JonBenét Ramsey - Unsolved Murder (case, authorities, criminal, murdering)

[SigTurner]

Originally Posted by Nanny Goat

Hardly absurd or vicious.

Actually, it is. I have yet to see a single theory of Ramsey culpability that made any sense whatsoever. Until you can come up with a reasonable theory (let alone convincing proof) regarding any member of the Ramsey family being involved in the murder of JonBenet, it is not only vicious to accuse them, it is downright irresponsible and reprehensible.

Oh, it was the result of a burglary gone wrong?

Yes. What is more, a burglary gone bad is the only viable explanation.

What was taken?

Considering that this was a busted caper which resulted in the murder of a six year old girl, only the most desperate fool of a heroin addict would have taken anything from the residence, for reasons which should be glaringly obvious.

What connection does the ransom note have (long & written in the house) w/ a "burglary"?

The ransom note vis-a-vis the body in the basement is what gives this away as a burglary gone bad.

Obviously, this was not a kidnapping, for if it were, the kidnappers would have written the ransom note before they entered the house and they would have taken the intended hostage with them when they left. Believe it or not, it makes it so much easier to collect the ransom this way.

Obviously, this was not the work of an obsessed pedophile. An obsessed pedophile would have taken the child with him when he left after having taken so much risk to obtain her. He certainly would not have brutally murdered her in the basement before ever getting the chance to have his way with her. What is more, an obsessed pedophile turned child killer would not have bothered to write a bogus ransom note.

Obviously, this was not the work of some embittered, homicidal maniac with a deep personal grudge against the family, or JonBenet, for if it were there would have been much more destruction to the body, particularly to the face, and there would have been no reason whatsoever for him to write a bogus ransom note. Indeed, if someone so vicious and psychotic were to leave a note for John Ramsey, it would have been filled with insults and profanity with the killer gloating over what he did to JonBenet.

Obviously, neither John nor Patsy Ramsey murdered JonBenet. Aside from the fact that neither of them have any history of such extreme violence and psychopathology towards their children or anyone else, it would make no sense whatsoever for either (or both) of them to write a two and a half page ransom note, then leave the body in the basement. Moreover, they would have certainly disposed of the body before writing the ransom note. Further still, it strains credulity to suggest that either of them would have written such a protracted and juvenile ransom note considering the degree of stress they would have been under at the time, assuming that the note would have been written subsequent to a tragic accident where JonBenet was killed by either parent during some sudden fit of filicidal rage. They would have written as succinct a note as possible.

Obviously, Burke Ramsey did not murder JonBenet since he was only nine years old and would not have had the strength to deliver the crushing blow to the skull which was revealed at autopsy. He certainly could not have written the ransom note as it was obviously not the work of a fourth grader.

Therefore, if John didn't do it, and Patsy didn't do it, and Burke didn't do it, then an intruder (or intruders) must have done it. And if this was not the work of a kidnapper, nor an obsessed pedophile, nor some vengeful lunatic, then there is only one remaining raison d'être for the intruders: BURGLARY, and it just so happens that the Ramseys were leaving that very morning to vacation in Michigan for the remainder of the holiday season.

Why was a child sexually molested during a "burglary"? Or killed? (Even fearing for a 6 year old witness is non-sense--she would most-likely be unable to identify him).

JonBenet was murdered because she discovered at least two burglars in the house that evening and she knew at least one of them well enough to identify them both to police. If you recall, JonBenet was six years old when she was murdered, not two years old. It is hardly "nonsense" to suggest that a six year-old girl could identify to police someone whom she is readily familiar and may even know by name.

The evidence from the autopsy suggests that JonBenet had been stabbed in the vagina with the broken handle of a paintbrush. While this assault certainly admits of sexual overtones, it is actually much more akin to a physical assault intended to cause pain and injury to the victim, rather than a sexual assault intended to obtain sexual pleasure for the perpetrator. If this had been a true sexual assault, there would have been evidence of penile penetration, or at least attempted penile penetration, and there would have been traces of semen on her near the body. Therefore, it appears that the assault was motivated much more by intense anger and spite than any overwhelming pedophiliac urges.

Why did the child have a history of physical, specifically sexual, abuse?

Convincing evidence that JonBenet had been sexually abused prior to the night of the murder has never been presented by anyone, ever. At best, there has been mere speculation and conjecture, as well as considerable disagreement.

That being said, even if such evidence did in fact exist, there is no rational reason to believe that it necessarily had anything to do with her murder. Child sexual abuse does not precipitate child murder in the overwhelming majority of cases. Furthermore, what has been purported to be possible evidence of prior sexual abuse could very easily be nothing more than evidence of "playing doctor" with her brother or her schoolmates. Finally, pedophilia does not appear to be the primary concern of the murderer. What does appear to be the primary concern of the murderer is making absolutely certain that JonBenet is dead.

Why did the parents board the plane to Georgia right after the death of their 6 year old?

Hmmm… I wonder...

By any chance, did you see the autopsy photos? What sort of sick, vicious, psychopathic animal can do this to a six year-old girl, and what else could he be capable of?

Do you think John Ramsey might have feared for the safety of his remaining family?

Perhaps the better question might be:

"Why in the world would the parents NOT board a plane to Georgia as soon as possible, especially if it was within their means to do so?"

Why did the parents wait months to be formally interrogated?

Because they were the primary suspects of bumbling, incompetent detectives who couldn't find their own butts if they had a bell on them. Thus, the parents had every reason to fear that they were about to be railroaded. What is more, they were acting on the advice of their attorneys who knew better than to allow their clients to walk into a bear trap.

Why did the grand jury conclude to indict the parents?

If you want to call that an indictment, I suppose you can. After all, it is an indictment in the academic sense, though it may be the lamest indictment in the whole history of criminal law; and it did not have a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining a conviction at trial, even against a rookie public defender fresh out of law school.

Just so you know, an indictment of some sort is easy for just about any seasoned prosecutor to obtain with even the slightest of circumstantial evidence, which is why an indictment, in itself, is in no way a measure of culpability.

Where was the forced entry, besides a window with an undisturbed cobweb where a person supposedly entered?

If you recall, the writer of the ransom note was familiar enough with the Ramsey family to be privy to certain personal information (i.e.: the amount of JR's bonus that year, the family's Southern background). Therefore, it would not be too surprising if the note writer had somehow obtained a key to the Ramsey residence and simply used the door to obtain entry.

Why the parading around of their young child, bleaching of hair at 4 yrs old, sexualizing of a child that young?

If you recall, Patsy was a Southern belle and a pageant queen in her own youth. Pageantry was a part of her life which she wished to share with her own daughter.

BTW: There is a very big difference between child pageantry (ever hear of the Easter Parade?) and child pornography. They are not nearly the same thing, unless you have the mind of a degenerate.

QUESTION:

How in the world does JonBenet's experiences as a child beauty queen amount to any degree of evidence that she was murdered by either of her parents?

I want an intelligent answer.

These are only a few things I can come up w/, but maybe someone else can add to this list.

Well, Nanny Goat, you'll have to do a lot better than that. Why don't you try recruiting some of the RDI cult over at WS to help you out? I doubt they'll come, though. They've gotten so accustomed to having their zealot RDI administrators and moderators ban anyone who challenges their inane ideas, or even suggests that the Ramseys might be innocent, that the whole gang of them have lapsed into a state of morbid intellectual entropy. Such a pity.

[SigTurner]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

I never blamed the parents but over the time that this thread has been here I've read all the posts and it has made me wonder about the ransom note and the sexual molestation.

Someone breaking into the house--help me figure out how that fits in. They were breaking in to steal things, they ran into Jon Benet unexpectedly. So they molested her and hid the body in the basement and sat down and wrote a long letter.

No. There were two burglars: one male, one female. They thought the family had left for vacation. They were completely caught off-guard when JonBenet came bounding down the stairs and discovered them in the house. They did not know what to do next since JonBenet knew one of them (probably the female) well enough to identify her to police (and her male accomplice by extension) .

The male burglar proposes killing JonBenet in order to silence her. The female burglar wants nothing to do with the murder of a six year-old girl, particularly the daughter of a family with whom she and her own family are familiar. However, she is also intimate enough with her male accomplice to know his dark side, and his potential for cruelty and ruthless violence. She knows he is dead serious about killing JonBenet. Therefore, she proposes that they kidnap her instead. He pretends to agree with the idea and sends her upstairs to find pen and paper and begin working on a ransom note. While she is busy upstairs composing the "War and Peace" of ransom notes, he is busy in the basement murdering JonBenet.

How can it add up?

It adds up because it fits the evidence like a glove.

Understand that this was not the work of an obsessed pedophile. This was the work of a cruel, violent, and utterly ruthless psychopath, a person who would sooner murder a child than be arrested for burglary. Although one element of the brutal assault upon JonBenet had sexual overtones, namely, the stabbing of her vagina with the broken end of a paint brush, even this was much more a physical assault meant to cause pain and injury than a sexual assault exacted for the depraved venereal interest of the perpetrator.

If it seems incredible to you that the burglars would so foolishly risk being discovered by another member of the Ramsey family, by spending so much time in the house composing a lengthy ransom note and brutally murdering JonBenet with considerable overkill, consider that anyone who is capable of brutally murdering a six year-old child is just as capable of murdering the entire family. What mattered most to the killer of JonBenet was that he would never be charged with any criminal offense--not burglary, not even trespassing--even if it meant slaughtering everyone in the house, including his female accomplice if necessary.

I have always thought that the parents knew who did it but it was someone they were trying to protect. But that doesn't answer the question either. Or does it.

No, it doesn't. In fact, it is just plain silly. Who would they be covering up for, Burke?

Be very clear on this: Burke did not murder JonBenet. He was nine years old at the time. He would not have had the strength to deliver the massive blow which fractured JonBenet's skull, and he certainly could not have written the ransom note. It is absolutely absurd to suggest that he could have committed this crime.

[Irishiis49]

Sig that is some wild theory there...you should write for crime tv! I never believed Burke killed his sister...but people that do...DON'T think Burke wrote the note or staged her body...that's where the parent's involvement comes in...

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by anifani821

I found the whole series was very well done and hope you will be able to watch it.

I watched the first two of the series. It's hard to understand just why and how badly this case was bungled. Also, there is so much conflicting information about it. One of the videos of the police officer interview conflicts with previous information about the time that the police were present at the Ramsey home. It's hard to know what to believe.

(And there's a youtube video that's doctored of a Barbara Walters interview with John and Patsy that claims they have confessed to the murder. You wonder how many people viewing it think it was an actual interview.)

I totally understand what you are saying about Patsy . . it was very easy to assign something dark and ugly as surely lurking underneath the perfectly applied make up and dramatic gestures.

Agree. Hard to understand the animosity toward Patsy Ramsey. People seem to project their own issues--wealth, appearance, etc--regarding her involvement, rather than looking at facts.

[SigTurner]

Originally Posted by anifani821

As for Patsy . . . I have always felt that part of the public animus towards her was because she was Southern. I know there are folks who will scoff at that, but her animated way of talking, her "folksy" responses, and her body language -- which is very Southern -- plus her persona (the whole Beauty Queen personal perfectionist style of clothing and hair) -- was simply a turn off and misunderstood by many people. In addition, Patsy was a Stage 4 cancer survivor (until she finally did succumb from cancer) and she was on meds (xanax, for example) and this affected her response. In addition, I cannot even FATHOM losing my precious child and being questioned/treated the way Patsy was treated. I would have been out of mind with grief and angry as hell on top of it -- and so no telling what I would have said. My filter doesn't work very well at times like that.

Just asking folks to take some of that into consideration when assessing Patsy.

While it may be true that much of the animosity which has been directed at Patsy may have been due to her Southern mannerisms, it is probably not the primary motivating factor.

As you stated earlier, this case is very similar to the Azaria Chamberlain case. Lindy Chamberlain was no Southern belle, yet she and her family experienced the same sort of excoriating invective from the presuming horde at the goading of a reckless and irresponsible news media, just as Patsy Ramsey did.

No, sadly, the primary motivating factor for much of the impetuous, and often utterly inane, incriminations observed in this case, especially at internet crime forums and in the comments section of internet news media sites, is something very cruel and sadistic which lies within the darkest recesses of the human soul and overtakes certain people whenever they feel morally justified to behave with vicious abandon. Such cretins cannot resist the opportunity when it presents itself; and when a mother is accused of murdering her own child, they are drawn likes flies to horse dung where they whip themselves into a blind frenzy, losing all interest in the possibility that the mother might actually be innocent and thus the second tragic victim of the crime. Fortunately for Lindy Chamberlain, the tragic loss of her daughter occurred prior to the age of the internet, so she was at least spared the inescapable, and inexhaustible, assaults for which the medium has become so notorious.

[SigTurner]

Originally Posted by Irishiis49

Sig that is some wild theory there...you should write for crime tv! I never believed Burke killed his sister...but people that do...DON'T think Burke wrote the note or staged her body...that's where the parent's involvement comes in...

To suggest that John or Patsy wrote the note to cover up for their son's sororicidal crime is even more ridiculous than the suggestion that Burke wrote the note himself.

First of all, it is prima facie absurd. Why would they do that? He was nine. It's not like he would be facing the death penalty. What purpose would it have served?

Secondly, if he had committed the murder, and they did attempt to cover it up, news of it would have leaked out within the first six months of the crime. Why? Because it is not the sort of family secret that would have stayed under wraps very long in the face of such enormous focus by law enforcement and news media. Patsy would have confided in her sister, or her mother, or a family friend, and the truth about the murder would have been outed a long time ago. What do you think John's criminal defense attorneys would have advised, that he and his wife take the rap for their nine year old son?

Thirdly, such a theory does not explain the massive fracture to JonBenet's skull which was obviously delivered by a powerful adult, not a nine year old child.

Lastly, the ransom note is too protracted to have been written by a parent under the stress of losing their six year-old daughter at the hands of their nine year-old son, and it is too juvenile to have been written by a middle aged adult.

[Irishiis49]

Originally Posted by SigTurner

To suggest that John or Patsy wrote the note to cover up for their son's sororicidal crime is even more ridiculous than the suggestion that Burke wrote the note himself.

First of all, it is prima facie absurd. Why would they do that? He was nine. It's not like he would be facing the death penalty. What purpose would it have served?

Secondly, if he had committed the murder, and they did attempt to cover it up, news of it would have leaked out within the first six months of the crime. Why? Because it is not the sort of family secret that would have stayed under wraps very long in the face of such enormous focus by law enforcement and news media. Patsy would have confided in her sister, or her mother, or a family friend, and the truth about the murder would have been outed a long time ago. What do you think John's criminal defense attorneys would have advised, that he and his wife take the rap for their nine year old son?

Thirdly, such a theory does not explain the massive fracture to JonBenet's skull which was obviously delivered by a powerful adult, not a nine year old child.

Look on this you and I agree...Burke DIDN'T kill his sister...but Patsy wrote that note...of that I am certain...but the case was so bungled and politics playing such a huge roll here with Ramsey's heavy hitter attorney the note alone was not going to be enough to convict them...You don't know what Patsy did or would confide to her sister, her mother or her dog...because you are thinking like a normal person here and not a killer(compliment)! We agree on another point...a conspiracy would never have held this long...Where we diverge is...that's why I believe it wasn't a sex ring or burglars etc...but John and Patsy...I think she was killed by accident by one and the other helped cover it up...

[pekemom]

Originally Posted by SigTurner

The perpetrators of this heinous crime will never be brought to justice so long as investigators working the case (if there are any) continue to pursue John, or Patsy, or Burke as a primary suspect.

Sadly, even today, 17 years after this horrible event, there is a dunderhead retired police chief, who had supposedly worked the case while he was active, insinuating in his self-published book and in promo-interviews that nine year-old Burke Ramsey committed this brutal and convoluted crime. If this is the level of investigative talent that has been assigned to this case all these years there can be no mystery as to why it has never been solved.


BTW: The crime occurred in 1996, not 1995.

Sorry, you're right, it was 1996

[SigTurner]

Originally Posted by Irishiis49

Look on this you and I agree...Burke DIDN'T kill his sister...but Patsy wrote that note...of that I am certain..

Why are you convinced that Patsy wrote the note?

.but the case was so bungled and politics playing such a huge roll here with Ramsey's heavy hitter attorney the note alone was not going to be enough to convict them…

The case was bungled because the lead detectives had no idea what they were doing so they focused upon the most convenient suspects, which is what all incompetent detectives do when they are stumped. Attorneys and politics had nothing to do with it.

If you want to see an example of just how badly incompetent detectives can screw up a case, watch the following program: Video: The Confessions | Watch FRONTLINE Online | PBS Video

You don't know what Patsy did or would confide to her sister, her mother or her dog...because you are thinking like a normal person here and not a killer(compliment)!

I know a thing or two about human nature, and you are putting the cart in front of the horse. I have seen no evidence of Patsy Ramsey having a history of such extreme violence towards her children or anyone else. It is foolish to make gross suppositions about a subject based contrary to the evidence you have on them (i.e.: their reputation, prior criminal history) in order to build a case around them. This is the first mistake Steve Thomas, et al. made and it is exactly how they bungled the case so badly that it may likely never be solved. A subject should be observed as they are and not as you would like them to be, just so they will fit into a particular hypothesis.

We agree on another point...a conspiracy would never have held this long...Where we diverge is...that's why I believe it wasn't a sex ring or burglars etc...but John and Patsy...I think she was killed by accident by one and the other helped cover it up...

Think about what you are saying. JonBenet was actually killed twice: once with a crushing blow to the skull and again with a strangling garrote (though not necessarily in that order).

Obviously, the garroting could not have been an accident. So, if the crushing blow to the head was an accident, why in the world would they garrote her to death as well? Would it not have been a lot easier, both emotionally and intellectually, to simply take her to the hospital and tell the doctor she slipped in the bathroom and hit her head on the tub?

It is your theory that John and Patsy attempted to cover up a tragic accident in which one of them have somehow managed to fracture their six year-old daughter's skull; and they exacted this cover up by stabbing her in the vagina with a broken paintbrush, garroting her to death for good measure, writing a two and a half page ransom note claiming that she was kidnapped by a small foreign faction, calling the police claiming their daughter is missing while leaving her body in the basement where it is sure to be discovered when the police arrive, and then pretending to find the body when the police fail to find it after searching the house.

All this might be the sort of thing a schizophrenic off their meds might do, but neither John nor Patsy suffered from schizophrenia. And it is your theory that they conspired in such a bizarre chain of behavior. Therefore, they would have both been in the throes of acute schizophrenic psychosis at the time of the murder, and yet neither of them showed any signs of such psychosis during Christmas dinner at the Whites the evening before, nor in the morning when Detective Arndt and the BPD arrived following the 911 call. Are you certain that you have thought this theory through all the way?

The evidence suggests that whoever murdered JonBenet was desperate to make absolutely certain she was dead. This murder was no accident. It was committed with conscious and excessive deliberation.

[Irishiis49]

It's just so silly to think Jon Benet happened upon two intruders...who bashed her head in staged the murder scene by writing a ridiculous ransom note which knew John Ramsey's exact bonus for that year and was written on a pad from the home (as well as using phrases that Patsy was known to use)...then took the time to garrot and defile the poor little girl...all without concern of waking the family...and then risk having to commit a triple murder... to what steal some jewelry and a vcr??? It is so obvious...the parents committed this murder...