> It doesn't really matter what *you* believe. It's a matter of what
>>> detectives and judges believe. They state, very clearly, that an
>>> intruder was in the Ramsey house. If that doesn't agree with your
>>> Ramsey-did-it theory,
>
>> I don't know who killed Jon Benet. Even experts can't agree on what
>> happened. I'm certainly not going to take the opinion of two internet
>> nutjobs as gospel.
>
> Wow, that's awfully rude. Why do you call them "nutjobs"? They haven't
> said anything that suggests they're "nutjobs" in any way, IMO. I
> haven't seen evidence of mentally unstable discussion from them. Just
> because you don't agree w/ them on a particular point doesn't make
> them nuts, any more than it makes you nuts. Why do you want to be rude
> and insulting?
I said they were nuts because when I accurately pointed out that there was
not another case exactly like the Ramsey's 9 months later than started
attacking me and accusing me of have said things I didn't even say. I
didn't accuse the Ramsey's of killing their daughter and yet I was attacked
with condescending comments about how I was ignorant for believing that the
Ramsey's were the killers.
I have no patience for people who put words in my mouth just so they can
dispute them.
Mike
tinydancer
"OzzieAnnie" <Long Ago and Far Away> wrote in message
news:41c3adb2$0$1119$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "tinydancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:5ZMwd.193971$jE2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > <Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
> > news:1103336752.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Her body was found with the pink barbie nightgown laid on top of
> >> her.
> >> So whether she was wearing it that night or not, the killer laid
> >> it
> >> over her body. Showing care for the dead body indicates the perp
> >> had
> >> feelings of affection for the victim.
> >>
> >> The Ramseys said she had not eaten pineapple. They said that she
> >> fell
> >> asleep in the car on the way home, and that they carried her in
> >> and put
> >> her to bed.
> >>
> >> The DNA in her underwear was, I think, never identified as semen.
> >> Just
> >> DNA - it could be spit or nasal mucus or anything else.
> >> Children -
> >> especially small ones - get their hands in everything.
> >>
> >> The guy that was dressed up as Santa, Bill McReynolds, was
> >> considered
> >> suspicious by some because JonBenet had supposedly said she was
> >> expecting a special visit from Santa, and because many years
> >> before his
> >> wife had written a short story that bore some striking
> >> resemblances to
> >> this case.
> >
> >
> > Mostly because their own daughter, the McReynolds daugher, had
> > also been
> > kidnapped on Christmas when she was a child, and they *forgot* all
> > about it
> > when the Ramsey incident happened. They were asked on live TV, on
> > LKL,
> > "didn't they also have a daughter who was kidnapped on Christmas"
> > and mrs.
> > claus said something like 'hmmmm, now that you mention it, yes we
> > did.' I
> > mean, jaws dropped on that show, you could've heard a pin drop,
> > the silence.
> > You could see on their faces, even that dope King, that they just
> > couldn't
> > believe these people could have had a child kidnapped and
> > FORGOTTEN all
> > about it until one of the news people brought it up.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > He was recovering from heart surgery
> >
> >
> > He trampped all over Europe, carrying their luggage, shortly
> > afterwards. It
> > was said that the cops discounted him *because* of his health, but
> > they
> > didn't know about the extended European vacation.
> >
> >
> >
> > and it's doubtful he
> >> could have climbed in and out of that basement window.
> >> Additionally,
> >> active pedophiles his age are quite rare, and have always (AFAIK)
> >> shown
> >> these tendencies earlier in life. Plus, his wife alibis him
> >> (though
> >> that's a weak alibi).
> >>
> >> I'm still convinced someone in the house did it, most likely
> >> Patsy.
> >> That ransom note is the smoking gun in this case - three pages,
> >> very
> >> odd working (attache case, telling John to get plenty of rest,
> >> referring to a family joke about his "southern common sense",
> >> asking
> >> for the exact amount of his bonus as a ransom, and other
> >> oddities).
> >
> >
> > And including lots of lines from movies, movies Patsy Ramsey was
> > unlikely to
> > have seen. Movies probably seen by someone who enjoyed
> > 'cop-type' violent
> > movies.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> But many others, some of whom have pored over this case in great
> >> detail, are convinced the Ramseys are innocent, including veteran
> >> homicide investigator Lou Smit.
> >
> >
> >
> > I've been convinced the Ramsey's were innocent all along. These
> > poor people
> > not only lost their child in a very violent manner, but they've
> > been scorned
> > for years, accused of murder of their own child, rather than given
> > any type
> > of sympathy. And mostly by people who get their news from the
> > National
> > Enquirer.
> >
> > td
>
> I have never gotten ANY news from the Nat'l Enq. I don't appreciate
> the implication either.
>
> OA
I was 'pokin at bo' with a big old stick, OA. ;)
td
>
>
Tommy Selcraig
> That lousy weasel Silverman is now trying to lie his way out of always
> condemning the Ramsey's. What a jerk he is.
>
> The DNA found, in JonBenet's blood in her panties, is not contaminated, it
> is male DNA, and it has many of the same markers as the DNA found under
> JonBenet's fingernails.
>
> No one in the know is saying 'it's the Ramsey's' anymore. Anyone interested
> should watch the program tomorrow night on the Ramsey case, I believe it's a
> 48 Hours program.
>
> Nine months after JonBenet's death, there was another incident, IN BOULDER,
> identical to the Ramsey case. Man hid out in the house for hours, waiting
> for mother and child to return home. Waited hours more, entered girls
> bedroom, molested girl in exactly the same way JonBenet was sexually
> molested, was interrupted by mother who heard a noise and got up to
> investigate. This girl had even taken dance classes *with* JonBenet.
>
> Where are all 'the Ramsey's did it' cult now?
>
> td
I think there is plenty that makes the Ramseys look guilty. The ransom
note was extremely bizarre. How many people even knew the amount of Mr.
Ramsey's bonus? Even if it was somehow public knowledge, who would care?
There are lots of six figure income people in every town. Who would make
this number their business if it wasn't somebody very close to the
family? Why couldn't the Ramseys find their daughter in their own house,
or more exactly, why didn't they look? And when the police got the
search going, it was John who found her. If an unknown perp killed her,
why did he risk waiting around long enough and skulking through the
house to write the 'War and Peace' of ransom notes? What would the perp
have to gain from this considering that he left the body at the house?
OTOH, if one of the Ramseys was the perp, the ransom note would serve a
purpose--an attempt to take the investigation outside the house long
enough for them to dispose of the body. If the perp was just some
stranger, he was quite a good burglar with gonads of steel. In these
times of paranoia, he walked into a wealthy neighborhood and broke into
a big house that one would not assume was an easy mark, kidnapped and
murdered a child, felt free to stay a while and write a long and useless
ransom note, and then left, all without alerting neighbors, dogs,
neighborhood watch, patrol cars, or the Ramseys of his presence. Not
impossible, of course, but quite a feat of daring do. If the perp was a
crazed pedophile with a thing for six year olds, he managed to sexually
assault her without leaving definitive physical evidence. Then he just
disappeared like Keyser Sose leaving everyone else to wonder what the
hell just happened. Fortunately, the list of possible suspects is not
unlimited, yet not even the most tenuous connection can be found to
anyone else.
I really don't buy it. More likely JonBenet was killed in a fit of rage
by one of the parents, and the two of them worked to cover it up,
because by making it look like a sensational kidnapping and murder, they
could turn public scorn into sympathy. All the while avoiding destroying
what was left of their family by forcing spouse to testify against
spouse in a ruinous and public prosecutory nightmare where both of them
would lose everything. It would instantly transform them from the
wealthy elite to repulsive white trash. Not much of a choice is it? I
find another chilling aspect of the Ramsey's behavior to be their
callous disregard for the well-being of other less likely people of
interest in the case. They freely pointed fingers hither and yon, and
even if we suspend disbelief for a moment and assume one of them is the
killer, all the others were publicly branded for a horrific crime they
had nothing to do with. That is some damned meager empathy from a couple
who would have us believe that they have been wrongfully accused, and
speaks volumes about the depth of their moral grounding.
Hunter
You are correct, I do think tinydancer overstated her position that
"Amy" was molested in exactly the same way, even though I agree with
him/her overall about the Ramsey's innocence. What I got from the "48
Hours" story was that JonBonet and "Amy" *SITUATIONS* where very much
the same. And there was a possiblity that it would had been even more
tradgicly similar if the mother wasn't a light sleeper and woke up to
interupt him. In otherwords, he did not get a chance to move her
silently-she apparently put up a fuss-to another location either within
or without the house and then kill her. Instead the mother went into
the room and had him brush by her running out of the house.
As to the ransom note, I believe no one of the Ramsey house hold wrote
it, despite its very unusual length and the circumstances. Handwriting
experts could not conclusively match it to any of the Ramseys. I
believe 4 out of 5 of them said they did not write it with a definate
no. I believe this because from what I know it is very difficult to
forge your handwriting consistantly. And I would think a person would
be understress after killing their own child, so they are not fully
consentrating on the matter and therefore their usual writing habits
are going to reveal themselves, especially during writing such a
unusually long note. The longer the document, the more likely you will
slip up and fall back into your writing habits. Patsy Ramsey gave at
least five handwriting samples. One respected handwriting examiner,
Donald Foster, who could count as solving who wrote the book "Primary
Colors" and the Unabomber Manifesto positively linked Patsy Ramsey to
the note, but there are some problems with Foster:
http://www.jameson245.com/48hourstranscript.htm
If true, it explains why the BPD did not use him as a expert witness
and arrest Patsy on the strength of his findings.
---
One also has to consider it in the context of other cases, like the
Darlie Routier, Julie Rhea, Polly Klass, the Micheal Crowe case were a
falsely accused 14 year old boy was coersed into confessing to
murdering his 12 year old sister Stephanie Crowe are all cases in which
IMHO are cases of complete strangers sneaking into homes and murdering
the children within. In many cases leaving undetected (albeit that four
out of the five cases that I mentioned above the killer was detected
and was fought. So it is very possible and believeable that a complete
stranger could sneak into a house lead away JonBonet and then kill her,
all without being detected.
This and other things like a pubic hair that does not match any of the
Ramseys that was found on JonBenet's body plus a "Hi-Tech" boot print
also not linked to the house hold has me all but totally conviced of
the Ramsey's innocence.
---->Hunter
EnEss
> "EnEss" wrote:
>> Wow, that's awfully rude. Why do you call them "nutjobs"? They haven't
>> said anything that suggests they're "nutjobs" in any way, IMO. I
>> haven't seen evidence of mentally unstable discussion from them. Just
>> because you don't agree w/ them on a particular point doesn't make
>> them nuts, any more than it makes you nuts. Why do you want to be rude
>> and insulting?
> I said they were nuts because when I accurately pointed out that there was
> not another case exactly like the Ramsey's 9 months later than started
> attacking me and accusing me of have said things I didn't even say. I
> didn't accuse the Ramsey's of killing their daughter and yet I was
> attacked
> with condescending comments about how I was ignorant for believing that
> the
> Ramsey's were the killers.
>
> I have no patience for people who put words in my mouth just so they can
> dispute them.
Well, that's really different from being nutjobs, isn't it? If they really
did this--and I'm not saying I saw it that way--but in my mind that makes
them perhaps cantankerous and unfair debaters, but it hardly qualifies as
acting nuts. Do you really think it does?
I see you have no response to the second part of my reply. Oh well. That's
ok too.
NS
(add sbc before global)
Mike Ward
news:gKpxd.2877$_X7....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:
I disagree. I respect your opinion. But if someone attacks me for saying
the Ramsey's did it when I said no such thing. In fact, all I said was that
their was not an identical crime 9 months later (which is true). I say that
person is nuts.
Td was already on my bad side for acting like she was doing me some big
favor by documenting her claim (a claim which her own link showed to be
false.)
And it isn't like this is the first time she's acted like this, nor Robert.
So if I overreacted it sure wasn't by much.
>
> I see you have no response to the second part of my reply. Oh well.
> That's ok too.
I thought you comments were generally good.
I'm just not up for a big conversation about this case right now.
I only got involved because I wanted to learn more about the case that was
just like the Ramsey's because that was something I hadn't heard before.
But now that it turns out to be not so similar after all, and I find
there's no reason to assume the two cases are related I'm back to where I
was before.
And now that the big 48 hours special turned out to be a lot of hype and no
substance, I'm ready to forget about the case again.
We discussed this to death a few years ago, and until theirs actually a new
development I'm just talked out.
Sorry, if my lack of repsonse seemed to be a slight or anything.
It was not meant that way. It was, like I said, a good post (I think I read
it all; the long paragraphs made it hard for me to read without loosing my
place.)
I'm just not up for a new Ramsey discussion right now.
Someone let me know when something new actually developes and I may be up
for more discussion.
Mike
EnEss
> "EnEss" wrote:
>> It sounds as though investigators are certain the perpetrator entered the
>> home while the family was out for the evening and apparently lay in wait
>> for
>> the mother and child to return home and go to bed before attacking the
>> child. This is significant in relation to the JonBenet case because the
>> Boulder police discounted the notion that a predator would behave thusly,
>> and a lot of the public agreed, casting greater suspicion onto the
>> Ramseys.
>> They maintain it's not behavior an intruder would adopt, breaking into a
>> home stealthily and waiting a long period there before striking.
> Nobody has any idea what they were basing that on since it is, in fact,
> extremely common for exactly this MO to be used.
Well, it's certainly not the typical home invasion scenario for any crime,
that's for sure. The "average" criminal trying to pull off a crime in a home
will get in and out of the house ASAP. OTOH, it's hardly unprecedented to
have a scenario where the criminal lurks inside the home for an extended
period. Did you ever read that book by William Henry Heirens who started off
burglarizing homes and graduated to child abduction, molestation and murder?
He told psychologists in interviews while serving his life sentence that he
got an incredible rush from moving quietly around the darkened house of a
home he entered at night w/ its occupants sleeping peacefully and blissfully
unaware of his presence. He would go quietly into the bedrooms and stand
just inches away from sleeping occupants, sometimes even touching them very
gently, getting incredibly aroused. He would slip from one room into
another, sometimes taking a bite out of an apple in a fruit bowl,
masturbating and doing other things too disgusting to mention. Heirens told
interviewers he might stay in a home that way for an hour or 2, then he'd
take some valuables and leave. But that got boring for him and one day he
got too aroused and decided to snatch a little girl from her bed and take
her some where to assault and murder her. Ych!
My point is, while lurking around in a house for an extended period may be
unorthodox for a home invasion criminal, it's not w/o precedence and is not
enough to pin the crime on the parents. But a large sector of the public
agreed with the Boulder police and seized on this as the #1 suspect factor
in the murder that pointed to the parents. That always bothered me.
> Of course, BPD, with its non-existent homicide experience, decided it
> just couldn't have happened that way. Denver's homicide group would
> have told them differently, but they refused to consult them.
That was another problem I had w/ the case. It seemed to me the BPD locked
their minds early on around the theory that the parents were the guilty
party and simply would not pursue other theories, and suspects, seriously
enough. And they refused to avail themselves of other expertise that might
have lead them in other directions until much later. And even then they
simply discounted anything pointing in any direction away from John and
Patsy. I've seen too much of this pattern in other investigations eventually
linked to wrongful prosecutions/convictions to not have red flags raised by
seeing it here.
There were a number of other oddities in the case that bothered me too in
relation to the BPD's conclusion.
Bo Raxo
"Robert St. James (la ira de Dios)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:NAMwd.589364$D%.54961@attbi_s51...
>
> <Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
> news:1103336752.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Her body was found with the pink barbie nightgown laid on top of her.
>
>
Here's a list of items seized in a search. The pink barbie nightgow is
listed as being recovered from the wine cellar.
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0930jon3.htm
Note to Dr. Dancer: note that the above link is not to the National
Enquirer.
> > So whether she was wearing it that night or not, the killer laid it
> > over her body. Showing care for the dead body indicates the perp had
> > feelings of affection for the victim.
>
> Yeah. By strangling them and dumping them in a basement. Real affection.
>
I'm talking about deaths where the killer had a close relationship with the
victim. Obviously I'm using affection in that context.
>
> >
> > The Ramseys said she had not eaten pineapple. They said that she fell
> > asleep in the car on the way home, and that they carried her in and put
> > her to bed.
>
>
> Bo, c'mon. That pineapple stuff is a joke, a Steve Thomas talking point.
You
> know better than this.
No, I know that the autopsy found...oh heck, why type it, here's a nice
summary:
http://www.justicejunction.com/innocence_lost_jonbenet_ramsey_the_dna.htm
"On the dining room table there was a bowl with Patsy's fingerprints on it,
full of pineapple. According to JonBenet's autopsy, she had a small amount
of, "fragmented pieces of yellow to light tan apparent vegetable or fruit"
which several leading forensics experts, including Dr. Cyril Wecht, a former
president of both American Academy of Forensic Sciences and American College
of Legal Medicine, concluded that the matter could have been pineapple. The
only fingerprints on the bowl belonged to Patsy Ramsey. Patsy said JonBenet
went strait to bed eating nothing at home. The autopsy findings show that
the matter moving through her body could have taken about two hours for the
pineapple to reach her small intestine. Who gave her that pineapple? Or did
she just make the bad decision to go get a midnight snack and dump a can of
pineapple in a bowl only Patsy had touched?"
I could google up a bunch more sources, but suffice to say this isn't just
some tabloid rumor. Is it a Steve Thomas talking point? Sure, he has a
theory of the crime and this evidence points to it. Pretty good evidence,
too, in my opinion. Part of why I think he has a pretty good theory of the
crime.
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
And wrongly so, since the material she refers to was not from the NE.
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/ram1014k.htm
"pink Barbie nightgown that was reportedly found next to JonBenét's body;"
Tiny, you really should try out google. It's terrific for finding these
things. It's kept me from embarrassing myself countless times, and it could
do the same for you.
Pokin' back,
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
>
> <Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
> news:1103331365.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Whoever killed her wrapped her in her favorite pink Barbie nightgown.
> > Doesn't this sound like someone who knew that child?
>
>
> Getting your facts from the National Enquirer doesn't count bo.
>
Daily Camera, local Colorado paper, copy of the search warrant
http://community.bouldernews.com/extra/ramsey/1997/09/29-2.html
Ramsey warrant dated December 26, 1996
[under "Items Recovered"]
Pink barbie nightgown from wine cellar (12KKY)
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/ram1014k.htm
"pink Barbie nightgown that was reportedly found next to JonBenét's body;"
Remember that this was found after John had picked up her body and ran
upstairs with it, which is why it wasn't still on the body.
>
> >
> > Whoever killed her fed her pineapple that night. Does this sound like
> > a stranger?
>
>
> See above. I thought you were better than this bo.
>
See previous posts. There was vegetable matter in her stomach, some experts
think it's pineapple. The kid ate something soon enough before her death
that it was still in her stomach. She ate it in the house. Tends to
discount the theory of an intruder waiting to grab her.
>
> >
> > And in the other case - I'd like a cite for it. Does it bear the
> > following similarites to the Ramsey case:
> >
> > 1. Ransom note, rather long and claiming to be by a "small foreign
> > faction"
> >
> > 2. No semen
> >
> > 3. Sexual assault with an inanimate object
> >
> > 4. Garotte
> >
> > Without seeing the other case, I'll hazard a guess that it has *some*
> > similarites to the Ramsey intruder theoryh - i.e. that he entered the
> > house and laid in wait. I'll also guess that it lacks some
> > similarities, such as the items listed above.
>
>
> The cops never shared that case with the Boulder DA's office. Suffice to
> say, now that the case IS being shared, the experts are the ones who said
> the MO was the same.
Translation: you made a sweeping claim and now can't back it up with the
specifics I asked for. I thought you were better than this, tiny , just
admit you were exaggerating when you called the other crime "exactly the
same".
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
>
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml
>
>
So the case you said was "exactly the same" does not have:
A ransom note
The use of a garrotte
Avoiding any semen on the victim
Just to name some top differences. Sexual offenders are highly patterned:
same mo over and over. If the killer of JonBenet didn't have penile
penetration and used a garrotte, that offender would use the same pattern
again.
Nope, the Ramsey scene was staged - 99% of these guys want to, well, have
intercourse with the victim, and you find semen. The case you posted is not
all that similar from the facts depicted, it's only relevance it because the
victim had some tenuous common link with JonBenet - the dance class.
And from this you profess to have solved it. Talk about a rush to
judgement, damn.
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
"Daddy Freddy" <daddy_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r8q9s0d3asppkm2js...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:20:49 GMT, Mike Ward <m@d.w> wrote:
>
> >"tinydancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >news:ig_wd.6732$3X5....@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
> >>
> >>
> >> If you can't be bothered to watch or tape the program,
> >
> >I'd like to watch it; I'm just not certain I'll be home. Some of us don't
> >live in front of the television.
>
>
> Then piss off already. God, I fucking hate that lame-ass excuse for not
being
> informed. "Some of us don't live in front of the television". "Some of us
don't
hear of
> TiVo? Or, wait - even better - a couple decades ago someone invented this
thing
> called a VCR. Look into it. You were leading this branch of the thread
from the
> beginning, playing sly ("I'm not familiar with this...please help me...is
there
> not another source for this...blah blah blah") even as you had your next
reply
> thought out.
>
> Why couldn't you be enough of a man to argue your point from the outset,
rather
> than playing your stupid games?
>
>
unfortunately
> you can't hold the fucker's head under until it drowns.
No, she provided one link, which after reading it I could see did not
establish the point she had claimed.
The guy wasn't trying to argue some alternative theory, he merely saw
someone wrote "here is what really happened" and asked for some cite from a
decent source. She never gave one. All she kept saying was "you need to
watch this tv show!"
Well, that's hardly helpful, is it?
As for your argument that you're not a real man unless you have Tivo or some
other gadget, well, the consumer electronics industry sends you their
sincere thanks, and suggests you check out the latest generation of surround
sound products. We've added an extra speaker!
Bo Raxo
tinydancer
"Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:u5txd.3857$9j5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036652/
Here is the link I heard the phrase. For some reason, I can't get the video
to play on my computer, perhaps you can. I tried to find the transcript of
the program, but because it was shown on Friday evening, they said the
transcript isn't available until after 3:00 p.m. on Monday.
I was typing as I was listening to the abrams report. You can tell by the
time of my original post on this topic, 6:15 p.m. eastern time, friday
evening. The Abrams Report runs here from 6:00 to 7:00 each evening. I
was repeating what I was listening to on the TV. My TV isn't in the same
room as my computer, so I can't actually *see* who is speaking as I'm typing
what is being said.
td
tinydancer
>
> "tinydancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:lTYwd.6704$3X5....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >
>
> >
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml
> >
> >
>
> So the case you said was "exactly the same" does not have:
I was repeating what was being said on the Abrams Report. If you read my
original post on this topic, you can tell I'm typing as I'm listening to the
program.
>
> A ransom note
> The use of a garrotte
> Avoiding any semen on the victim
As for your list, as far as I know, nothing has been specified as to exactly
*what* happened to the second victim publicly. No details of the crime are
available to anyone but those investigating it. Who ever was talking on the
Abrams report at the time, as I said, I can't actually view my TV from my
position at my computer, I can only *hear* what's being said, I was typing
what they were saying.
>
> Just to name some top differences. Sexual offenders are highly patterned:
> same mo over and over. If the killer of JonBenet didn't have penile
> penetration and used a garrotte, that offender would use the same pattern
> again.
>
> Nope, the Ramsey scene was staged - 99% of these guys want to, well, have
> intercourse with the victim, and you find semen. The case you posted is
not
> all that similar from the facts depicted, it's only relevance it because
the
> victim had some tenuous common link with JonBenet - the dance class.
The main commonality between the cases was 'lying in wait' for the victim
and her mother to return home, and again 'waiting until both had been in bed
for some time before going into the girls room.' What actually happened to
the girl in her room, as far as I can tell, hasn't been made public. The
detectives of course, would know what happened to her, but we don't. We
don't know if some type of strangulation device was used on her, we don't
know the method of sexual abuse either JonBenet or this second girl
suffered. All we know is it's been referred to as some sort of sexual
assault on each victim, details, other than the strangulation of JonBenet,
are not public anywhere that I know of.
>
> And from this you profess to have solved it. Talk about a rush to
> judgement, damn.
Where is your 'innocent until proven guilty' streak here bo? There is
absolutely no evidence pointing towards the Ramsey's, unidentified male DNA
in JonBenet's blood in her panties, DNA with the same markers under her
fingernails.
We don't know what happened in that second case, but the detectives
investigating it do. We don't know whether or not the child was fed
anything. We don't know whether or not she was strangled, all that's been
made public is that the intruder laid in wait for this victim, and those
investigating the case refer to it as identical in nature.
>
>
> Bo Raxo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
EnEss
> We discussed this to death a few years ago, and until there's actually a
> development I'm just talked out.
> Sorry, if my lack of repsonse seemed to be a slight or anything.
No, it didn't. I wasn't hurt, disappointed or offended.
Goodness, my ego isn't that fragile!
> Someone let me know when something new actually developes and I may be up
> for more discussion.
Fair enough. Sorry for the too-long paragraphs that were hard on the eyes.
Yaabob
Why is the Detectives Badge number differant in the search warrant so many
times? Read the about http site.
EnEss
> You are correct, I do think tinydancer overstated her position that
> "Amy" was molested in exactly the same way, even though I agree with
> him/her overall about the Ramsey's innocence. What I got from the "48
> the same.
Actually, they don't sound much alike at all, aside from the victims being
about the same age and having attended the same dance school at the same
time, and w/ the possibility of the perp. entering the home while the family
was out and waiting for them in hiding in the house, then attacking after
the house occupants went to sleep. Otherwise, they are entirely different.
> And there was a possiblity that it would had been even more
> tradgicly similar if the mother wasn't a light sleeper and woke up to
> interupt him.
The most striking dissimilarity in the 2 cases is that one was a brutal
murder and the other, a sexual assault that ended w/ the victim still alive
and otherwise unharmed (though no doubt traumatized). It's impossible to say
what would've happened if the mother had not awakened; the vast majority of
sexual assaults, even on children, do not end in murder. In any case, of
course I'm very glad the mother did awaken and that the child was not harmed
worse than she was.
> In other words, he did not get a chance to move her
> silently-she apparently put up a fuss-to another location either within
> or without the house and then kill her. Instead the mother went into
> the room and had him brush by her running out of the house.
I don't think anyone has a clear picture of precisely what happened to
JonBenet, other than she was murdered, and brutally so. If the stun gun
theory is right (and it seems there's strong evidence supporting it), it
would suggest she was subdued by the gun in her bedroom so she could be
moved w/o resistance or screams from her bedroom to the basement, where she
was assaulted and murdered w/ the crack to the skull and the garroting.
From everything I've read of the case, there's no evidence at all that any
part of the assault took place in her bedroom, other than being taken from
it, and possibly subdued w/ the stun gun there. Even the 2 investigators
working on the case now and featured on the 48 Hrs. piece Sat. said
everything happened down in the basement.
> As to the ransom note, I believe no one of the Ramsey household wrote
> it, despite its very unusual length and the circumstances. Handwriting
> experts could not conclusively match it to any of the Ramseys. I
> believe 4 out of 5 of them said they did not write it with a definite
> no. I believe this because from what I know it is very difficult to
> forge your handwriting consistently.
That's my understanding too.
> And I would think a person would
> be under stress after killing their own child, so they are not fully
> concentrating on the matter and therefore their usual writing habits
> are going to reveal themselves, especially during writing such a
> unusually long note. The longer the document, the more likely you will
> slip up and fall back into your writing habits.
I think you're quite right, and it's an important point. Another, even more
pertinent point IMO, is why would they write the note at all, especially in
so stressful a situation. I can believe people acting in a panic when
finding themselves in a terrible jam, but the Ramseys are not stupid people.
I can't imagine a reason why they would come up w/ the idea of writing the
ransom note as a cover-up when they would leave the body in the house. Once
they called the police to report a kidnapping, they would have to know there
would be cops all over the place, searching the house top to bottom for
clues and constantly around them for the next several days that there would
be no good opportunity later to get rid of the body. Once the body was found
in the basement, it would totally shoot down the kidnap-for-ransom motive,
throwing all suspicion on them. If they really wanted to stage a ransom
kidnapping, they would've realized they had to get the body out of the house
and ditch it somewhere. And surely they're intelligent enough to realize the
last thing you want to do is leave a fake piece of evidence in your own
handwriting. Any idiot would think of the police demanding writing samples
from everyone in the home and easily tracing it back to the real author.
The BPD said because the body was found inside and carefully redressed in
pajamas after the assault, it showed the crime was carried out by people who
cared about the child and would not have been able to bear the idea of her
body being out in the cold. But how anyone can look at the things done to
that child and say these are the same people who cared too much to leave her
body out in the cold seems to me someone not thinking straight. If a parent
kills a child accidentally and decides to cover-up the deed by staging a
murder by outsider, he or she is going to do the least possible to the body
necessary to make the story fly. They're not going to engage in excessive
savagery and violence to make the story seem more plausible. It just flies
in the face of what we know of human nature. This would be a miserable task
and no one other than a maniacal killer is going to inflict all that on a
child who was killed accidentally just to make the story better.
If the child was killed accidentally and the parents couldn't bear putting
the body out in the woods (or were too scared to try it), then they would
ditch the ransom note idea and go for the pedophile murder angle, maybe
hiding the body in the basement but doing the least damage necessary to the
body to mimic a pedophile assault. This means they would probably attempt to
reproduce a sexual assault w/ a manual object (which is what tests indicate
may have happened to JonBenet), but almost certainly they would leave the
child's clothes off, and they wouldn't get into that gruesome garroting
thing.
But to bash the child's head in, strangle her w/ a garate, stage a sexual
assault, put her pajamas back on her (which no parent would think of a
pedophile rapist-murdering doing), leave her body in the basement where
police are sure to find it AND write a lengthy ransom note, it's all just
way, way, way over the top. People acting in a frantic, grief-stricken panic
are far more inclined to do too little to make their story work than add all
those ridiculous details, all of which would be gruesome to deal with and
more than any parent in a cover-up situation would have stomach to do.
The crazy ransom note and the brutality of the murder suggests to me a
psychotic mind that started out w/ a true intent to kidnap for ransom, but
something went wrong and the plan was aborted, w/ the perp. murdering the
victim, going into a frenzy in the process and going way overboard, and
possibly staging the sexual assault to throw off police, probably getting
off on it at the same time.
I've read the text of the note, too, and it seethes hate and rage, not the
emotion I'd expect coming from the parents under such circumstances. The
parents would be feeling intense panic and fear, overwhelmed by anguish. A
note written in such a state would be short and to the point, w/ a demand
for a round sum, like 100 grand or a million--not the father's salary bonus
that year. I have no idea why an outside abductor would come up with such an
odd-ass amount to demand, but the last thing a parent in a cover-up is going
to want to do is to bring the focus back on himself.
> One also has to consider it in the context of other cases, like the
> Darlie Routier, Julie Rhea, Polly Klass, the Micheal Crowe case were a
> falsely accused 14 year old boy was coersed into confessing to
> murdering his 12 year old sister Stephanie Crowe are all cases in which
> IMHO are cases of complete strangers sneaking into homes and murdering
> the children within. In many cases leaving undetected (albeit that four
> out of the five cases that I mentioned above the killer was detected
> and was fought. So it is very possible and believeable that a complete
> stranger could sneak into a house lead away JonBonet and then kill her,
> all without being detected.
There are many cases on record of child abductors entering a home while the
family sleeps and takes the child from his or her home, and cases of
pedophiles who break into a home to assault a child, sometimes ending in
murder. It's not very common for people like this to stay in the house very
long (which the JonBenet murderer/s would have had to in order to complete
the ransom note), but there are so many different kind of weirdos in the
world, the fact that you'd occasionally happen on a really bizarre variation
of one should not be surprising to anyone, IMO.
> This and other things like a pubic hair that does not match any of the
> Ramseys that was found on JonBenet's body plus a "Hi-Tech" boot print
> also not linked to the house hold has me all but totally conviced of
> the Ramsey's innocence.
Those things and a lot more do it for me too. Like so many people, I have
looked at this thing a thousand times, and the more I look at all of it, the
more it just doesn't add up in my mind to guilt of the Ramseys. It's much
too gruesome and brutal to be the work of anyone but a truly psychotic
killer; not frantic, panicked parents scrambling to cover their tracks.
Mike Ward
news:r8vxd.743$3i6...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:
> "Mike Ward" wrote:
>> We discussed this to death a few years ago, and until there's
>> actually a new
>> development I'm just talked out.
>> Sorry, if my lack of repsonse seemed to be a slight or anything.
>
> No, it didn't. I wasn't hurt, disappointed or offended.
>
> Goodness, my ego isn't that fragile!
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that it was.
I won't apoligize for slighting you this time though or this whole
conversation could get trapped in an infinite loop :)
Mike
CC Bailey
> CC Bailey wrote:
>
>>tinydancer wrote:
>>
>>>I've been convinced the Ramsey's were innocent all along. These
>
> poor people
>
>>>not only lost their child in a very violent manner, but they've
>
> been scorned
>
>>>for years, accused of murder of their own child, rather than given
>
> any type
>
>>>of sympathy. And mostly by people who get their news from the
>
> National
>
>>>Enquirer.
>>>
>>>td
>>
>>their daughter from a young age. She looked like a prostitute in
>
> those
>
>>beauty pageants.
>>
>>C
>
> ---
> Which is a big reason why the Ramseys were vilified. The public at
> large did not understand the world of child beauty pageants (JoBenet's
> mother Patsy was a beauty pagent contestant her self) Because of that,
> they reacted out of emotion, not the facts-or more accurately the lack
> thereof-of the case. Whatever your opinion of those pageants, it did
> not mean they killed there daughter. Also, it is not like JonBenet was
> competing alone, those pageants were and are very popular, so JonBenet
> was not unusual, just out of context. I was unconfortable with it too,
> but I did not let it affect my veiw of the evidence. And I think you
> are being a bit too harsh saying that JonBonet was dressed like a
> prostitute, dressed far beyond her years yes perhaps too far, but a
> prostitute? No.
>
> ----->Hunter
>
She was dressed to resemble a high class hooker in a very sexualized
manner. There's a difference between dressing "beyond her years" and
dressing as a sexual object.
Robert St. James (la ira de Dios)
>
> "Robert St. James (la ira de Dios)" <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:NAMwd.589364$D%.54961@attbi_s51...
> >
> > <Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
> > news:1103336752.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Her body was found with the pink barbie nightgown laid on top of her.
> >
> > No it wasn't. Where the did you get that from?
> >
>
>
> Here's a list of items seized in a search. The pink barbie nightgow is
> listed as being recovered from the wine cellar.
>
> http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0930jon3.htm
>
> Note to Dr. Dancer: note that the above link is not to the National
> Enquirer.
Note to Dr. Bo: there's nothing about it being *on* JonBenet. It wasn't.
<...>
> I'm talking about deaths where the killer had a close relationship with the
> victim. Obviously I'm using affection in that context.
Bo, there's nothing remotely "affectionate" about strangling someone to death
and shoving a paintbrush handle into their vagina, ok? Don't confuse this with
accidental
home deaths where the child is covered with a blanket. That's not what happened
here.
<...>
> No, I know that the autopsy found...oh heck, why type it, here's a nice
> summary:
>
> http://www.justicejunction.com/innocence_lost_jonbenet_ramsey_the_dna.htm
>
> "On the dining room table there was a bowl with Patsy's fingerprints on it,
> full of pineapple. According to JonBenet's autopsy, she had a small amount
> of, "fragmented pieces of yellow to light tan apparent vegetable or fruit"
Meaning: nobody has any idea what that is.
> which several leading forensics experts, including Dr. Cyril Wecht, a former
> president of both American Academy of Forensic Sciences and American College
> of Legal Medicine, concluded that the matter could have been pineapple.
Nobody except Fucking Cyril Wecht. Seriously, Bo, why on earth should anyone
take this fatuous idiot's opinion for real? And even *he* can't say it was
pineapple!
He didn't even do the freaking autopsy so how is he concluding it's pineapple?
Because BPD wanted it to be pineapple. No other reason. Which is clear from
the rest of the quote where we suddenly jump to that pineapple bowl as if
it had anything at all to do with the autopsy.
<...>
> I could google up a bunch more sources, but suffice to say this isn't just
> some tabloid rumor. Is it a Steve Thomas talking point? Sure, he has a
> theory of the crime and this evidence points to it. Pretty good evidence,
> too, in my opinion. Part of why I think he has a pretty good theory of the
> crime.
>
>
> Bo Raxo
You're joking. Bed-wetting as motive? He posts that theory around here
w/o St. Martin's Press stamped on it and we'd flame him into a blackened
piece of breakfast sausage.
Dreadful.
RstJ
Robert St. James (la ira de Dios)
"CC Bailey" <ccba...@nolongeratkiva.net> wrote in message
news:32o4e6F...@individual.net...
Excuse me? If you're seeing her in a "sexualized manner" maybe there's
something the matter with you, not her.
RstJ
tinydancer
>
> "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:NMsxd.3844$9j5...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
>
>
> <...>
> > I could google up a bunch more sources, but suffice to say this isn't
just
> > some tabloid rumor. Is it a Steve Thomas talking point? Sure, he has a
> > theory of the crime and this evidence points to it. Pretty good
evidence,
> > too, in my opinion. Part of why I think he has a pretty good theory of
the
> > crime.
> >
> >
> > Bo Raxo
>
> You're joking. Bed-wetting as motive? He posts that theory around here
> w/o St. Martin's Press stamped on it and we'd flame him into a blackened
> piece of breakfast sausage.
>
> Dreadful.
>
>
> RstJ
Considering Lou Smits said JonBenet's sheets were not wet that night,
doesn't everyone who has a bedwetter in the family create a garrot and
ritualistically strangle them for it? We do know that JonBenet died from
strangulation and not a skull fracture. The head injury to the child was at
or near the time of death, from strangulation. Meaning 'there was no
accidental head injury due to anger, and then a staged strangulation
afterwards, the way Thomas pegged it.'
>
>
>
Robert St. James (la ira de Dios)
"Yaabob" <yaa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041220022903...@mb-m26.aol.com...
> >http://community.bouldernews.com/extra/ramsey/1997/09/29-2.html
>
> Why is the Detectives Badge number differant in the search warrant so many
> times? Read the about http site.
Wonder what this is supposed to mean:
"Your Affiant has investigated numerous crime scenes including at least twin
homicide crime scenes."
Affiant=James Byfield.
I suppose that means "two." Other than this search warrant, Byfield seems
to have had very little to do with the case. In fact, Steve Thomas does not
once mention him in his book by name. He's just "another detective" mentioned
in the first search. Thomas names everybody else. Curious. Wonder if Byfield
wasn't on board with the "Ramsey did it" lynch mob and got booted off the case.
I see he was later promoted to Seargent Traffic Control desk. Smart guy. About the
only officer to survive this mess.
RstJ
Hunter
---
She was never dress as a high class hooker. The footage I have seen of
her has her dressed in a black polka dot and striped dress and striped
hat in a sleaveless blouse. Another she is dressed in a bright blue
satain cowgirl outfit. The most outlandish outfit I have ever seen her
in was in a dress that a Las Vegas show girl might wear.
And again, she was not alone in those beauty pagaents. I am sure other
contestants were dressed similarly.
---->Hunter
tinydancer
"Hunter" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1103585338.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Those pagents seem to be really big in the South. I don't care for them
myself, my daughters participated in music, dance and athletic type things.
Tee ball, gymnastics, tennis, etc., but there are quite a few of the native
southerners who are into that sort of thing.
td
>
Uncle Dollar Bill
Actually, if what Mike is saying of their behavior is correct (I've
not looked), I'd have to say that's very much "nutjob" behavior.
Being sadistic to complete strangers for no good reason _is_ a type of
insanity, you know. :-/
Charlotte
ITA. Sums up perfectly what causes suspicions about the Ramseys.
Hunter
Someone familiar with the Ramsey house or made familiar with it. I
would think that if someone wanted to create a phony ransom note that
they would set the sum at a million dollars or something, not choose
their own bonus figure. This bit of evidence can point either way. At
any rate, some four out of five handwriting experts have ruled her out,
and his bonus need not to have been a state secret. Who would care?
Someone who would want to have it.
>
> There are lots of six figure income people in every town. Who would
make
> this number their business if it wasn't somebody very close to the
> family?
Opportunity, and high profile people tend to attract all shorts of
people. And yes, *close* to the family, a friend or a faceless
aquintance, not *within* the family. Their have been cases in which
personell who have worked in a domicile for various lengths of time,
either long term or a day, have targeted a house for burglery or worst
if only because they have gotten familiar with the place as oppose to
other homes even if they are just as rich.
>
> Why couldn't the Ramseys find their daughter in their own house,
> or more exactly, why didn't they look? And when the police got the
> search going, it was John who found her.
Perhaps she should not had done so, but Mrs. Ramsey took the ransom
note at face value. In fact, she did not find JonBenet in her room when
she woke up in the morning. She then looked around the house for her,
it was then she found the note. The father found Jonbenet after the
police searched the house once. The police came upon the basement door
but for some reason did not enter. If they did, it would have been the
Boulder Police Department, not Mr. Ramsey who would have found
JonBenet. The police did not do a proper search. It was a former family
friend who asked John Ramsey to do a search of the house at the
prompting of a Boulder detective. If the detective did not suggest it
John Ramsey most likly would not had been the one to find her. If the
police did a proper sweep of the house the first time and found the
body, then they probably would had preserved more evidence than that
has been found. John found the body because of police ineptitude and,
ironically, at the suggestion of a detective, not because of prior
knowledge as you imply.
>
> If an unknown perp killed her,
> why did he risk waiting around long enough and skulking through the
> house to write the 'War and Peace' of ransom notes? What would the
perp
> have to gain from this considering that he left the body at the
house?
> OTOH, if one of the Ramseys was the perp, the ransom note would serve
a
> purpose--an attempt to take the investigation outside the house long
> enough for them to dispose of the body. If the perp was just some
> stranger, he was quite a good burglar with gonads of steel. In these
> times of paranoia, he walked into a wealthy neighborhood and broke
into
> a big house that one would not assume was an easy mark....
---
As I noted before, most of the handwriting experts eliminated any of
the Ramseys from writing the note. It is the fact that it is so long
that helps eliminate them. Any handwriting expert will tell you that
the longer you write while you are trying to disguise your handwriting,
the more you will unconsciously drop into your old habits and slip up
and reveal yourself. The long multipage note does not reveal this. It
is more likely that the perpetrator has a similar handwriting style to
Patsy.
As to the break in, even the BPD noted that there were several open
widows and at least one opened door, so there was no need to break in.
The point of entry to the house that there is evidence of a foreign
presence; that is the basement has signs of evidence of illicit entry.
The window could not be locked. JonBonet's room is one flight below
her parent's room and a few feet from a spiral staircase. The kitchen
is a few feet from the bottom of the stair case and in turn the
basement is a few feet from the kitchen. Assuming JonBonet was not
taken from the kitchen in the midst of a midnight snack of pineapple
she fixed for herself, it is a total of about 55 feet of carpeted
journey from the basement, through the kitchen up the stairs one flight
and into her room are just a few steps. It would not take "gonads of
steel" It happens quite frequently. If it is a big house and the
subject is familiar with it and the family's habits it would be
relatively easy.
>
> ..., kidnapped and murdered a child, felt free to stay a while and
write a long and
> useless ransom note, and then left, all without alerting neighbors,
dogs, neighborhood > watch, patrol cars, or the Ramseys of his
presence. Not impossible, of course, but quite
> a feat of daring do.
---
It happens all the time. It happened to "Amy" a few blocks away and
several months later. A man entered a house while the daughter and
mother was out. He stayed until they went to bed with out alerting
anyone until "Amy" put up a fuss after he entered her bedroom and woke
her mother. In 1998 a homeless schizophrenic man entered undetected the
small, modest home of 12 year old Stephanie Crowe and killed her after
a struggle and left undetected. This man also left the premises
undetected by the sleeping occupants and the neighbors. It was her 14
year old brother Michael Crowe who discovered the body. He was
subsequently falsely accused of killing her because the police could
not believe that someone could enter that small house (in comparison to
the Ramsey murder house) and kill a healthy 12 year old girl with out
waking her brother a few feet away in another room. He falsely
confessed to the murder. The real murderer, Richard Tuite, was
eventually found (he had the victim's DNA in the form of blood on his
shirt) and is on trial now.
The point is that if a big healthy 12 year old girl can be violently
murdered via stab wounds in a band box of a house with her brother and
parents on the same floor with the killer leaving undetected then it is
all too possible for a small 6 year old girl could be lured or forcibly
subdued (especially if he had a stun gun) in a mansion with the parents
a flight up and taken to the basement and the perpetrator do anything
he likes with the girl.
Read more about the Stephanie Crowe murder case here:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/reports/crowe/
>
> If the perp was a crazed pedophile with a thing for six year olds, he
> managed to sexually assault her without leaving definitive physical
> evidence.
---
Crazed does not mean stupid. The unibomber was insane but he had the
intelligence and organized though to build bombs that were
similtaneously primitive and oddly sophisticated. Also the perp did
leave physical evidence. His DNA under JonBenet's fingernails and mixed
with her blood in her panties and that DNA does not match any of the
Ramsey male relatives; an unexplained Hi-Tech boot impression that
doesn't match any of the Ramseys. A pubic hair that was found on
JonBenet did not matching any of the Ramseys. Also, there is evidence
of stun gun use on her body, which could had been used to control an
unwilling JonBenet. And there is an unidentified palm print on the wine
cellar door. Needless to say it doesn't belong to the Ramseys or any
of the 400 people who been through the house. The duct tape used to gag
JonBenet and the cord used to tie her hands were not found in the
Ramsey house (or anywhere else). As to her being sexually assault her,
I think the autopsy found no evidence of that. In otherwords, there is
no definitive physical evidence of her assault because likely she was
not. I think the sexual assault angle was another media hype. Here is
a link to a copy of the report it:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html
Also, with some killers, the act of killing IS the sexual pleasure.
JonBonet was beaten, her skull was fractured and strangled with a
fairly elaborate garrote. That perhaps shows experience.
>
> Then he just disappeared like Keyser Sose leaving everyone else to
> wonder what the hell just happened.
---
Again, see what happened to "Amy". The suspect in that case disappeared
after rushing by the mother. He has not been caught. Again see what
happened in the Stephanie Crowe murder case. A girl twice JonBenet's
age and more than twice her strength was stabbed to death violently in
a comparatively small house with all the residents on the same floor.
It happens.
>
> Fortunately, the list of possible suspects is not unlimited, yet not
> even the most tenuous connection can be found to anyone else.
-----
Actually the list is enormous and ponderous, a potential 400 people, if
not more. Short of launching a DNA dragnet-as they do in Great
Britain-it is easy for someone to go undetected:
***************
From
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/it_5.html?sect=21
The list of possible suspects in this case is enormous. Not only did
the Ramseys have hundreds of guests through their home at various
times, they also had a large number of trades people that worked on an
extensive remodeling project on the house. One theory suggested that
because the Ramseys had given out a number of house keys to friends,
one of them may be responsible. If that is true, why then would the
killer bother to enter via a basement window? (Assuming that is where
the entry was made)
One possibility is that the killer wanted to give that impression.
A basic method of homicide investigations is to draw up a list of
possible suspects and concentrate on eliminating them, either by
comparison with physical evidence or by checking their whereabouts at
the time of the offence. Using this method, the investigative body does
not become side-tracked by suspects who "seem" suitable at the time. By
using this process of elimination, the list of suspects is narrowed
considerably. The only draw back with this method is that in a case
like that of JonBenet Ramsey, the large number of suspects would take a
great deal of time to examine in the necessary detail, even with a
large task force.
****************
So from this it can be said that a killer can go unconnected to the
crime, especially if he is not listed in CODIS.
>
> I really don't buy it. More likely JonBenet was killed in a fit of
rage
> by one of the parents, and the two of them worked to cover it up,
> because by making it look like a sensational kidnapping and murder,
they
> could turn public scorn into sympathy. All the while avoiding
destroying
> what was left of their family by forcing spouse to testify against
> spouse in a ruinous and public prosecutory nightmare where both of
them
> would lose everything.
---
That is possible motive, but no evidence whatsoever to back it up.
Motive without facts to back it up is worthless. How do you know that
she was in a rage? You can try someone with no desernable motive but if
you have a theory supported by the facts of the case you can win. But
if you don't have any facts you have no case. You can always come up
with a plausible motive as you just did, but you need evidence to lend
it credence.
But what would be the cause of the rage? That would be a matter of pure
speculation, since despite early erroneous and ugly reports there is no
evidence of physical or sexual abuse in the family's history. By all
accounts it was a loving family. Yes, I know other "loving
families" have been exposed to be a sham, but that was after the
facts came out. After eight years, no verified "facts" have come to
light, and most of the ugly rumors have long since been disproved.
There are also no confirmed cases of bedwetting.
Besides there is physical evidence that the Ramseys cannot manufacture,
namely the foreign DNA mixed with her blood that matches what was under
her fingernails-which can suggest she struggled with her attacker.
Also, there is the foreign pubic hair and palm print,
And by the way, a spouse cannot be forced to testify against the other
spouse.
>
> It would instantly transform them from the
> wealthy elite to repulsive white trash. Not much of a choice is it? I
> find another chilling aspect of the Ramsey's behavior to be their
> callous disregard for the well-being of other less likely people of
> interest in the case. They freely pointed fingers hither and yon....
>
That was wrong to name people like that in their book. They should had
greater regard in that matter especially since as I believe they are
falsely accused, but still it is not evidence that they are the ones
who killed JonBenet. Their recklessness is not evidence.
>
> ......, and even if we suspend disbelief for a moment and assume one
of them is the
> killer, all the others were publicly branded for a horrific crime
they
> had nothing to do with. That is some damned meager empathy from a
couple
> who would have us believe that they have been wrongfully accused, and
> speaks volumes about the depth of their moral grounding.
-------
I would not say it speaks about the depth of their moral grounding as
much as it may reflect the pressure they have been under. They have not
only been accused falsely of killing their daughter, they have been
accused of sexually abusing her when there is no evidence whatsoever;
of John having an affair, again with no evidence to back up the charge;
John having porno and again no evidence supports this charge; and they
saw their young son accused in the press of killing his sister.
I know you believe that they killed their daughter, so it is perhaps
its an all "so what" to you. But I think I have outlined here why I
believe you are wrong. More importantly, while Patsy and/or John have
not been arrested and brought to trail in criminal court, it is note
worthy to point out that there case have met several test in courts of
law:
A grand jury failed to indict them; A lawsuit was dismissed against the
Ramseys by Chris Wolfe, who was named in their book because the Judge
said, (who agreed that Mr. Wolfe was defamed) that he since he argued
that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter as a defense, he would have to
effectively prove with the preponderance of the evidence that either or
both of the Ramsey parents killed JonBenet. In fact, the Judge found,
the vast preponderance of the evidence points to an intruder, and
virtually none in favor of Patsy Ramsey killing her, effectively
clearing the Ramseys. So ironically speaking by defaming Mr. Wolfe by
naming him as a suspect in their book and him bringing legal action
against the Ramseys as a result, it actually helped the Ramsey's case
in a backhanded way.
A couple of lawsuits launched by the Ramseys against a couple of media
outlets including the New York Post have been either won by them or
settled out of court in their favor, so in several courts of law, the
effective "verdict" is that they did not kill their child:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/update_14.html?sect=21
"In short, plaintiff's success in this litigation requires him to
prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that defendants killed their
child," the judge wrote. She said she dismissed the suit "because there
is virtually no evidence to support plaintiff's theory that they
murdered their child."
And now recent DNA test have linked the male DNA matter under
JonBenet's fingernails with the male DNA mixed in with her blood in
her panties, clearly pointing to an intruder and ruling out the male
members of the Ramsey household. With that the Boulder District
Attorney's Office has dropped the Ramseys as suspects in the killing
and is focusing on the evidence that clearly points to an intruder.
I think the Ramseys have been cleared for all intents and purposes of
the hell of suspicion of killing their daughter. I think those who
still think that either or both of the Ramseys killed their daughter
are very much misinformed about the case and are frozen in 1997.
It has been eight years now and the evidence of an outside killer and
the Ramsey's innocence has only built and gathered momentum while the
case against the Ramseys has withered and has effectively died. When a
DNA match is found to the evidence DNA gathered from JonBenet Ramsey,
that will kill it.
-->Hunter
Tommy Selcraig
> Someone familiar with the Ramsey house or made familiar with it. I
> would think that if someone wanted to create a phony ransom note that
> they would set the sum at a million dollars or something, not choose
> their own bonus figure. This bit of evidence can point either way. At
> any rate, some four out of five handwriting experts have ruled her out,
> and his bonus need not to have been a state secret. Who would care?
> Someone who would want to have it.
Knowledge of the house has nothing to do with knowledge of Mr. Ramsey's
bonus. In fact, wages and especially bonus wages are typically jealously
guarded secrets in the corporate world. Perhaps you have had a job at
some time in your life, perhaps not. Even if this was not the case with
Mr. Ramsey's bonus, it wasn't particularly large as far as executive
bonuses go, and therefore not particularly interesting or titillating to
anyone who makes above minimum wage. Why not a million? Well, because
that number serves no purpose, while the bonus figure does. It brings
suspicion upon anyone who might know it. I'm sure it sounded like a
stroke of brilliance to Patsy when she was writing the note, but
unfortunately the list of those in the know isn't particularly large and
is headed by the Ramseys themselves. A million would be a good starting
point for a ransom demand in light of the fact that the Ramseys
certainly had it or could get it. But the considering the body was left
at the house, I think we can rest assured that any potential criminal
would know that he wasn't going to get a brown cent. A burglar-rapist-
murderer would have no reason to write the note at all. He was certainly
quite good at what he did, either a seasoned criminal or a brilliant
beginner. He left a remarkably clue-free crime scene, so why volunteer
physical evidence? For an intruder, the note could only be explained as
a sick joke, and one which he took great risks to make. He wasn't after
money or valuables, because he killed the victim and didn't take
anything from the house. Again, the ransom not serves no purpose for
anyone but the Ramseys.
> Opportunity, and high profile people tend to attract all shorts of
> people. And yes, *close* to the family, a friend or a faceless
> aquintance, not *within* the family. Their have been cases in which
> personell who have worked in a domicile for various lengths of time,
> either long term or a day, have targeted a house for burglery or worst
> if only because they have gotten familiar with the place as oppose to
> other homes even if they are just as rich.
I'm afraid you've got the cart in front of the horse. Mr. Ramsey's high
profile is entirely related to the unexplained death of his daughter.
Prior to that, he was just an ordinary millionaire. Every city in
America, small or large, has an entire section of town devoted to the
Ramsey class. He wasn't anymore noteworthy than I am, if as much. If the
murder could have been pinned on an employee or domestic servant, it
would have been. Unlike the Elizabeth Smart case, there are some clues.
This wasn't just a handyman who worked at the house for a week. This
person knew things and had no need to steal any baubles that might be
laying around the house.
> Perhaps she should not had done so, but Mrs. Ramsey took the ransom
> note at face value. In fact, she did not find JonBenet in her room when
> she woke up in the morning. She then looked around the house for her,
> it was then she found the note. The father found Jonbenet after the
> police searched the house once. The police came upon the basement door
> but for some reason did not enter. If they did, it would have been the
> Boulder Police Department, not Mr. Ramsey who would have found
> JonBenet. The police did not do a proper search. It was a former family
> friend who asked John Ramsey to do a search of the house at the
> prompting of a Boulder detective. If the detective did not suggest it
> John Ramsey most likly would not had been the one to find her. If the
> police did a proper sweep of the house the first time and found the
> body, then they probably would had preserved more evidence than that
> has been found. John found the body because of police ineptitude and,
> ironically, at the suggestion of a detective, not because of prior
> knowledge as you imply.
The police weren't the only ones who were inept, if we are to believe
the Ramseys. I find it to be inconceivable that they didn't go through
the house. Weren't they the least bit curious about how this person got
in, if anything was missing, if somebody was still there, or if there
were some obvious clues left? No doubt the police were the ones taking
things at face value. They would have naturally assumed that the Ramseys
would have discovered anything as obvious as a body laying on the floor
in front of a basement window. I find the transformation of the case
description at the Crime Library site to be fascinating. It now sounds
quite literally like it was written by the Ramsey's lawyer. A previous
reading of the site closer to the time of the crime had John finding the
body quite rapidly after the search finally began and a comment that he
gave one of the female officers there one of those 'if looks could
kill' stares immediately after the body was found. I think the Ramseys
expected the body to be found in short order, but were pleasantly
surprised when it wasn't. Maybe the search began when the police finally
dredged it out of them that they had not in fact done any sort of
looking around.
> As I noted before, most of the handwriting experts eliminated any of
> the Ramseys from writing the note. It is the fact that it is so long
> that helps eliminate them. Any handwriting expert will tell you that
> the longer you write while you are trying to disguise your handwriting,
> the more you will unconsciously drop into your old habits and slip up
> and reveal yourself. The long multipage note does not reveal this. It
> is more likely that the perpetrator has a similar handwriting style to
> Patsy.
You just gave it away. Patsy was not eliminated as someone who might
have written the note. Moreover, the note was printed and not a good
subject for handwriting analysis, as anyone who has ever watched TV
knows. Aside from all that, handwriting analysis ranks somewhere between
lie detectors and psychic readings in quality of evidence. The length of
the note is extremely unusual, and in fact kidnappings and ransom notes
are almost entirely the stuff of fiction. This note was particularly
useless, because there wasn't anything to ransom. It serves no purpose
for anyone but the Ramseys. Without it, the house becomes a typical
murder scene and those in the house immediately become the prime
suspects. There is no other clear evidence of an intruder.
> As to the break in, even the BPD noted that there were several open
> widows and at least one opened door, so there was no need to break in.
> The point of entry to the house that there is evidence of a foreign
> presence; that is the basement has signs of evidence of illicit entry.
> The window could not be locked. JonBonet's room is one flight below
> her parent's room and a few feet from a spiral staircase. The kitchen
> is a few feet from the bottom of the stair case and in turn the
> basement is a few feet from the kitchen. Assuming JonBonet was not
> taken from the kitchen in the midst of a midnight snack of pineapple
> she fixed for herself, it is a total of about 55 feet of carpeted
> journey from the basement, through the kitchen up the stairs one flight
> and into her room are just a few steps. It would not take "gonads of
> steel" It happens quite frequently. If it is a big house and the
> subject is familiar with it and the family's habits it would be
> relatively easy.
That's a gross distortion of reality. I think we can rest assured that
there wasn't a single open window or door at the Ramsey house in Boulder
in the month of December. There may have some that were unlocked, but
unlocked and open aren't quite the same thing where I come from. And who
has control over what is locked and what isn't? That would be the
Ramseys, of course. That the police found some doors and windows
conveniently unlocked isn't particularly impressive. How would a burglar
know they were unlocked? Well, he would have to prowl around and try a
few, and, yes, gonads of steel would be required. Alarm systems, which
the Ramsey house had, but conveniently did not arm, do not rely on
locking mechanisms. Signs warning of the alarm's presence are
prominently displayed as the first line of defense. The estimated time
of death of 10:00 PM to midnight isn't at all conducive to an intruder
theory. It would be a poor choice of time since there would be
considerable traffic in the streets and many adults would still be
awake, especially during the holiday season. Where did you get the myth
that intruders frequently break into inhabited houses? It may happen
frequently on TV, but it is as rare as hen's teeth in the real world.
Only desperate criminals do that, which this person clearly was not. And
who has all this highly personal knowledge? I have two sisters and a
brother, and I don't know their houses as well as this supposed intruder
did, nor do I know to the dollar how much money they make. Yet this guy
knew exactly which window to go to, knew the alarm wouldn't be set, knew
JonBenet slept out of earshot of her parents, knew the parents were
asleep before midnight, he subdued, sexually assaulted and killed a
kicking and screaming small child without anyone hearing a thing and
without leaving physical evidence, was comfortable staying long enough
to sanitize the crime scene, and then wasted more time writing
preposterous ransom notes for a victim that he left at the house. The
broken basement window doesn't make sense. If the doors were unlocked,
why enter that way? Much more to the point, why leave that way? With no
alarms to worry about, leaving is the easiest thing in the world.
Walking in or out a door would be much preferred by any crafty burglar,
since it would look natural to anyone who might see.
Fortunately, it doesn't happen all the time, and I maintain a healthy
skepticism regarding them 'Amy' story. But even at face value, it is
hardly what anyone would call exculpatory evidence. Stephanie Crowe's
murderer did not come and go undetected. He was seen in the neighborhood
and that is how he became a person of interest. So neither of these
examples works very well for your assertion that the Ramsey's version of
events happens all the time. Still, I conceded it wasn't impossible for
someone to come and go without notice, it just was another of several
implausibilities in the Ramsey story. Other than the intruder angle,
that is where any similarities end. JonBenet's murder was not a random
act of violence. She knew her killer well, and six year olds don't have
an unlimited number of adult acquaintances. The care given to the body
was an act of a parent figure, not that of a mere pervert or
extortionist. Stephanie Crowe's family had no difficulty finding her
body and in no other case that I know of was such a fantastical ransom
note left.
> Crazed does not mean stupid. The unibomber was insane but he had the
> intelligence and organized though to build bombs that were
> similtaneously primitive and oddly sophisticated. Also the perp did
> leave physical evidence. His DNA under JonBenet's fingernails and mixed
> with her blood in her panties and that DNA does not match any of the
> Ramsey male relatives; an unexplained Hi-Tech boot impression that
> doesn't match any of the Ramseys. A pubic hair that was found on
> JonBenet did not matching any of the Ramseys. Also, there is evidence
> of stun gun use on her body, which could had been used to control an
> unwilling JonBenet. And there is an unidentified palm print on the wine
> cellar door. Needless to say it doesn't belong to the Ramseys or any
> of the 400 people who been through the house. The duct tape used to gag
> JonBenet and the cord used to tie her hands were not found in the
> Ramsey house (or anywhere else). As to her being sexually assault her,
> I think the autopsy found no evidence of that. In otherwords, there is
> no definitive physical evidence of her assault because likely she was
> not. I think the sexual assault angle was another media hype. Here is
> a link to a copy of the report it:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html
I've heard it all and remain unimpressed. If these were clues, there
should be some link to the rather small pool of potential suspects, but
there is none. The boot print and hand print were probably left over
from a contractor's visit. If the Ramseys are guilty, you don't think
they would say they knew where the prints came from, do you? The world
is lousy with DNA. They can hardly do an ancient mummy autopsy without
contaminating the DNA. The strength of DNA is the ability to link it to
a suspect. Which of the adult males that knew so much about the Ramseys
does the DNA match? I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer. I
agree there wasn't much of a sexual assault, but that just removes
another possible motive. We know money wasn't the motive, in spite of
the ransom note, because the body was left at the scene of the crime. If
it was just the joy of killing, why stop at JonBenet? It should have
been easy enough to get all of them.
> Actually the list is enormous and ponderous, a potential 400 people, if
> not more. Short of launching a DNA dragnet-as they do in Great
> Britain-it is easy for someone to go undetected:
No, it isn't. The killer left very good clues about his identity. It was
somebody who knew JonBenet and had intimate knowledge of the Ramsey's
lives, not just somebody who showed up at a party or fixed a furnace for
them. Read that wacky ransom note. It's very personal.
>
> ***************
>
> So from this it can be said that a killer can go unconnected to the
> crime, especially if he is not listed in CODIS.
F the Crime Library site. I already stated my opinions about it
> That is possible motive, but no evidence whatsoever to back it up.
> Motive without facts to back it up is worthless. How do you know that
> she was in a rage? You can try someone with no desernable motive but if
> you have a theory supported by the facts of the case you can win. But
> if you don't have any facts you have no case. You can always come up
> with a plausible motive as you just did, but you need evidence to lend
> it credence.
We have a dead child to back it up. Somebody killed her, and the most
likely suspects are the Ramseys. One of them as the killer fits all of
the available facts. It explains the pointless ransom note that
addresses John by first name from somebody who knew some very particular
things. It explains the lack of evidence of an intruder. It explains the
care given to the body to make it more presentable when it was found.
And it just fits with statistics. Parents kill their children far more
often than strangers do.
> But what would be the cause of the rage? That would be a matter of pure
> speculation, since despite early erroneous and ugly reports there is no
> evidence of physical or sexual abuse in the family's history. By all
> accounts it was a loving family. Yes, I know other "loving
> families" have been exposed to be a sham, but that was after the
> facts came out. After eight years, no verified "facts" have come to
> light, and most of the ugly rumors have long since been disproved.
> There are also no confirmed cases of bedwetting.
>
> Besides there is physical evidence that the Ramseys cannot manufacture,
> namely the foreign DNA mixed with her blood that matches what was under
> her fingernails-which can suggest she struggled with her attacker.
> Also, there is the foreign pubic hair and palm print,
>
> And by the way, a spouse cannot be forced to testify against the other
> spouse.
Only the killer knows what happened that night. It doesn't matter what
triggered the violence. What matters is that it happened. A spouse may
not be forced to testify against the other spouse, but if one of the
Ramseys was the killer, then the other spouse has a simple choice--
either to turn them in, or work with them to cover the thing up.
> That was wrong to name people like that in their book. They should had
> greater regard in that matter especially since as I believe they are
> falsely accused, but still it is not evidence that they are the ones
> who killed JonBenet. Their recklessness is not evidence.
I never said it was evidence, but they did testify against themselves as
character witnesses.
> I would not say it speaks about the depth of their moral grounding as
> much as it may reflect the pressure they have been under. They have not
> only been accused falsely of killing their daughter, they have been
> accused of sexually abusing her when there is no evidence whatsoever;
> of John having an affair, again with no evidence to back up the charge;
> John having porno and again no evidence supports this charge; and they
> saw their young son accused in the press of killing his sister.
They are cold, ruthless people. The people they tried to bring under
suspicion never did them any wrong, and that is where I get off the boat
as far as having any sympathy for the Ramseys.
There will be no DNA match. Bank on it. The fact that a grand jury
wouldn't indict them does not remove them as suspects. You have
laughable trust in the infallibility of the judicial system. Somebody as
obviously guilty as O.J. couldn't get convicted. Believe in BS if you
want. The Ramseys are getting better press and better case updates from
the police because they will never go to trial for the JonBenet's
murder. It is no longer newsworthy to publish evidence against them.
They got away with it, and now they are reaping the rewards of it.
Annie Billy
Ramsey said that Jon Benet enjoyed the pageants and regarded them like
being in a play, that it wasn't an everyday thing. Looking at it that
way, it's not as disturbing. If Jon Benet had been a regular
participant in a children's theater, I doubt that anyone would think
anything of it. Dressing up and playing a part isn't that disturbing. I
guess it's the "beauty" angle that makes it feel weird. Equating beauty
with sexuality.
Annie
Kathy
Outstanding response, and I agree with all of your points. This crime
makes no sense at all unless one of the Ramseys committed it. And one
of them most certainly did. Probably Patsy.
Kathy
Bo Raxo
"Annie Billy" <annie...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14782-41C...@storefull-3112.bay.webtv.net...
No, it's the makeup, the adult-type dresses, and the generally sexualized
vibe that those pictures of her dressed up for pageants gives off. Gave a
lot of people the creeps, me included.
EnEss
> I still say they did it..Or at least the mother did it. The world is a
> sick
> and twsited place and no matter how strange of a thing you can imagine
> people
> have actually done way stranger things..Perhaps the mother found Jon Benet
> with
> a family friend and chased him out then turned her anger on her
> daughter..Or
> the daughter had been set up with a male friend resisted the situation and
> the
> mother went off..I knwo you`re probably thinking I am sick for imagining
> these
> scenes but trust me this and 100 times worse things happen every day
I don't think you're "sick" but I do think your suggestions for how it might
have happened are absurd, to the point of being too ridiculous to take
seriously even for a second. The kind of thing you're talking about happens
in soap operas, not in real life.
I find it amusing to hear people diss the idea of an intruder taking time to
write the ransom note found in the Ramsey home while offering as counter
theories scenarios as outlandish as so many I've heard, similar to those you
proffer here.
EnEss
> Knowledge of the house has nothing to do with knowledge of Mr. Ramsey's
> bonus. In fact, wages and especially bonus wages are typically jealously
> guarded secrets in the corporate world.
I agree the ransom demand amount is extremely peculiar and does not seem
like an amount that a kidnapper would come up with. But for the same reason,
it doesn't seem like an amount a parent guilty of murder would pull out of
the air in a cover-up either. It may seem impossible to believe, but what if
the amount was significant to the kidnapper for reasons none but the guilty
party knows and was by total coincidence close to the amount of John
Ramsey's bonus. You may say it's impossible for such a coincidence to occur,
but bizarre coincidences do sometimes occur...sometimes even in a crime,
leading to tragic results for innocent people.
> that number serves no purpose, while the bonus figure does. It brings
> suspicion upon anyone who might know it. I'm sure it sounded like a
> stroke of brilliance to Patsy when she was writing the note, but
> unfortunately the list of those in the know isn't particularly large and
> is headed by the Ramseys themselves.
Which is one reason I think discounts the idea that Patsy Ramsey wrote the
note. Even in a panic, the parents would be certain to realize it would only
hurt their efforts to point guilt to someone else by narrowing it down that
far.
> A million would be a good starting
> point for a ransom demand in light of the fact that the Ramseys
> certainly had it or could get it.
A fact I'm sure the Ramseys would realize immediately and would be certain
to take into account if they were guilty and devising the note themselves as
a cover-up.
> But the considering the body was left
> at the house, I think we can rest assured that any potential criminal
> would know that he wasn't going to get a brown cent. A burglar-rapist-
> murderer would have no reason to write the note at all. He was certainly
> quite good at what he did, either a seasoned criminal or a brilliant
> beginner. He left a remarkably clue-free crime scene, so why volunteer
> physical evidence? For an intruder, the note could only be explained as
> a sick joke, and one which he took great risks to make. He wasn't after
> money or valuables, because he killed the victim and didn't take
> anything from the house. Again, the ransom note serves no purpose for
> anyone but the Ramseys.
But you're leaving out one scenario: the crime began as a real intent to
kidnap for ransom; the note was written before the Ramseys returned home and
the abductor/s waited until all were asleep before making a move. The child
was taken from her bed and brought downstairs, but something went wrong
along the way--something not revealed in any of the clues--and what began as
a true abduction for ransome devolved into a murder, and a particularly
brutal one for reasons known only to the killer/s. After the murder
occurred, the killer/s decided to flee the home and aborted the ransom
collect plan, but didn't bother to retrieve the note. If nothing else, it
might give them more time to get as far away as possible from Boulder before
the police began looking for them. Killer might have figured the police
would not uncover the body immediately and would focus on the ransom demand,
delaying a thorough search of the home.
> I'm afraid you've got the cart in front of the horse. Mr. Ramsey's high
> profile is entirely related to the unexplained death of his daughter.
> Prior to that, he was just an ordinary millionaire. Every city in
> America, small or large, has an entire section of town devoted to the
> Ramsey class. He wasn't anymore noteworthy than I am, if as much.
That's unimportant. He was still rich and had a beautiful little daughter
who had been in the public eye due to her beauty pageant hobby. Not every
rich person targeted in a kidnap for ransom scheme has been a Lindbergh or a
J. Paul Getty. If some unscrupulous person knows someone is rich, that's all
it takes to hatch an abduction for ransom plot. It's easy enough to research
what's needed to put together a note that sounds personal enough to be
intimidating.
> The police weren't the only ones who were inept, if we are to believe
> the Ramseys. I find it to be inconceivable that they didn't go through
> the house. Weren't they the least bit curious about how this person got
> in, if anything was missing, if somebody was still there, or if there
> were some obvious clues left?
From what I've read, they did look around the house in a very perfunctory
way before the police got there, but didn't have time to explore too much
before the police arrived. The police dept. was short-staffed due to the
holiday and didn't have enough personnel to dispatch to the scene. Therefore
not enough was done to secure the scene, or to investigate it. The police
were focused on the 10 am time for the promised call from the kidnappers and
set up the wire-tap, but there wasn't personnel to conduct a thorough
investigation of the entire home and surrounding property. At one point,
there was a single female detective on the scene w/ the Ramsys and some of
their friends there, w/ an escalating atmosphere of hysteria, particularly
after 10 am passed w/ no phone call. In an effort to distract John Ramsey,
the detective suggested Ramsey and a neighbor make a thorough sweep of the
house, looking for anything that might be of importance. This was totally
unprofessional. This is police work and should never be left to anyone else,
especially not a potential suspect (which all family are until ruled out).
It was at this point that Ramsey found the body in the basement and brought
it upstairs.
> No doubt the police were the ones taking
> things at face value. They would have naturally assumed that the Ramseys
> would have discovered anything as obvious as a body laying on the floor
> in front of a basement window.
That's not how it was. The body was in a small, separate room in the
basement, closed off and not by a window. The nieghbor of John Ramsey's who
accompanied him in the search around the house reported that they looked
around the basement a bit, Ramsey opened the door of the small room to look
inside and discovered the body at that time. The neighbor later decided it
was suspicious that John Ramsey discovered the body so quickly once he
opened the door slightly and went to it so quickly, but in recreated
enactments done by other investigators it was determined it would be
possible for someone standing where JR was when he opened to door to see a
body on the floor where JB's was, and that it would not be surprising he
concluded as quickly as he did that the child was dead.
> I find the transformation of the case
> description at the Crime Library site to be fascinating. It now sounds
> quite literally like it was written by the Ramsey's lawyer. A previous
> reading of the site closer to the time of the crime had John finding the
> body quite rapidly after the search finally began and a comment that he
> gave one of the female officers there one of those 'if looks could
> kill' stares immediately after the body was found.
Whatever that means.
> I think the Ramseys
> expected the body to be found in short order, but were pleasantly
> surprised when it wasn't. Maybe the search began when the police finally
> dredged it out of them that they had not in fact done any sort of
> looking around.
The searching business happened as I described it above. If the Ramsey's
expected the police to find the body quickly, why bother to hide it at all?
Why not leave it in the bed for them to say they discovered themselves as
soon as they woke? Why waste time creating a phoney ransom note? The only
explanation for a guilty party to hide the body in the basement AND leave a
ransom note would be if they hoped to have an opportunity later to get rid
of the body--which anyone w/ any measurable IQ would have to realize was
never going to happen once the police were called to the scene. If the
Ramseys wanted the body to stay hidden as long as possible, it doesn't make
sense JR decided to produce the body as quickly as he did once he was told
to make another search of the house. Why not put off "discovering" the body
as long as possible, waiting for the police to be the ones to find it?
If this is what they were hoping for originally when hiding the body in the
basement side room, it seems totally illogical that they would do anything
other than wait for the police to do the search and find the body as they
planned from the start. The fact that JR happened upon the body as soon as
he did in the first police-ordered search of the home suggests to me he
found the body by complete surprise.
> You just gave it away. Patsy was not eliminated as someone who might
> have written the note. Moreover, the note was printed and not a good
> subject for handwriting analysis, as anyone who has ever watched TV
> knows. Aside from all that, handwriting analysis ranks somewhere between
> lie detectors and psychic readings in quality of evidence.
So then why focus so much importance on it? As you say, it becomes moot
immediately once the body is found.
> The length of
> the note is extremely unusual, and in fact kidnappings and ransom notes
> are almost entirely the stuff of fiction.
Agreed the length of the note is quite unusual, but not true ransom notes
are almost entirely the stuff of fiction. There have been many ransom notes
left in kidnapping crimes. As to the unorthodox length, anything can happen
once out of thousands of crimes.
> This note was particularly
> useless, because there wasn't anything to ransom. It serves no purpose
> for anyone but the Ramseys. Without it, the house becomes a typical
> murder scene and those in the house immediately become the prime
> suspects. There is no other clear evidence of an intruder.
I disagree. If the Ramseys were intent on covering up a murder of their own
making, it would seem far more logical to me they would dispose of the body
outside somewhere. This idea that they left the body in the house where it
was warm because they couldn't bear to do something as cold as abandon their
dead child's body in the woods or something doesn't explain how the same
people could be capable of brutalizing the child's body the way it was. In
cases where parents murder children, they either hide the body where the
police will be unlikely to find it and report the child missing, or they
dump it in the woods and stage a pedophile murder. A guilty parent will not
write a fake ransom note AND hide the body in the basement where it will be
sure to be found in relatively short order AND brutalize the body in such an
insanely over-stated way AND call the police right away. This behavior is
simply inconsistent w/ what murdering parents have done in other
child-killing crimes.
As for evidence of an intruder, there was the broken window in the basement,
w/ the smudge mark on the wall just under the window where a shoe of someone
climbing in that way may have touched the wall.
> That's a gross distortion of reality. I think we can rest assured that
> there wasn't a single open window or door at the Ramsey house in Boulder
> in the month of December.
The police documented finding a broken window in the basement.
>There may have some that were unlocked, but
> unlocked and open aren't quite the same thing where I come from. And who
> has control over what is locked and what isn't? That would be the
> Ramseys, of course. That the police found some doors and windows
> conveniently unlocked isn't particularly impressive. How would a burglar
> know they were unlocked?
I didn't hear about any unlocked doors found when the police arrived. I did
hear the Ramseys had given out keys to several people and reported keeping
one under a rock of a row of rocks that lined the walkway which was never
found.
>Well, he would have to prowl around and try a
> few, and, yes, gonads of steel would be required.
In fact, there have been documented home invasions in which the culprit
tried different points of entry. It was determined later in the Jacquelyn
Dowaliby abduction and murder that the killer first busted a basement
window, which proved to small for entry, then went around trying doors to
find one left unlocked by coincidence. But because the police determined the
window was too small for an adult to enter and because so much glass was
found outside rather than on the floor beneath the window, they concluded
the parents had to have staged the broken window to make the intruder theory
work. They couldn't conceive an intruder would try multiple points of entry,
but in fact that's just what happened in that case. It's not at all uncommon
for an intruder to do so. But in the case of the Ramsey home, it's been
determined the basement window found broken would have been enough to admit
an intruder. So this person may never have tried other means of access.
>Alarm systems, which
> the Ramsey house had, but conveniently did not arm, do not rely on
> locking mechanisms. Signs warning of the alarm's presence are
> prominently displayed as the first line of defense.
It would be smart to post such signs, but many people w/ alarm systems don't
post signs for whatever reason. This hardly points to guilt on the part of
the homeowner. As to why the Ramseys didn't have the system operating the
night of the murder, my understanding is JR explained they were having some
trouble w/ the system and hadn't been using it regularly. Hindsight is
always 20/20. Ed Smart had his security system de-activated by oversight the
night Elizabeth was abducted. It happens.
> The estimated time
> of death of 10:00 PM to midnight isn't at all conducive to an intruder
> theory. It would be a poor choice of time since there would be
> considerable traffic in the streets and many adults would still be
> awake, especially during the holiday season.
Agreed, but these TOD estimates are hardly an exact science once several
hours have passed. It's just as possible TOD was closer to 1 or 2 am, which
seems a lot more plausible.
> Where did you get the myth
> that intruders frequently break into inhabited houses? It may happen
> frequently on TV, but it is as rare as hen's teeth in the real world.
It's extremely rare in the case of burglary (although not altogether unheard
of), but in the case of abduction from the home, by default it's the only
way it can happen.
> Only desperate criminals do that, which this person clearly was not.
That's not at all apparent from the evidence. If the intent was to kidnap
the child for ransom but something went wrong and the crime devolved into a
murder, the best opportunity to get the child would be to enter the home
when no one was there and wait for the family to go to bed, or break into
the home once they were all asleep and make the move.
> who has all this highly personal knowledge? I have two sisters and a
> brother, and I don't know their houses as well as this supposed intruder
> did, nor do I know to the dollar how much money they make. Yet this guy
> knew exactly which window to go to, knew the alarm wouldn't be set, knew
> JonBenet slept out of earshot of her parents,
Many of these details would be learned if an intruder broke into the home
while the occupants were out and the person had time to scope out the scene,
or someone who had been inside the home before long enough to look around.
> knew the parents were
> asleep before midnight,
Again, TOD could be wrong. And if the intruder was inside the home before
the Ramseys returned, he/they could've been prepared to wait as long as
necessary for everyone to turn in before striking.
> be subdued, sexually assaulted and killed a
> kicking and screaming small child without anyone hearing a thing and
> without leaving physical evidence, was comfortable staying long enough
> to sanitize the crime scene, and then wasted more time writing
> preposterous ransom notes for a victim that he left at the house.
1. It's not certain the child kicked and screamed. There is evidence a stun
gun may have been used. If so, the child could've been stunned unconscious
and removed easily from the room w/o anyone inside hearing a thing.
2. The assault very likely took place in the basement and the killer could
easily have felt confident this could be done with no one detecting a thing.
Bold, yes, but so was the Polly Klaas abduction. Among all the criminal
minds in the world, it does not surprise me that there could be one out
there that would follow such a bizarre path as the JB Ramsey murderer did.
3. There's no evidence much was required to "sanitize" the scene. It's not
implausible or even all that unlikely that an intruder killer would take
extreme care to leave no discernable clues of intrusion or his presence
there.
> The
> broken basement window doesn't make sense. If the doors were unlocked,
> why enter that way? Much more to the point, why leave that way? With no
> alarms to worry about, leaving is the easiest thing in the world.
> Walking in or out a door would be much preferred by any crafty burglar,
> since it would look natural to anyone who might see.
Why assume any door was used? Perhaps point of entry and exit was the
window. Or possibly point of entry was the basement window and exit was a
door. Many home intruders who break in through a window exit through a door.
This is what happened years ago when my home was burglarized. The burglar
gained entrance by breaking a window in the basement, jimmied open the
locked door in the kitchen to the basement steps, burglarized the home, then
fled through the kitchen door, which was left open. But in the case of
burglary, few burglars take pains to cover up much other than gloves for
fingerprints and entering and exiting w/o being detected. In a much more
complex scheme, it's plausible to me the culprit would go to much greater
lengths to prevent against leaving clues to link him/them specifically to
the crime scene.
> Fortunately, it doesn't happen all the time, and I maintain a healthy
> skepticism regarding them 'Amy' story. But even at face value, it is
> hardly what anyone would call exculpatory evidence. Stephanie Crowe's
> murderer did not come and go undetected. He was seen in the neighborhood
> and that is how he became a person of interest. So neither of these
> examples works very well for your assertion that the Ramsey's version of
> events happens all the time. Still, I conceded it wasn't impossible for
> someone to come and go without notice, it just was another of several
> implausibilities in the Ramsey story.
No argument that this murder is certainly out of the norm under any
circumstances. But in the scope of all the numerous murders and child
abductions that have occurred and do occur, it's not impossible that there'd
be one that would stand out as bizarrely, almost unbelievably, different and
extraordinary. I think that could be what happened here.
> Other than the intruder angle,
> that is where any similarities end. JonBenet's murder was not a random
> act of violence. She knew her killer well, and six year olds don't have
> an unlimited number of adult acquaintances.
There's no evidence she knew her killer at all. If a stun gun was used on
her, that would account for how she could be removed to the basement w/o
anyone sleeping in the home hearing and waking up. You don't have to believe
she was lured out of her bedroom. The pineapple evidence has never carried
weight with me. I know someone who ate pineapple once, had a stomachache and
upset for 4 days, then puked and saw what looked like undigested pineapple
in the vomit and felt fine after that.
I've read theories of some that Patsy came downstairs to find JonBenet
eating cut up pineapple out of a dish on the table and went bezerk and
clocked the child over the head w/ a heavy object, leading to the cover-up
scheme. First of all, neither of the Ramseys have anything in their
background consistent w/ a ridiculous overreaction to a kid snacking on
pineapple when she was supposed to be in bed. A person would have to be a
crazy, violent rage-a-holic to flip out over this to such an extreme extent.
The most I could see a parent doing would be to scold the child a little and
snatch the snack away, maybe swat her lightly on the butt. No one but an
extremely violent child abuser would bash a child's head in w/ a heavy
object over eating a snack she wasn't supposed to have.
Secondly, I can't think of anyone other than the worst slob who would leave
sliced up pineapple sitting out in a dish for any length of time. The Ramsey
home was extermely clean and no one who knew them reported them being
accustomed to leaving food sitting out. You might leave a whole pineapple
sitting out on a counter or in a fruit bowl (we had one uncut out on a fruit
platter w/ unpeeled bananas the other day ourselves, and we cut it up the
other night and had it for dessert), but when you're ready to eat it, you
cut it up, serve it in dishes and wrap up and refrigerate what's left
uneaten. And I highly doubt a 6-year-old child gets up in the middle of the
night, slips down into the kitchen and gets out a big knife to cut up her
own pineapple to eat.
> The care given to the body
> was an act of a parent figure, not that of a mere pervert or
> extortionist.
I don't see all that much "care" given to the body. The girl was brutally
ravaged. Not only was her skull bashed in, but she was garrated to the point
the rope squeezed in her neck, almost crushing her windpipe and her vagina
was poked at with possibly a stick. Furthermore, there have been bizarre
cases in which a stranger killer did take extreme care with victim's body
after the murder. There was a famous case back in the 60s in either
Wisconsin or Michigan, I believe, where children were abducted and their
bodies found later in remote locations, but the condition of the body was
unusual. The bodies were cleaned meticulously and neatly dressed and neatly
positioned in an almost respectful manner. Often, flowers were scattered
around them. In autopsy, a peculiar thing was found--the contents of the
stomach produced evidence of food that was linked to a favorite of the
victim. Yet there was evidence the child was molested nad usually tortured.
But it seems the killer, who kept the child more than a day, treated the
child to a favorite food the child requested and took pains to clean the
body festidiously, re-dress the body and leave it posed in a respectful
manner.
In this great big world of ours, there is probably a weirdo w/ every fetish
imaginable that occasionally one would come across a really bizarre and
out-of-ordinary murder scene.
>Stephanie Crowe's family had no difficulty finding her
> body and in no other case that I know of was such a fantastical ransom
> note left.
The ransom note IS weird, I agree, but see above.
> I've heard it all and remain unimpressed. If these were clues, there
> should be some link to the rather small pool of potential suspects, but
> there is none. The boot print and hand print were probably left over
> from a contractor's visit.
You don't know that. It's just as likely it was left by someone on the scene
the night the child was murdered.
> If the Ramseys are guilty, you don't think
> they would say they knew where the prints came from, do you? The world
> is lousy with DNA. They can hardly do an ancient mummy autopsy without
> contaminating the DNA. The strength of DNA is the ability to link it to
> a suspect. Which of the adult males that knew so much about the Ramseys
> does the DNA match? I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer. I
> agree there wasn't much of a sexual assault, but that just removes
> another possible motive.
Some pedophiles are unable to function sexually and use a manual method
instead. Or possibly the abductor himself was attempting to stage a
molestation scenario to throw investigators off the track.
There's no real evidence the killer had to be someone JB knew. You keep
focusing on this.
>We know money wasn't the motive, in spite of
> the ransom note, because the body was left at the scene of the crime. If
> it was just the joy of killing, why stop at JonBenet? It should have
> been easy enough to get all of them.
Again, it could've started as a real plan to abduct for ransom, but went
astray and the plan was abandoned w/ the body at the scene.
> No, it isn't. The killer left very good clues about his identity. It was
> somebody who knew JonBenet
Absolutely no proof of this.
>and had intimate knowledge of the Ramsey's
> lives, not just somebody who showed up at a party or fixed a furnace for
> them. Read that wacky ransom note. It's very personal.
It's not at all difficult to find out a lot about people, particularly those
who become prominent in some way, for owning a profitable company, for
instance, or having kids who participate regularly in public events like
beauty pageants and who win and draw attention.
In fact, the "wacky ransom note" in itself points to someone w/ extreme rage
and hatred, not a parent in a panic trying to create text that would point
away from her or him self. This was a very, very angry letter. I can't
believe that a parent who had just killed her/his child accidentally could
sit down and write out a letter of that nature as a cover up. I would expect
the letter to communicate fear and panic, maybe w/ sloppy errors. Not the
cold, scarey level of hate and rage that seeps from the words of that note.
This is the tone and text of someone with a truly sick mind. Psychological
profiles completed on the Ramseys hint at nothing of this nature in either
of their personalities, and it's not consistent w/ anything described by
anyone who knows them at all well.
There is simply too much in this case that makes it utterly illogical to pin
the blame on either of the Ramsey parents...IMO.
Sara TG in Md
life.<<<
You have GOT to be kidding?..What do you live in a cave?..Those things happen
daily somewhere..I was in the adult film business for 5 years back in the early
80`s and I can tell you that I dealt with films and people in the underground
that would make you think that the things I named above were almost normal
"You start a conversation you can't even finish it.
You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything.
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Say nothing once, why say it again?"
EnEss
NS wrote:
>>>>>The kind of thing you're talking about happens in soap operas, not in
>>>>>real
> life.<<<
> You have GOT to be kidding?..
No I wasn't.
>What do you live in a cave?..
No, not last I checked. But perhaps you were brought up in a barn if the
best manners you can manage is to insult someone just for disagreeing with
you. Does it really make you that angry for someone to disagree with you?
>Those things happen
> daily somewhere..I was in the adult film business for 5 years back in the
> early
> 80`s
Not something I would brag about on the internet if I had the same history.
> and I can tell you that I dealt with films and people in the underground
> that would make you think that the things I named above were almost normal
Well, they're not. And they're not terribly common, although I have no doubt
there are all kinds of people in the world...including people who prostitute
their children, sell them into pornographic trade, etc. But these are
extremely warped and dangerous people. The Ramseys have no history of any
sort of involvement in the kind of world to which you refer, or such
activity. Few people in America today have been investigated as exhaustively
as the Ramseys have, and I'm quite certain if they had any link, even
peripherally, to anything like this, it would've been uncovered. Putting
your child into kiddie beauty pageants and even having it be terribly
important to you is a far cry from being someone who would set up her
6-yr-old w/ a male "client" and then murder her for refusing to go along w/
it, or the other scenarios you suggested.
The Ramseys were, essentially, run-of-the-mill, upper-middle-class
suburbanites, leading a relatively ordinary if privileged life, raising
their kids in an ordinary way for the most part. The beauty pageant thing
was a little kooky, IMO, but there are tens of thousands of parents who care
about this kind of thing and get very caught up in it w/ their kids. It's
not my cup of tea, but I'm sure there are plenty of things important to me
that wouldn't appeal to tons of people. Obsessing about kiddie beauty
pageants hardly equates trafficking in child porn, prostitution or the adult
porn industry.
Sara TG in Md
best manners you can manage is to insult someone just for disagreeing with you.
Does it really make you that angry for someone to disagree with you?<<<
LOL..Angry?..How did you come up with that?..Maybe your sarcasm detector
needs a new battery. I actually found it funny you had said that. Reminds me of
the Senator at the Clarence Thomas hearings who upon hearing Ms Hill say he had
put a pubic hair on a soda can remarked "I`m sure there are people that sick
and twisted in the world but they are probably all in mental
hospitals!"..Huh?..Now that guy is totally out of touch with reality..And he`s
a Senator???
As far as the Ramseys..It is exactly the well-to-do outwardly straight-laced
child beauty pageant types who ARE involved in the world I mentioned..Not to
suggest the majority or even most of the people who do this are in it for that
reason but that is the place that someone with that interest goes for obvious
reasons
Hunter
sp...@spam.net says...Tommy Selcraig wrote:
> Hunter says...
>
> > Someone familiar with the Ramsey house or made familiar with it. I
> > would think that if someone wanted to create a phony ransom note that
> > they would set the sum at a million dollars or something, not choose
> > their own bonus figure. This bit of evidence can point either way. At
> > any rate, some four out of five handwriting experts have ruled her out,
> > and his bonus need not to have been a state secret. Who would care?
> > Someone who would want to have it.
>
> Knowledge of the house has nothing to do with knowledge of Mr. Ramsey's
> bonus. In fact, wages and especially bonus wages are typically jealously
> guarded secrets in the corporate world. Perhaps you have had a job at
> some time in your life, perhaps not. Even if this was not the case with
> Mr. Ramsey's bonus, it wasn't particularly large as far as executive
> bonuses go, and therefore not particularly interesting or titillating to
> anyone who makes above minimum wage.
------
It is possible the intruder does make only minimum wage, assuming he has
a legitimate job. $118,000 may not seem like much to you and me,
especially when a child=3Fs life is involved but to someone living on the
margins of society or in a low wage job, that is more than 10% of a
million dollars.
>
> Why not a million? Well, because that number serves no purpose, while the bonus
> figure does. It brings suspicion upon anyone who might know it. I'm sure it
> sounded like a stroke of brilliance to Patsy when she was writing the note, but
> unfortunately the list of those in the know isn't particularly large and
> is headed by the Ramseys themselves.
----
People are often careless about their financial affairs in regards to
security. The Ramsey could have thrown out financial statements
unshreaded in the trash. You are assuming the Ramseys have been as
secretive as you would be
>
> A million would be a good starting
> point for a ransom demand in light of the fact that the Ramseys
> certainly had it or could get it. But the considering the body was left
> at the house, I think we can rest assured that any potential criminal
> would know that he wasn't going to get a brown cent. A burglar-rapist-
> murderer would have no reason to write the note at all. He was certainly
> quite good at what he did, either a seasoned criminal or a brilliant
> beginner. He left a remarkably clue-free crime scene, so why volunteer
> physical evidence? For an intruder, the note could only be explained as
> a sick joke, and one which he took great risks to make. He wasn't after
> money or valuables, because he killed the victim and didn't take
> anything from the house. Again, the ransom not serves no purpose for
> anyone but the Ramseys.
----
I fully admit the ransom note is the most puzzling aspect of this case,
but at most it is circumstantial. Just because we can=3Ft figure out why
the person wrote it, does not mean that one of the Ramseys wrote it. Yes,
it seems to only serve the Ramseys, but again, that is circumstantial
evidence at best. As to were the body was found perhaps the kidnapper had
intended to kill JonBenet in the house and carry her off and dump the
body somewhere secure and pretend the child was still alive for ransom
purposes, Better to control a dead one that a live squalling one. It is
speculation I know, but it is possible. The Lindbergh baby was killed
soon after he was kidnapped, so maybe that could be a viable scenario.
The answer is going to have to come from the perpetrator, and I believe
it was NOT Patsy or any of the other Ramseys. The DNA trumps the ransom
note.
>
> > Opportunity, and high profile people tend to attract all shorts of
> > people. And yes, *close* to the family, a friend or a faceless
> > aquintance, not *within* the family. Their have been cases in which
> > personell who have worked in a domicile for various lengths of time,
> > either long term or a day, have targeted a house for burglery or worst
> > if only because they have gotten familiar with the place as oppose to
> > other homes even if they are just as rich.
>
> I'm afraid you've got the cart in front of the horse. Mr. Ramsey's high
> profile is entirely related to the unexplained death of his daughter.
> Prior to that, he was just an ordinary millionaire. Every city in
> America, small or large, has an entire section of town devoted to the
> Ramsey class. He wasn't anymore noteworthy than I am, if as much.
-----
I meant high profile within his community. I had never heard of the
Ramseys prior to December 27th 1996 myself. Both he and Patsy were active
in community events in addition to the pageant circuit. So they were well
known in Boulder. How big is the city you live in and how active are you
in community affairs?
>
> If the murder could have been pinned on an employee or domestic servant, it
> would have been. Unlike the Elizabeth Smart case, there are some clues.
> This wasn't just a handyman who worked at the house for a week. This
> person knew things and had no need to steal any baubles that might be
> laying around the house.
----
On this you and I agree. But as I maintain, that familiar person is not a
Ramsey. Of course, with stereotypical kidnappings, how many of them do
steal things as well as the target of the kidnapping? If kidnappers
generally don=3Ft steal from the target=3Fs home, if the target is kidnapped
from his/her home, then the lack of theft of personal items is a normal
occurrence. I think a lot of home invaders who violate the homes of their
victims do not take valuables. Perhaps a trophy of their conquest but
usually nothing more.
-----
It was written by Patrick Bellamy a former Australian police CSI. Here is
his bio:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/about/authors/bellamy/
Are you saying he is part of a whitewash of some sort? Why would it be in
his interest in how the case would turn out. If anything it would be more
financially rewarding to print an anti-Ramsey article.Which would be more
profitable: A story about a mother who killed her kid either accidentally
or some stranger doing it? I would guess the former since it violates
human expectation while the latter is more mundane.
>
> A previous reading of the site closer to the time of the crime had John finding
> the body quite rapidly after the search finally began and a comment that he
> gave one of the female officers there one of those 'if looks could
> kill' stares immediately after the body was found. I think the Ramseys
> expected the body to be found in short order, but were pleasantly
> surprised when it wasn't. Maybe the search began when the police finally
> dredged it out of them that they had not in fact done any sort of
> looking around.
----
There were reports of many things that weren=3Ft true closer to the time of
the killing. Maybe the =3Fif looks could kill stare=3F was about as true as
the foot prints in the snow or Mr. Ramsey went to porno houses canards.
The site probably changed it tone as the true facts came out and they
have since changed their position since. As stated John Ramsey started
his search at the prompting of a detective. There is no indication that
the detectives =3Fdredged it out of them=3F anywhere. It is speculation.
Perhaps, and this is my speculation, that the Ramseys checked everywhere
that was obvious. Like the actual living quarters rooms like the rooms of
her sibling, up stairs, down stairs The basement isn=3Ft so obvious. As to
the first police search, they are supposed to be the professionals in
searching and they should had let a door go unchecked. Also, I would
think that John would had let the cops find the body, more plausible
deniability. He couldn=3Ft had found it to destroy evidence since he had
all night to do it if he did it.
>
> > As I noted before, most of the handwriting experts eliminated any of
> > the Ramseys from writing the note. It is the fact that it is so long
> > that helps eliminate them. Any handwriting expert will tell you that
> > the longer you write while you are trying to disguise your handwriting,
> > the more you will unconsciously drop into your old habits and slip up
> > and reveal yourself. The long multipage note does not reveal this. It
> > is more likely that the perpetrator has a similar handwriting style to
> > Patsy.
>
> You just gave it away. Patsy was not eliminated as someone who might
> have written the note. Moreover, the note was printed and not a good
> subject for handwriting analysis, as anyone who has ever watched TV
> knows.
------
Sure, almost everyone knows that. That is near universal knowledge.
Perhaps Patsy knew that, along with millions of other people, including
any potential home invaders.
>
> Aside from all that, handwriting analysis ranks somewhere between
> lie detectors and psychic readings in quality of evidence.
----
That is very ironic you should say that since I hate polygraphs. There
are horror stories galore about how perfectly innocent people wrongly
implicated by them while guilty people get off scott free because of
them. The 95% accuracy purported by the proponents of this voodoo
machines is laughable. At most it is 70%, most likely it is 60%, if that.
As to psychic readings, let just say I refuse, absolutely refuse to look
at =3FPhysic Detectives=3F on Court TV. =3FNuff said. So on those two issues at
least we are in agreement. I deliberately left out the Ramsey polygraph
results since pass or fail it doesn=3Ft matter to me either way.
Now on to handwriting analysis. I believe in it. It is not as probative
as fingerprints or DNA but I trust it more than eyewitness testimony or
even bite mark analysis. I buy into the fact that we cannot cover up our
handwriting over a long period of time. Polygraph responses can be caused
by any numerous things, but even under stress, we have habits while
writing. Even when we try to disguise our writing, our habits slip
through, including the many we are not aware off. Mrs. Ramsey gave
multiple samples under supervision. The police have her historical
samples from before the murder. Despite all that, they cannot definitely
say she wrote it. As I pointed out before four out of five said she did
not write the note. I just found a site that states how many handwriting
analyzers examined the note: Six of them. Four hired by the police, two
hired by the Ramseys. None of them implicated Patsy Ramsey. Indeed, along
with Patsy Ramsey other people have not been conclusively eliminated as
the author of the note. On a scale of one to five with five being
definite elimination the six handwriting experts concluded that Patsy was
a 4.0 to 4.5. Two more were hired by the plaintiff in the defamation
lawsuit against the Ramseys. Both said they were 100% sure that Patsy
Ramsey wrote the note. But they did not examine the actual note but only
copies and they are not sure what generation were the copies. The site
is here and it is not run by Crime Library:
http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=26
> The length of the note is extremely unusual, and in fact kidnappings and ransom
> notes are almost entirely the stuff of fiction.
----
Are you saying kidnappings and ransom notes together are the stuff of
fiction or just ransom notes along with kidnappings?
>
> This note was particularly
> useless, because there wasn't anything to ransom. It serves no purpose
> for anyone but the Ramseys. Without it, the house becomes a typical
> murder scene and those in the house immediately become the prime
> suspects. There is no other clear evidence of an intruder.
----
I grant you that the reason for the note is puzzling, but I point out
again it doesn=3Ft clearly implicate Patsy Ramsey. As to there is no other
clear evidence of an intruder, you must ignore things like the unknown
Hi-Tech sole imprint, the biological evidence found i.e. the male DNA in
her panties and under her fingernails that match each other; the hair
follicle that does not match any of the Ramseys.
>
> > As to the break in, even the BPD noted that there were several open
> > widows and at least one opened door, so there was no need to break in.
> > The point of entry to the house that there is evidence of a foreign
> > presence; that is the basement has signs of evidence of illicit entry.
> > The window could not be locked. JonBonet's room is one flight below
> > her parent's room and a few feet from a spiral staircase. The kitchen
> > is a few feet from the bottom of the stair case and in turn the
> > basement is a few feet from the kitchen. Assuming JonBonet was not
> > taken from the kitchen in the midst of a midnight snack of pineapple
> > she fixed for herself, it is a total of about 55 feet of carpeted
> > journey from the basement, through the kitchen up the stairs one flight
> > and into her room are just a few steps. It would not take "gonads of
> > steel" It happens quite frequently. If it is a big house and the
> > subject is familiar with it and the family's habits it would be
> > relatively easy.
>
> That's a gross distortion of reality. I think we can rest assured that
> there wasn't a single open window or door at the Ramsey house in Boulder
> in the month of December. There may have some that were unlocked, but
> unlocked and open aren't quite the same thing where I come from.
-----
Actually I meant unlocked when I said open, as many people mean when they
say they left the door open when they meant unlocked as in when they
sometimes call out =3Fit=3Fs open!=3F when a person knocks on an unbeknownst to
him unlocked door. It was imprecise I should had been more so.
----
> And who has control over what is locked and what isn't? That would be the
> Ramseys, of course. That the police found some doors and windows
> conveniently unlocked isn't particularly impressive.
---
This points to at most carelessness. Any evidence that says they were
previously and normally unlocked. And how does one know what is
=3Fconvenient=3F and what is not? That is once again circumstance and barely
evidence of any short. Has any testimony been unearthed that says the
Ramseys normally bolt down their doors and windows and this non locking
of doors and windows out of character? They reportedly gave out copies of
their house keys to a substantial number of people after all. That does
not seem very security minded does it? I can imagine someone like that
forgetting to lock their windows and doors and not arming the security
alarm.
>
> How would a burglar know they were unlocked? Well, he would have to prowl around
> and try a few, and, yes, gonads of steel would be required. Alarm systems, which
> the Ramsey house had, but conveniently did not arm, do not rely on
> locking mechanisms.
----
Again, this not point to any evidence against the Ramseys. Again, it is a
sign of carelessness. It has been noted that the Ramseys kept it off
because the kids kept tripping it, much like some people remove the
batteries from smoke alarms because they go off whenever they cook a few
strips of bacon, sometimes much to their regret later. Does that mean
that they therefore committed arson? A few times yes, but the great
majority of the time it is a tragic error. And yes, burglars do try door
knobs, especially if they knew that the occupants were out. And since it
was a cold December Colorado winter then he most probably wore gloves.
And again, people who had passed on house key copies to a horde of people
sound like security was not a priority.
>
> Signs warning of the alarm's presence are prominently displayed as the first
> line of defense.
---
Sure, and some people have them as a bluff, unlikely in this case given
the home of this type, but a burglar may have also counted on or even
knew that the Ramseys routinely did not arm the system if he had inside
info. Again it could had been a result of carelessness. Again, they
apparently gave out house keys to friends if reports are true.
>
> The estimated time of death of 10:00 PM to midnight isn't at all conducive to an
> intruder theory. It would be a poor choice of time since there would be
> considerable traffic in the streets and many adults would still be
> awake, especially during the holiday season. Where did you get the myth
> that intruders frequently break into inhabited houses?
> - It may happen frequently on TV, but it is as rare as hen's teeth in the real
> world.
------
I did not say frequently, I said it happened all the time, but I
acknowledge that I may have overstated it. On the other hand, it is not
as rare as =3Fhen=3Fs teeth=3F as you say. I used it as an example that if a
person is bold enough to enter a home with people undetected, murder
someone and leave undetected as happened in the Jennifer Crowe case, then
they could enter and lie in wait. Never the less it does happen but it is
not common. However, a lot of high profile cases have been featuring that
scenario, most notable Poly Klass. Not only was the house occupied, but
the kids were awake IIRC. Rare, but not unheard of. Certainly has to be
considered if you are going to say the parents killed the child.
>
> Only desperate criminals do that, which this person clearly was not. And
> who has all this highly personal knowledge? I have two sisters and a
> brother, and I don't know their houses as well as this supposed intruder
> did, nor do I know to the dollar how much money they make.
----
The intruder indicated he knew about the bonus, not the yearly income of
the family, and some criminals make it their business to know things
about you. As I said before, if people can steal your Identity, they can
get your financial statistics. People often carelessly throw away
receipts, credit cards, old tax returns et.al in the trash without
shredding or burning those sensitive documents. I am not saying it is for
certain that is what has happened in this case but only to say it is
possible and not as unlikely as it may seem. Criminals go through trash,
your sisters do not. And a criminal need not be =3Fdesperate=3F as my Polly
Klaas example or even your =3Fnormal=3F home invasion that is not all that
rare.
>
> Yet this guy knew exactly which window to go to, knew the alarm wouldn't be set,
> knew JonBenet slept out of earshot of her parents, knew the parents were
> asleep before midnight=3F=3F
-----
Someone close to the family-and when I mean close I do not mean intimate-
could had learn it from a careless comment or simply by casing the joint
from the inside if he had a previous legitimate reason to be there on
multiple occasions or by casing the home. We agree that the person had
intimate knowledge of the place, just that it was not family who did the
deed. Also, criminals often case houses, that is by no means rare.
>
> =3F=3F, he subdued, sexually assaulted and killed a kicking and screaming small
> child without anyone hearing a thing and without leaving physical evidence=3F=3F.
-----
Assuming he did not intercept her in the kitchen while she was fixing a
=3Fmidnight=3F snack-I don=3Ft mean it was literally midnight at the time-he
could have subdued her with the probable stun gun which electrode
markings were found on her body. A stun gun would immobilize her quickly
with only perhaps a small whelp from her. And as far as we know he could
had wore gloves. It was a cold night after all.
>
> =3F.., was comfortable staying long enough to sanitize the crime scene=3F..
----
Assuming he had to. Any evidence of clean up?
>
> =3F=3F, and then wasted more time writing preposterous ransom notes for a victim
> that he left at the house.
-----
Assuming he did not write it during the wait for the Ramseys to come
home.
>
> The broken basement window doesn't make sense. If the doors were unlocked,
> why enter that way? Much more to the point, why leave that way? With no
> alarms to worry about, leaving is the easiest thing in the world.
----
Perhaps he had prior knowledge and knew not to risk the doors. That
basement window was broken for months, and unguarded by a security alarm.
If we believe that someone familiar with the home did it as both of us
seem to believe (again, you believe that someone from within the family
did it while I believe it was someone from without) Perhaps they knew
about the broken basement window with the loose grating outside. That
without stretching plausibility, would be another explanation for the
lack of foreign prints on the door knobs along with the possibility of
gloves.
>
> Walking in or out a door would be much preferred by any crafty burglar,
> since it would look natural to anyone who might see.
--
No burglar wants to be seen under any circumstance I would wager. I would
hazard to guess that going out the way he got in would feel the safest
since he reasonably knows the conditions out there. Especially if she was
killed at say 11pm and there was still a lot of traffic in the streets as
you say. I do not know that as a fact. Where did you get that factoid
about the traffic at the Ramsey=3Fs block on the night December 25?
-----
As I stated above, I probably overstated the happens all the time
statement. And while it is not directly exculpatory in the JonBenet case
it is an example that it can be done and with a girl twice as big, and
strong and can be stabbed violently in a house much smaller than the
Ramsey=3Fs in which all the rooms where on the same floor in close
proximity to each other. And what do you find so skeptical about the
=3FAmy=3F story? The story is identical right up to the probable abduction
that was interrupted by the mother. Are you suggesting a conspiracy of
sorts? That the story is false or embellished?
>
> Still, I conceded it wasn't impossible for
> someone to come and go without notice, it just was another of several
> implausibilities in the Ramsey story. Other than the intruder angle,
> that is where any similarities end.
-----
True. As noted above, he was interrupted.
>
> JonBenet's murder was not a random act of violence.
---
In terms that we both believe that it was someone with knowledge of the
family, we agree. But the =3FAmy=3F story, which surface nine months after
the JonBenet kill is true, and I have no evidence or reason to believe it
wasn=3Ft, then it is evidence that an outside force was responsible for
JonBenet=3Fs death.
>
> She knew her killer well, and six year olds don't have an unlimited number of
> adult acquaintances.
-----
That is true, their world is limited, but JonBenet was not your typical
low profile six year old. Her parents had a lot of adult friends and
associates who could have met her. There were contractors and other
workers at the house she was familiar with. Those people could have
passed on information to others who do not have direct contact to the
Ramseys.
>
> The care given to the body was an act of a parent figure, not that of a mere
> pervert or extortionist.
----
A lot of serial killers do pose the body and express a twisted post-
mortem love toward the victim. Also, there have never been a case of a
parent killing their child with a garrote.
>
> Stephanie Crowe's family had no difficulty finding her body and in no other
> case that I know of was such a fantastical ransom note left.
----
Again, I used that example of how a killer can get into a house
undetected even if the occupants are at home, a harder and bolder effort
than entering a house you know is unoccupied and somewhat familiar with.
Then to kill her with a knife with her family a few steps away, not one
flight down in a closed basement with perhaps the aid of a stun gun. It
would be hard not to find her body since it was left on her bedroom
threshold, assuming she did not crawl there in a desperate last act to
get help from her family. Ironically, part of the reason Michael Crowe,
her brother was suspected and arrested is because he stated that he got
up for a midnight snack, went to the kitchen, came back and went back to
bed all without seeing his dead sister lying at the threshold of her
door, even though his room was directly across from hers, door facing
door. It demonstrates that weird and seemingly nonsensical things can
happen, and innocent people can be falsely accused as a result because it
seems unbelievable to outside observers. And no, there was no ransom note
because the guy who did it is schizophrenic. He was looking for a woman
and he thought Stephanie was that women in his delusion. JonBenet=3Fs
killer was not crazy in that he was delusional, but most likely like say
Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy. Not normal of course, but not crazy in the
way most people think of it.
>
> > Crazed does not mean stupid. The Unabomber was insane but he had the
> > intelligence and organized though to build bombs that were
> > simultaneously primitive and oddly sophisticated. Also the perp did
> > leave physical evidence. His DNA under JonBenet's fingernails and mixed
> > with her blood in her panties and that DNA does not match any of the
> > Ramsey male relatives; an unexplained Hi-Tech boot impression that
> > doesn't match any of the Ramseys. A pubic hair that was found on
> > JonBenet did not matching any of the Ramseys. Also, there is evidence
> > of stun gun use on her body, which could had been used to control an
> > unwilling JonBenet. And there is an unidentified palm print on the wine
> > cellar door. Needless to say it doesn't belong to the Ramseys or any
> > of the 400 people who been through the house. The duct tape used to gag
> > JonBenet and the cord used to tie her hands were not found in the
> > Ramsey house (or anywhere else). As to her being sexually assault her,
> > I think the autopsy found no evidence of that. In otherwords, there is
> > no definitive physical evidence of her assault because likely she was
> > not. I think the sexual assault angle was another media hype. Here is
> > a link to a copy of the report it:
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html
>
> I've heard it all and remain unimpressed. If these were clues, there
> should be some link to the rather small pool of potential suspects, but
> there is none. The boot print and hand print were probably left over
> from a contractor's visit.
I am speculating here but it is possible that they did get the prints
from all those who had a legit reason for being in the house for
elimination=3Fs sake and none matched. How long would a boot print stay
viable in an unprotected space? For that we have to know the activity of
the Ramsey basement and how long ago any workers were there, track them
down and get their boot prints. If the BPD didn=3Ft do that then shame on
them. BTW, I take back the assertion that the autopsy said it did not
find any evidence of sexual assault. There was vaginal bruising.
>
> If the Ramseys are guilty, you don't think
> they would say they knew where the prints came from, do you?
-----
Well, I believe the Ramseys are not guilty and don=3Ft know where the
prints came from, so why would they say anything? Why should they know?
>
> The world is lousy with DNA. They can hardly do an ancient mummy autopsy
> without contaminating the DNA.
----
The same male DNA that is intermixed with two blood spots on her panties
that match the scrapings under her fingernails (what I would like to know
was this =3FDNA=3F that was intermixed with JonBenet=3Fs blood his blood or
seamen?)? That indicates a struggle and a sexual assault. Suspects in
rape cases are routinely found guilty on the strength of that kind of
evidence. These are not casual places where they found the foreign DNA.
As to mummy autopsies I believe they get the DNA from the bone marrow, an
unlikely place for contamination.
>
> The strength of DNA is the ability to link it to a suspect. Which of the adult
> males that knew so much about the Ramseys does the DNA match?
-----
The number of males who knew so much about the Ramseys is unknown. What
you are thinking that the number of known male suspects who have
knowledge of the Ramseys is the same as ALL of the male population. So
far, there is no match with the KNOWN males who are known to have any
reason to know the Ramseys. As I said earlier, the perp could have gotten
his info from an informant. But the DNA is in The FBI=3Fs CODIS system
(Combined DNA Indexing System) now. It has not registered any hits yet,
but that is because the suspect is not in the system. Suspects have often
been known to be entered into the system on one suspicion of sexual
assault and their DNA hits a number of cold cases and it turns out the
guy was a serial rapist, so it is very possible that he is simply not in
the system yet. At any rate, considering the DNA is in such an intimate
place and it does not match any of the Ramsey males it is a giant boost
to the intruder theory.
>
> I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer. I
> agree there wasn't much of a sexual assault, but that just removes
> another possible motive.
------
Ironically, I just withdrew my belief that there was no sexual assault.
There was virginal bleeding and abrasion.
>
> We know money wasn't the motive, in spite of the ransom note, because the body
> was left at the scene of the crime. If it was just the joy of killing, why stop
> at JonBenet? It should have been easy enough to get all of them.
-----
That will have to wait until we catch him. In the Stephanie Crowe case,
the transient only killed her, and did not harm any of the others.
Perhaps he only has a thing for little girls, just like a lot of serial
killers will only kill women with a certain hair color and/or hair style
ala Ted Bundy or David Berkowitz.
>
> > Actually the list is enormous and ponderous, a potential 400 people, if
> > not more. Short of launching a DNA dragnet-as they do in Great
> > Britain-it is easy for someone to go undetected:
>
> No, it isn't. The killer left very good clues about his identity. It was
> somebody who knew JonBenet and had intimate knowledge of the Ramsey's
> lives, not just somebody who showed up at a party or fixed a furnace for
> them. Read that wacky ransom note. It's very personal.
----
Again, it at most someone has some knowledge of the Ramsey=3Fs lives, it
does not prove Patsy=3Fs guilt. It is at best circumstantial. And he could
had gotten the info second handed, or, if he cased the house first handed
without coming in direct contact with the Ramseys.
>
> >
> > ***************
> >
>
> > So from this it can be said that a killer can go unconnected to the
> > crime, especially if he is not listed in CODIS.
>
> F the Crime Library site. I already stated my opinions about it
----
And while you do not like the Crime Library site (it is the only site
that I have found that is up to date, that is includes the new DNA
findings) do you dispute the number of people who has traipsed through
that house?
>
> > That is possible motive, but no evidence whatsoever to back it up.
> > Motive without facts to back it up is worthless. How do you know that
> > she was in a rage? You can try someone with no desernable motive but if
> > you have a theory supported by the facts of the case you can win. But
> > if you don't have any facts you have no case. You can always come up
> > with a plausible motive as you just did, but you need evidence to lend
> > it credence.
>
> We have a dead child to back it up. Somebody killed her, and the most
> likely suspects are the Ramseys. One of them as the killer fits all of
> the available facts. It explains the pointless ransom note that
> addresses John by first name from somebody who knew some very particular
> things. It explains the lack of evidence of an intruder. It explains the
> care given to the body to make it more presentable when it was found.
> And it just fits with statistics. Parents kill their children far more
> often than strangers do.
While it is true that parents are the most responsible persons for the
killing of children statistically, you do not convict a person on
statistics. Many parents have been wrongly convicted in both the court of
law and public opinion because they =3Ffit=3F the assumptions. The Dowaliby
are a famous tragic example. Most people thought their story was a crock
as well.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/Dowali
by.htm
And none of the Ramseys fit all the available facts. It does not explain
the DNA. Child killers have been known to show affection to their victims
post-mortem. There is evidence of an intruder, Again the DNA and the hair
follicle and the palm print. The house was unsecured in various ways.
JonBenet could have been subdued with a stun gun that fits the two burn
marks on her body. A wide range of people knew the house. A legion of
people knew John Ramsey=3Fs first name. The only thing that could be
circumstantially linked to the Ramseys is the note and handwriting
experts are 80-20 against her writing it, including all the experts that
the BPD hired. This is at best a very weak circumstantial case against
the Ramseys.
>
> > But what would be the cause of the rage? That would be a matter of pure
> > speculation, since despite early erroneous and ugly reports there is no
> > evidence of physical or sexual abuse in the family's history. By all
> > accounts it was a loving family. Yes, I know other "loving
> > families" have been exposed to be a sham, but that was after the
> > facts came out. After eight years, no verified "facts" have come to
> > light, and most of the ugly rumors have long since been disproved.
> > There are also no confirmed cases of bedwetting.
> >
> > Besides there is physical evidence that the Ramseys cannot manufacture,
> > namely the foreign DNA mixed with her blood that matches what was under
> > her fingernails-which can suggest she struggled with her attacker.
> > Also, there is the foreign pubic hair and palm print,
> >
> > And by the way, a spouse cannot be forced to testify against the other
> > spouse.
>
> Only the killer knows what happened that night. It doesn't matter what
> triggered the violence.
----
Again you are assuming that there was violence to be triggered because
you have peg Patsy as the killer. That is an assumption based on no facts
and only the slight possibility that she wrote the note. Again, there is
no history of domestic violence of any kind in their family. There is no
evidence of Patsy flying off into any rages in public or private. She
wasn=3Ft even the Pageant mother she was initially portrayed as. That is
Patsy only started her daughter competing after JonBenet wanted to, and
even then only about 10 a year out of the 50 she could had been in. There
is absolutely no evidence that Patsy was a bad mother and John a bad
father or any of JonBenet=3Fs siblings, both full and half being
dysfunctional. If so, please produce it. It is true that most of the time
that a child is killed it was either or both of the parents, but usually
there is a long and detectible history of dysfunction in the family. The
times a perfectly normal family ups and all of a sudden kills its young
is rare. There are warning signs, if only if in hind sight. After eight
years of their lives exposed to the full glare of scrutiny, there is no
hind sight warning signs.
>
> What matters is that it happened. A spouse may not be forced to testify against
> the other spouse, but if one of the Ramseys was the killer, then the other
> spouse has a simple choice-- either to turn them in, or work with them to cover
> the thing up.
-----
What you say is plausible, but again, motive without facts to support it.
It has happened in the past to be sure, but there is no foundation in
this case.
>
> > That was wrong to name people like that in their book. They should had
> > greater regard in that matter especially since as I believe they are
> > falsely accused, but still it is not evidence that they are the ones
> > who killed JonBenet. Their recklessness is not evidence.
>
> I never said it was evidence, but they did testify against themselves as
> character witnesses.
----
It is a reason to chastise them, but not suspect them of murder. At most
it was reckless, not a reason, however small, to believe that they killed
their daughter.
>
> > I would not say it speaks about the depth of their moral grounding as
> > much as it may reflect the pressure they have been under. They have not
> > only been accused falsely of killing their daughter, they have been
> > accused of sexually abusing her when there is no evidence whatsoever;
> > of John having an affair, again with no evidence to back up the charge;
> > John having porno and again no evidence supports this charge; and they
> > saw their young son accused in the press of killing his sister.
>
> They are cold, ruthless people. The people they tried to bring under
> suspicion never did them any wrong, and that is where I get off the boat
> as far as having any sympathy for the Ramseys.
------
Again it was wrong, but it is not evidence of them killing JonBenet. It
was a reckless thing to do, but it is not evidence of culpability. And
regardless of whether the Ramseys are likable or not, you follow the
evidence regardless. Liability has nothing to do with justice. The most
charming likable people have done horrible things, while hated people
have been unjustly persecuted-and prosecuted.
-----
You have not been reading my post here or even the examples like the
Crowe case in this thread if you believe that. I have no trust in the
criminal justice system. In fact, one of the reasons I am defending the
Ramseys so hard is because I saw the unfairness to them, especially after
evidence=3F after evidence against the Ramseys proved to be false and most
of it deliberately leaked by the Boulder Police Department, beginning
with the lack of footprints in the snow canard and John being seen at a
Porno shop and Patsy being a stage mother. Did you read my thread
elsewhere in this group entitled =3FTake a look at this travesty=3F.=3F ? I
have frequently posted links like this one: www.truthinjustice.org I
have read about horror stories in the criminal justice system and I find
the JonBenet Ramsey case to be one of them.
>
> Somebody as obviously guilty as O.J. couldn't get convicted.
-----
Maybe this is a key to our differences. You are looking at the criminal
justice system from the aspect of how many guilty people get away; I am
looking from the POV of how many innocent people are caught up in it.
>
> Believe in BS if you want. The Ramseys are getting better press and
> better case updates from the police because they will never go to trial for the
> JonBenet's murder. It is no longer newsworthy to publish evidence against them.
> They got away with it, and now they are reaping the rewards of it.
----
Do you think the DNA is BS? I don=3Ft see how you can discount DNA evidence
if you do not have an explanation as to how it got there. To me that is
far more probative than a ransom note that Patsy MIGHT had written and
could have been written and detailed by anybody with inside knowledge and
knowing how people can get careless with financial aspects of their lives
that circle could be very large indeed.
And what rewards? Winning or settling the lawsuits? That only proves that
there is a dearth of evidence against them, since the truth is the best
defense against a slander/libel charge. If the various media outlets
could back up what they said they would had. Now you have entered the
conspiracy zone. Are you saying there is a cabal of people who are
deliberately withholding evidence that would convict the Ramseys? That
the press knows of this evidence and is keeping it under raps? I find
that incredible. Do you know how many =3FI told you so=3Fs=3F that will be said
if the police had ANY hard evidence against the Ramseys? Do you realize
the media frenzy that would occur if the Ramseys are arrested? How much
time Court TV would shell out to for a Ramsey spectacular? It would be
the biggest thing since the OJ trail. It would make the Scott Peterson
circus look like a parking ticket hearing. Ironically, the site you
disparage is run by Court TV who would benefit from a Ramsey trial,
especially if the trail judge allowed cameras. There would be wall to
wall coverage, again something not seen since the O.J. case 10 years ago.
It would be in their interest to bias the coverage against the Ramseys.
Which is a =3Fsexier=3F story: A seemingly normal mother killing her kid and
her husband covering it up or some molester breaking in and killing?
I too believe O.J. is guilty. Again ironically because Ron Goldman=3Fs,
Nicole Simpson=3Fs and O.J.=3Fs blood were mixed together in some samples
taken from Simpson=3Fs car.
Ironically from the site you don=3Ft like:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/index_1.html
?sect=7
It takes a definite OJ is guilty stance.
It=3Fs just like the way the unknown male DNA is mixed with JonBenet=3Fs
blood.
Are you are willing to equate the Boulder Grand Jury with the Simpson
trial jury? The Boulder Grand Jury took a year. The prosecution had a
year to prove that there was a case against the Ramseys worth pursuing.
They couldn=3Ft, despite the old saw that the prosecution could indict a
ham sandwich if it wanted to. Was the GJ in someone=3Fs pocket? Then in a
libel case brought AGAINST the Ramseys a judge dismissed the case because
there is simply no credible evidence that the Ramseys killed their kid.
Was the judge in someone=3Fs pocket?
I am sorry, but what you got is a very flimsy circumstantial case at best
and you are starting to drift into the conspiracy zone. First the Crime
Library site, the Grand Jury, the Judge, someone in the PD is withholding
Ramsey incriminating evidence, and now the media. If they get a DNA match
on the killer and it is not any of the Ramseys you would probably think
that was some sort of cover up as well.
You said near the top of this post that the Ramseys were ordinary
millionares. If they were so ordinary, how did they get so much power to
bend everybody to their will as you see to be concluding?
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
EnEss
> The main commonality between the cases was 'lying in wait' for the victim
> and her mother to return home, and again 'waiting until both had been in
> bed
> for some time before going into the girls room.'
To be fair, it's not known for a fact that JB's killer entered the house
before the Ramseys came home and lay in wait for the family to retire for
the night. It's a possible theory. As I understand it from the 48 Hrs
report, in the "Amy" case police believe the assailant broke into the home
while mother and daughter were away and attacked after he felt certain they
were both asleep because the mother said she turned the security alarm on
AFTER she got home and they were about to turn in. I presume because the
alarm wasn't set before they got home, police conclude the intruder must've
entered while the family was out (unless there's other evidence supporting
it, but this wasn't discussed on the program). But even this isn't
conclusive. Some home invaders do know how to beat a security system.
But if the "Amy" offender did enter the house while its occupants were out,
the only way it is really relevant to the Ramsey murder is that it shows an
offender might enter a home to plan an attack while the family is out and
wait for the best opportunity to strike. The intruder in the house before
the Ramseys got home theory is useful in supporting the idea the Ramseys
could be innocent because it offers a much more plausible explanation for
the ransom note and for the killer getting around the house w/o disturbing
anyone. We know the note was written on the scene. It makes a lot more sense
to imagine the author of the note was in the house well before the Ramseys
returned in order to allow enough time for the author to find the pad and
pen, write the lengthy note and scope out the house enough to familiarize
himself w/ all of it. It's not too credible to think someone breaks into a
house to abduct a child while everyone is at home but asleep and then sits
down to write out a fairly lengthy note to leave behind. Because so many
people assume this could be the only sequence of events if an intruder
committed the murder, a lot of people discount the intruder theory and
assume the Ramseys have to be guilty.
Knowing that a home invader might break into a home while the family is out
and wait, possibly hours, before making his move, does at least show it
could've happened this way in the Ramsey case, offering an explanation for
how the note could've been written by a non-family-member that makes a
little more sense. This is really the only way I see the "Amy" case being
useful in exonerating the Ramseys.
> What actually happened to
> the girl in her room, as far as I can tell, hasn't been made public. The
> detectives of course, would know what happened to her, but we don't. We
> don't know if some type of strangulation device was used on her, we don't
> know the method of sexual abuse either JonBenet or this second girl
> suffered. All we know is it's been referred to as some sort of sexual
> assault on each victim, details, other than the strangulation of JonBenet,
> are not public anywhere that I know of.
There's a great deal of information available on the total assault on JB, so
you're wrong in that supposition. We know the child was murdered and that
her skull was fractured by a heavy blow to the head, and that she was
strangled to death in a particularly vicious and brutal garroting--which,
btw, I can't envision a parent inflicting on a child unless the parent was
seriously demented, which I've seen no evidence the Ramseys are--and that
there was injury to the genitilia and penetration by a foreign object,
probably wooden. No semen was found. It's also possible--perhaps even
likely--a stun gun was used on the victim.
The lack of penile penetration and semen is possibly the key element of
suspicion against the Ramseys in the eyes of LE who are conviced of their
guilt. They assume the use of a foreign object instead of penile penetration
is strongly suggestive of staging a sexual assault, which is what the BPD
believe the Ramseys did as part of their cover-up of a murder one or both of
them carried out. I agree the injury to the genitilia and interior vagina is
highly unusual because if a pedophile committed this crime, one would assume
he would crave the gratification of which he was in search and not be
content to use a foreign object. Still, I can think of other explanations to
account for this other than the Ramseys being responsible.
As far as the "Amy" case, it's true the 48 Hrs report didn't provide much
information. But we can assume the child wasn't murdered. I don't think
there's any question of that. So we know definitely she wasn't strangled. If
a garrote device similar to the one used on JB was used on "Amy" and only
her mother's entrance into the room spared the girl's life, it's very hard
for me to believe this detail would not have been made known, as it would be
tremendously significant, and the story would almost certainly be reported
differently.
The 48 Hrs report also said the mother entered the child's bedroom and
discovered a person in the bed w/ her, assaulting her, which I have to
assume means a sexual assault. The perpetrator was startled, quit his attack
and fled the scene through an open bedroom window. There is no evidence JB
was assaulted in any part in her bedroom, but there's a great deal of
evidence the entire attack on her was carried out in the basement.
Personally, I agree with your belief that the Ramseys could not have
committed this crime, although my belief is based mainly on a gut feeling I
have, which I realize is not at all scientific. But I have to say that I
agree also w/ Bo here in that the example of "Amy" does not seem at all
similar to the attack on JB, and I think you'd do well to discontinue
pushing the "Amy" example as anything dispositive in the JB murder.
The excuse of saying we don't the details of the attack on Amy because the
police are keeping all info. sealed and so therefore it "could" be almost
identical does not hold up well at all, IMO. As an example, I could remind
you there were a couple of missing pregnant women whose bodies turned up in
or near the San Francisco Bay within a year or so of Laci Peterson's
disappearance, and use that fact then to push the notion that because we
don't know exactly how these women died that this somehow proves that Scott
Peterson could be innocent because the same people or person guilty of the
murder of these other women could be responsible for Laci Peterson's murder.
I think you'd agree such a suggestion would be quite absurd.
If you're going to offer as comparisons other crimes that you see as similar
to the JB Ramsey murder, I think you'd be well-advised to stick to crimes in
which all or most of the details ARE available, not offer one that you or
Dan Abrams says "could be" exactly identical because police aren't releasing
hardly any details of the crime.
I realize you explained you were typing as you were watching and that you
were only reporting what was being said on Dan Abrams' show. But the show is
long over and you've had time to hear what *is* known about this "Amy" case,
based on the 48 Hrs report. So I think that "typing while I'm watching"
excuse doesn't work anymore. If Dan Abrams or a guest on his show stated
that the "Amy" case is almost "exactly identical" to the JB Ramsey murder,
it seems pretty obvious that this person overstated his/her case
considerably. I think a prudent person would do well to acknowledge that at
this point. A word to the wise.
ann mckenzie
How in the world do the authorities now explain that bizarre ransom note?
"tinydancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ac1xd.6900$3X5....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Mike Ward" <m@d.w> wrote in message
> news:Ro%wd.1117942$Gx4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> "tinydancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:_J_wd.6743$3X5....@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>>
>> >
>> > "Mike Ward" <m@d.w> wrote in message
>> > news:5y_wd.6705$uM5....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.s
>> >> >> >> > htm
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The mother and daughter
>> >> >> > had been out at the movies the night of the assault. They
>> >> >> > returned home I believe I heard around 11:00 pm. The mother
>> >> >> > then turned on the burglar alarm. She was wakened around 3:00
>> >> >> > a.m., by a sound in her daughters room and went to investigate
>> >> >> > it. Found the man there.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Listen, if you want to find somebody to argue with, you'll have to
>> >> > pick someone else, as I don't have the time nor patience for it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > You
>> >> > expect me to do your work, find sites/cites for you,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > and then you want
>> >> > to argue about 'em without watching/reading the evidence.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Did you
>> >> > read the document the judge wrote? Did you read Lou Smits
>> >> > evidence?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > The judge who reviewed all the evidence in this case said in her
>> >> > document, that the evidence points towards an intruder and not the
>> >> > Ramsey's.
>> >> >
>> >> > Did you view the autopsy photo's of JonBenet? Do you even know
>> >> > what her cause of death was? Did you view the crime scene photo's
>> >> > of the actual evidence in this case? Did you view the specific
>> >> > type of knot that was tied to make the garrott? Did you view the
>> >> > stun gun burns on JonBenets body and the corresponding stun gun Lou
>> >> > Smits located? Did you view the photo's of JonBenet taken that day,
>> >> > showing she had no such burns on her body that corresponded with
>> >> > the burns on the autopsy photo's?
>> >> >
>> >> > As for similarities between these two cases, the guy was in their
>> >> > home when they returned home that night. He laid in wait for a
>> >> > number of hours for the mother and daughter to come home, then
>> >> > waited longer for them to fall asleep before assaulting the child.
>> >> >
>> >> > The father of this child stated that his daughter 'was sexually
>> >> > molested *in the same manner as* JonBenet had been sexually
>> >> > molested. Since the exact details of that molestation have not been
>> >> > made public, that I've seen anyway, obviously the father know's
>> >> > them from the ME or investigating detectives.
>> >
>> >
>> > So that would be big 'no's' as to whether or not you viewed, read,
>> > researched ANY evidence or documents in reference to this case.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > If you can't be bothered to watch or tape the program,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > then find
>> >> > someone else who also wishes to remain uninformed and argue with
>> >> > them about the topic, 'm'kay?
>> >>
>> >> We'll at least you admit that you're uninformed and wish to remain
>> >> that way.
>> >>
>> >> Mike
>> >
>> >
>> > You are the one who is uninformed and wishes to remain that way, as
>> > you've not admitted to viewing nor reading any of the pertinent
>> > evidence or documents about this case.
>>
>> You haven't presented any pertinent evidence. There isn't any. I didn't
> say
>> that the Ramsey's killed their daughter. I said there was not an
> indentical
>> case nine months later.
>
>
> Then tell that to the detectives and DA investigators who classify it as
> such.
>
> td
>
>
>
>
cro...@earthlink.net
consistent with hers, and since the specific mention of Mr. Ramsey's bonus
figure, which was an oddball amount of $119,000 was included...
"ann mckenzie" <an...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10ujdgt...@corp.supernews.com...