Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No matter how you phrase it, what I posted is the way it is. What you pass around as facts are no more facts than what I post. What you are supported in no more facts than what anyone else says. There are still "facts" that are in dispute. You don't know anymore than what I don't know. Repeating information over and over does not change anything. Refuting information with an opinion refutes nothing. If you can repeat what has previously been posts, so can I and so can anyone else. So, repeat, repeat, repeat. It proves nothing. Nothing.
I haven't discussed any of the facts of the case on this thread, I don't believe.
I have mentioned issues that have colored people's perceptions of the Ramseys.
If you are not interested in those things, that is your business. I have never characterized my opinions as facts.
If you do not care to read my opinions, then don't but please do not mischaracterize my thoughts as "facts of the case." I have never presented them as such.
If you wish to outline what facts of the case you think are still in dispute, I am sure there are folks willing to verify or disprove those "facts."
In any unsolved case, there will always be speculation and theories bounced around. But there is a big difference between that and the facts of the case.
If the cover of a book reads "Green Eggs and Ham" chances are it's not about sushi.
And if the cover of another book reads "Crime Sleuthing for Dummies" it's probably not about a dead ventriloquist.
I don't know about you, but in all of the most agonizingly frustrated days in my entire life, never once did I ever consider fracturing the skull of a six year-old girl, then sexually assaulting her with a broken paintbrush, then garroting her death. No part of the murder of JonBenet was an accident. Not the fracturing of her skull, nor the strangulation with a garrote. She was murdered very deliberately, with considerable overkill.
You have no idea if any part of this murder was an accident or not...stop stating your opinion as though it was fact...I say it was staged...you say it was not...Neither of us knows because we weren't there...You twisted my words...you can disagree with me without sarcasm...
[quote=Rubi3;33232416]If a person is convinced the Ramseys had nothing to do with their daughter's death, it doesn't matter what scenario is put forth.
True. If you look at the facts, it does point to one parent being involved, at some level. I never had a reason to want either parent to be guilty, but to me, from what I've seen it does point to them. I think their "persona", façade they put forth, is what makes people so unsure or not wanting to believe it. They just hid it better, covered it up better and it worked!!
Last edited by Nanny Goat; 01-29-2014 at 11:06 AM..
I've never been biased in one way or another. I'm not biased against rich people and I have no personal experience with child abuse.
I never understood all the blaming of the Ramseys but nothing in this case adds up to anything as far as I can see.
I do think it is possible that Patsy wrote the note. From what I've read it uses a lot of written expressions that she was known to have used and it has never been disproven that it was not her handwriting. Also, the amount of money that is mentioned in it.
I've always thought that they probably knew who did it and were protecting them. That's just a feeling though.
I take into account that they had lots of friends and there were quite a few people who had keys to their home. Also, a big Christmas party with lots of people coming and going, people familiar with the layout of the house.
The sexual molestation is key--was that the motive? Or was it staged to cover up the killing?
One scenario could be Patsy killing the child by mistake, writing the long note herself, and not telling her husband until the next morning. By then she would have staged the sexual molestation all by herself and the husband would have realized how weird this would seem to the police. He would have had no choice but to go along with it at that point. She would have told him where the body was so later on it was no surprise that he discovered it.
I base some of this upon their nanny's statements about the jack knife that she (nanny) had hidden in with the sheets and the blanket and nightie still stuck together the way they would have come out of the dryer. Patsy would have been the person taking clothing out of the dryer and getting sheets out. They were found with the body.
Who would have been with Jon Benet in the night feeding her pineapple, her favorite food? Patsy?Pineapple was found in her stomach.
Patsy could have been on some kind of medication, but I don't know. The nanny said she had been moody around that time, not like herself.
Bed wetting is a kind of regression, a plea for attention, wanting to be a baby again. Please do not dress me up like a woman, let me be a little girl--yet Patsy was not going to let her get out of being in those pageants. Jon Benet probably had a love-hate relationship with the pageants. It did get attention but it wasn't really the kind of attention she needed. She wanted to be loved for being herself.
So there was conflict between mother and child. If Patsy was on medication or for some other reason was not her usual self, if maybe she was still a little bit drunk from the party they have been to, if she combined pills with alcohol by mistake, she could have gone overboard and become violent.
So I can see her killing the child by mistake. But a normal person would have called 911 right then and there. To me, that's when this killed by accident theory stops making sense, unless there were other circumstances such as mental instability, pills, something.
With the intruder theory--why? It wasn't a burglar--nothing was stolen and if they had run off because Jon Benet saw them, why hang around sexually molesting her? Get out or kill her fast and then get out. It wasn't a kidnapping--they would have taken her and run. No time to compose a long ransom note.
"Pimping her out"? Probably not on Christmas when they had just returned from a party and were going to leave the next morning. I don't see any reason why Patsy would have been doing that at any time though.
Some sexual deviant who was also a friend or relative of theirs--yes. That's what I used to think. I used to think they were protecting this person and that Patsy wrote the note to protect him.
So I think (so far) that either Patsy did it by accident and went overboard in the coverup, not telling John until it was too late for him to stop her. He then had no choice but to go along with it. Or some friend or relative who was a pervert and knew the house. But they wouldn't have sat there in the middle of the night writing the ransom note. Patsy wrote the note to cover up. John Ramsay would have had nothing at all to do with any of this except being dragged into it as an innocent bystander.
I've never been biased in one way or another. I'm not biased against rich people and I have no personal experience with child abuse.
I never understood all the blaming of the Ramseys but nothing in this case adds up to anything as far as I can see.
I do think it is possible that Patsy wrote the note. From what I've read it uses a lot of written expressions that she was known to have used and it has never been disproven that it was not her handwriting. Also, the amount of money that is mentioned in it.
I've always thought that they probably knew who did it and were protecting them. That's just a feeling though.
I take into account that they had lots of friends and there were quite a few people who had keys to their home. Also, a big Christmas party with lots of people coming and going, people familiar with the layout of the house.
The sexual molestation is key--was that the motive? Or was it staged to cover up the killing?
One scenario could be Patsy killing the child by mistake, writing the long note herself, and not telling her husband until the next morning. By then she would have staged the sexual molestation all by herself and the husband would have realized how weird this would seem to the police. He would have had no choice but to go along with it at that point. She would have told him where the body was so later on it was no surprise that he discovered it.
I base some of this upon their nanny's statements about the jack knife that she (nanny) had hidden in with the sheets and the blanket and nightie still stuck together the way they would have come out of the dryer. Patsy would have been the person taking clothing out of the dryer and getting sheets out. They were found with the body.
Who would have been with Jon Benet in the night feeding her pineapple, her favorite food? Patsy?Pineapple was found in her stomach.
Patsy could have been on some kind of medication, but I don't know. The nanny said she had been moody around that time, not like herself.
Bed wetting is a kind of regression, a plea for attention, wanting to be a baby again. Please do not dress me up like a woman, let me be a little girl--yet Patsy was not going to let her get out of being in those pageants. Jon Benet probably had a love-hate relationship with the pageants. It did get attention but it wasn't really the kind of attention she needed. She wanted to be loved for being herself.
So there was conflict between mother and child. If Patsy was on medication or for some other reason was not her usual self, if maybe she was still a little bit drunk from the party they have been to, if she combined pills with alcohol by mistake, she could have gone overboard and become violent.
So I can see her killing the child by mistake. But a normal person would have called 911 right then and there. To me, that's when this killed by accident theory stops making sense, unless there were other circumstances such as mental instability, pills, something.
With the intruder theory--why? It wasn't a burglar--nothing was stolen and if they had run off because Jon Benet saw them, why hang around sexually molesting her? Get out or kill her fast and then get out. It wasn't a kidnapping--they would have taken her and run. No time to compose a long ransom note.
"Pimping her out"? Probably not on Christmas when they had just returned from a party and were going to leave the next morning. I don't see any reason why Patsy would have been doing that at any time though.
Some sexual deviant who was also a friend or relative of theirs--yes. That's what I used to think. I used to think they were protecting this person and that Patsy wrote the note to protect him.
So I think (so far) that either Patsy did it by accident and went overboard in the coverup, not telling John until it was too late for him to stop her. He then had no choice but to go along with it. Or some friend or relative who was a pervert and knew the house. But they wouldn't have sat there in the middle of the night writing the ransom note. Patsy wrote the note to cover up. John Ramsay would have had nothing at all to do with any of this except being dragged into it as an innocent bystander.
Another thing to add to my theory of being pimped is a mother of one Jonbenet's friends said her daughter told her "Santa is going to give her a special present". There was a disturbing emphasis on the word special. As far I know, Patsy and John never "knew" of this. I.e. said it themselves. It seems very odd Jonbenet would say that to her friends but not to her parents? Why would you tell your parents if they already knew? If money or some power exchange was involved between the Ramseys and the pedophile(s), they wouldn't say well you can't come at this time. Maybe this person had been/was going to the same parties. If she was being groomed into that sort of life style, I'm sure they had lots of codewords and tried to make things seem normal. I.e. if she ever told anyone it wouldn't be "X comes and touched my special area" it would "Santa came and gave me SPECIAL present".
Another issue is if it was a pedophile they knew who killed her. Let's say this person had either molested her before or other children, he would know other pedophiles. That gets to Karr found out details of the case no one not involved with the case had heard of before. He, to my knowledge (I might be wrong here), never revealed who gave him this information that was deemed true. Why wouldn't he give up the information? Let's say it was a police officer, it didn't do him any good. He still went to jail for his crimes abroad. I've had the feeling Karr was in communication, at one point, with the killer or someone who knew the killer closely. Sort of a game of telephone between pedophiles. Karr didn't want to go to jail abroad. So, he asked the killer (or person close to the killer) if he could say he did the crime. I'm not sure or not whether he got permission, because it seemed once he got over entry level knowledge of the case, he was missing crucial details. I.e. he did real info, but he was not the killer. Not to mention he was no where near there when she was killed.
As I said, just theories. I really think, even if the pimp/sold aspect is wrong, the loose ends can't be tied with a total stranger.
I've never been biased in one way or another. I'm not biased against rich people and I have no personal experience with child abuse.
I never understood all the blaming of the Ramseys but nothing in this case adds up to anything as far as I can see.
I do think it is possible that Patsy wrote the note. From what I've read it uses a lot of written expressions that she was known to have used and it has never been disproven that it was not her handwriting. Also, the amount of money that is mentioned in it.
I've always thought that they probably knew who did it and were protecting them. That's just a feeling though.
I take into account that they had lots of friends and there were quite a few people who had keys to their home. Also, a big Christmas party with lots of people coming and going, people familiar with the layout of the house.
The sexual molestation is key--was that the motive? Or was it staged to cover up the killing?
One scenario could be Patsy killing the child by mistake, writing the long note herself, and not telling her husband until the next morning. By then she would have staged the sexual molestation all by herself and the husband would have realized how weird this would seem to the police. He would have had no choice but to go along with it at that point. She would have told him where the body was so later on it was no surprise that he discovered it.
I base some of this upon their nanny's statements about the jack knife that she (nanny) had hidden in with the sheets and the blanket and nightie still stuck together the way they would have come out of the dryer. Patsy would have been the person taking clothing out of the dryer and getting sheets out. They were found with the body.
Who would have been with Jon Benet in the night feeding her pineapple, her favorite food? Patsy?Pineapple was found in her stomach.
Patsy could have been on some kind of medication, but I don't know. The nanny said she had been moody around that time, not like herself.
Bed wetting is a kind of regression, a plea for attention, wanting to be a baby again. Please do not dress me up like a woman, let me be a little girl--yet Patsy was not going to let her get out of being in those pageants. Jon Benet probably had a love-hate relationship with the pageants. It did get attention but it wasn't really the kind of attention she needed. She wanted to be loved for being herself.
So there was conflict between mother and child. If Patsy was on medication or for some other reason was not her usual self, if maybe she was still a little bit drunk from the party they have been to, if she combined pills with alcohol by mistake, she could have gone overboard and become violent.
So I can see her killing the child by mistake. But a normal person would have called 911 right then and there. To me, that's when this killed by accident theory stops making sense, unless there were other circumstances such as mental instability, pills, something.
With the intruder theory--why? It wasn't a burglar--nothing was stolen and if they had run off because Jon Benet saw them, why hang around sexually molesting her? Get out or kill her fast and then get out. It wasn't a kidnapping--they would have taken her and run. No time to compose a long ransom note.
"Pimping her out"? Probably not on Christmas when they had just returned from a party and were going to leave the next morning. I don't see any reason why Patsy would have been doing that at any time though.
Some sexual deviant who was also a friend or relative of theirs--yes. That's what I used to think. I used to think they were protecting this person and that Patsy wrote the note to protect him.
So I think (so far) that either Patsy did it by accident and went overboard in the coverup, not telling John until it was too late for him to stop her. He then had no choice but to go along with it. Or some friend or relative who was a pervert and knew the house. But they wouldn't have sat there in the middle of the night writing the ransom note. Patsy wrote the note to cover up. John Ramsay would have had nothing at all to do with any of this except being dragged into it as an innocent bystander.
Another thing to add to my theory of being pimped is a mother of one Jonbenet's friends said her daughter told her "Santa is going to give her a special present". There was a disturbing emphasis on the word special. As far I know, Patsy and John never "knew" of this. I.e. said it themselves. It seems very odd Jonbenet would say that to her friends but not to her parents? Why would you tell your parents if they already knew? If money or some power exchange was involved between the Ramseys and the pedophile(s), they wouldn't say well you can't come at this time. Maybe this person had been/was going to the same parties. If she was being groomed into that sort of life style, I'm sure they had lots of codewords and tried to make things seem normal. I.e. if she ever told anyone it wouldn't be "X comes and touched my special area" it would "Santa came and gave me SPECIAL present".
Another issue is if it was a pedophile they knew who killed her. Let's say this person had either molested her before or other children, he would know other pedophiles. That gets to Karr found out details of the case no one not involved with the case had heard of before. He, to my knowledge (I might be wrong here), never revealed who gave him this information that was deemed true. Why wouldn't he give up the information? Let's say it was a police officer, it didn't do him any good. He still went to jail for his crimes abroad. I've had the feeling Karr was in communication, at one point, with the killer or someone who knew the killer closely. Sort of a game of telephone between pedophiles. Karr didn't want to go to jail abroad. So, he asked the killer (or person close to the killer) if he could say he did the crime. I'm not sure or not whether he got permission, because it seemed once he got over entry level knowledge of the case, he was missing crucial details. I.e. he did real info, but he was not the killer. Not to mention he was no where near there when she was killed.
As I said, just theories. I really think, even if the pimp/sold aspect is wrong, the loose ends can't be tied with a total stranger.
I wouldn't put any stock in that at all.
1. What kind of child would pick up on a "disturbing emphasis" on the word special? No way would I believe this coming from Jon Benet's friends...... what.....5, 6, 7, 8 year olds?
2. Kids say things like that all of the time to brag/show off to their friends.
I haven't discussed any of the facts of the case on this thread, I don't believe.
I have mentioned issues that have colored people's perceptions of the Ramseys.
If you are not interested in those things, that is your business. I have never characterized my opinions as facts.
If you do not care to read my opinions, then don't but please do not mischaracterize my thoughts as "facts of the case." I have never presented them as such.
If you wish to outline what facts of the case you think are still in dispute, I am sure there are folks willing to verify or disprove those "facts."
In any unsolved case, there will always be speculation and theories bounced around. But there is a big difference between that and the facts of the case.
Blowing in the wind, dear, blowing in the wind. Yes, as I have stated before, there is speculation and theories here, there and wherever, but, there is a big difference between that and facts. That's the way it is. Yes, so, wanna repeat it again? Anything you say is no better than what I say or anyone else. I have plenty of time, so keep on keeping on. The outcome isn't going to change.
I just looked it up. She said visit. Not present. Which imo is even stranger. What child cares about meeting Santa? They just want the gifts. The way the child relayed it to the mother, the mother thought there was a strange (imo disturbing) emphasis on the word special.
I just looked it up. She said visit. Not present. Which imo is even stranger. What child cares about meeting Santa? They just want the gifts. The way the child relayed it to the mother, the mother thought there was a strange (imo disturbing) emphasis on the word special.
Doesn't change a thing, IMO. I still wouldn't put any stock in second hand hearsay from a child JonBenet's age.
..........or a child telling their friends that Santa is going to make them a special visit......nothing but childish bragging. Kids that age make up and brag about all kinds of things to impress their friends.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
