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.
Interesting points in the last two posts. Food for thought.
I did some more reading and I guess the thing that is currently bothering me the most is who did the macabre staging of the scene?
Somebody who was a sexual pervert. I don't think someone who just had a passing interest in sexual perversion would have known how to construct that scene. It had to be someone who had done it before, not someone who had just read about such things, not someone who was reading a how-to-do-it book.
So who was it?
1. Patsy. But that doesn't make sense. I believe she wrote the ransom note but I don't believe she would have known how to construct that staging. Maybe so, probably not.
2. John. That means he was a sex pervert. He would probably have been molesting Jon Benet beforehand. But there is no evidence that he molested her before or after. Sex perverts usually do it again as they are out of control.
3. Someone they knew. Someone very close to them. This gets into a tangle because it could have meant that they were involved in selling Jon Benet as a sex toy to someone. They were giving access to someone. Maybe they brought the person home with them from the party or maybe the person had hidden in their huge house while they were at the party.
Whoever it was, they had to protect them. Why? For one thing, if the word had gotten out that they were involved in a sex ring, that would have been much more scandalous and damaging. They would have been exposed as child abusers, they would have lost Burke. They got scandal anyway but at least they didn't get scandalized as child abusers.
This would mean that there was maybe not an intruder, but another person involved. A close friend or relative, a business acquaintance who knew about the bonus and was familiar with the home and too familiar with Jon Benet. She'd had many pelvic exams--very unusual for a child that age. Something was going on, whether Patsy knew it or not.
Then, if there was another person involved, how did he get there? Why on Christmas eve when the family needed to get up early to go on their vacation? Doesn't seem like they would have invited him over there in the middle of the night so maybe he was there, already hidden in the huge house. Or maybe if one of the family killed Jon Benet by accident, they called him to come over and help cover it up. Maybe he lived close by.
Their close friends, the Whites, became disgusted with the Ramseys, if I remember, and stopped being friends with them. I wonder how much they knew. What did they know. If John had been a longtime child molester they would have been disgusted with him beforehand, not just after the fact. So they are disgusted with him for something they didn't know about before.
I don't know if the brother did it but I don't see how removing a poster from the store that they normally shop at indicates guilt.
Me, either. In addition, the idea that Burke, age 9 at the time, was responsible for this horrific crime has been debated multiple times on every one of these threads.
Quote:
just because the family never expressed anger in any interviews doesn't mean that they never felt anger. No matter how they responded people were going to tear them apart.
Whoever thought they didn't express anger must have missed that video clip of Patsy being interrogated at the Boulder Police Dept....she was livid. It's been posted on one of these threads somewhere, more than once. (She was also taking antidepressants at the time, so the manner in which she spoke, as well as her gestures, were roundly criticized.)
I knew little about this case when it first happened, and of course I suspected the parents. After all, how could this happen in their own home without one of them being involved? However, after reading about it for years, I no longer believe that either parent had anything to do with it. I just hope that someday, the actual killer is found....and that it's in John Ramsey's lifetime.
Maybe to talk about evidence, discuss theories and state our opinions. I never said that you're not welcome to your own opinion. My point was, how can we really determine whether or not a person is being genuine? What I may think is genuine, you may think is BS and vise versa. I don't know if there is a specific way to act when your child is murdered and the world thinks you killed her.
I don't place any credence on how the R.'s acted - or didn't act - or what they said - or didn't say - during interviews. As has been said, no one knows how they would act under similar circumstances (i.e., losing a child in that horrific way - whether or not they were involved in the crime). And, different people would act differently as well.
However, the reason I think the R.'s were involved is because of the evidence surrounding the case itself at the home - specifically the "ransom" note (even more than JBR being in the basement). In fact, as far as I'm concerned the note is the most damning piece of evidence pointing to the R.'s guilt. I am convinced one of the parents wrote this - there are too many clues pointing to at least one of them being the author (possibly PR). So, whether or not one or both of the parents themselves committed this heinous crime, I strongly believe that they helped cover this up.
And, also as I said before, what further makes me sick about this whole case is the fact that I'm 100% sure that if JR & PR were poor & under the exact same circumstances, they would both have gone to prison. Obviously, JR used his money, power, and reputation to keep himself & PR from going to jail. If the BPD had any balls, they wouldn't have treated JR & PR with kid gloves. However, I'm sure a lot of the reason behind this was political as well. If they had convicted the R.'s of this crime, it would have tarnished the reputation of Boulder (which is a nice city) - even more than it was already...due to just the crime itself.
Last edited by The Big Lebowski Dude; 11-06-2015 at 08:24 PM..
I was finally able to finish watching the interview. Some of it is very repetitive, but it's good information for anyone who isn't familiar with the case.
Quote:
I noticed that when talking to John and Patsy, Barbara Walters looks dubious quite often; she has to ask tough questions, but she has a certain look of "I'm not sure I believe you."
Which is good....at many points Walters really comes down hard on them, abruptly questioning them about their responses, the media, the police, etc, etc.
Quote:
BW says, "DNA was found on JonBenet's panties; this DNA does not match yours, your son's, any member of your family, indeed anyone whom the police have questioned."
John says, "And that's what gives us hope that we will find the killer."
BW says, "You think that's what shows that you're innocent?"
John pauses, looks up to the side, shakes his head "no," then answers, "I think that will lead us to the killer." He deflected her question. I think an innocent person would say, "Yes! We're innocent, we hope this will help us find the killer!"
I perceived his comment as being one that would be a natural response of someone who's innocent. He doesn't even think of defending himself; he knows that he didn't kill his daughter. He just wants to find the killer.
A Pennsylvania man is in custody after prosecutors say he allegedly broke into a home and raped a 6-year-old girl while she was sleeping: http://bit.ly/1WR4dGg
Well, in this case, he got caught because they lived in an apartment, not a large home, and the 11-year-old brother sleeping in the same bunk bed woke up and alerted his father. Would he have murdered her afterwards or left a ransom note? (I do not intend any sarcasm whatsoever; I respect everyone here and just can't quite think of a way to say this better!)
Well, in this case, he got caught because they lived in an apartment, not a large home, and the 11-year-old brother sleeping in the same bunk bed woke up and alerted his father. Would he have murdered her afterwards or left a ransom note? (I do not intend any sarcasm whatsoever; I respect everyone here and just can't quite think of a way to say this better!)
Wanted to see if contributors would bite......
Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom letter.
Well, in this case, he got caught because they lived in an apartment, not a large home, and the 11-year-old brother sleeping in the same bunk bed woke up and alerted his father. Would he have murdered her afterwards or left a ransom note?
I still think that it was two or more people who came in, through one of the unlocked doors. The young woman wrote the ransom note, dictated by one of the other young men. I read somewhere on a statement analysis of the RN that usage of words such as "scanned," "monitor," "execution," etc, pointed toward a person who was familiar with the computer world (remember that this was 1996). The men/man either had something against Access Graphics, John Ramsey, or simply came across information while waiting in the house until the Ramseys returned from the Whites, possibly finding the bonus paycheck stub of $118,000, etc. They had watched movies with the phrases, "she dies," "die," etc. (already discussed on one of these threads). They did not intend to kill JonBenet initially. The scream came from the woman when she realized what he/they did. They probably didn't intend to leave the RN, but bolted out of the house.
I still think that it was two or more people who came in, through one of the unlocked doors. The young woman wrote the ransom note, dictated by one of the other young men....They did not intend to kill JonBenet initially. The scream came from the woman when she realized what he/they did. They probably didn't intend to leave the RN, but bolted out of the house.
I'll sincerely try to apply this theory by imagining I am someone who knows and hates John and wants to extort his bonus money by kidnapping his daughter.
So I go in with the girl, who writes the note either before or while I take JonBenet from her bed. I'd have to find a way to keep her quiet immediately, so I hit her over the head with a heavy, blunt object and take her down to the exit point (assuming the small room in the sub-basement). My job is done; I should be able to leave with JonBenet safely unconscious or restrained enough so as to not make any noise.
But once there, I then tie a knot around her throat strong enough to strangle her and fashion the garrote with part of Patsy's paintbrush handle that I just happen to pick up. With some object or digitally, I molest her, which I must have done before because her autopsy revealed repeated trauma and inflammation. Then, I'd cover her with a blanket from the dryer nearby.
Why would I do that? If I want the money, I'd leave with the kid but make sure she's only unconscious and/or restrained so as not to make any noise.
When the woman who wrote the note comes along, ready to go, then sees what I've done and screams, we both bolt in terror for fear that someone hears, and we wouldn't go back to retrieve the note.
But again, why would I inflict that much damage on the child if I just wanted to kidnap her and get the money? They wouldn't trade a dead daughter for $118,000. They'd want to make sure she was alive. I'm a criminal, and I wouldn't want to take any unnecessary steps.
Nature of Scream. "Stanton said there had been only one scream but it was horrifying. If it came from the child, she assumed the scream had awakened her parents" (Schiller 1999a:76-77); in Thomas's account, it was a "piercing scream" (Thomas 2000a:78-79); in the Bonita Papers, Stanton "was awakened by “one loud, incredible scream”. She related that it was “obviously from a child” and that it lasted 3 to 5 seconds and then abruptly stopped" (Sauers 1998).
And, though the scream would not have echoed up to the parents' bedroom, it would have gone through the vent straight up to Burke's room, which would have awakened him (if he wasn't already downstairs or was a particularly sound sleeper).
Quote:
No One Else Heard Scream. Internet poster why_nut has observed: "It is a valid point to question why Melodie Stanton would claim to have heard such a horrible scream, when arguably her house was further away from the source than were the houses of Scott Gibbons and Diane Brumfitt. The sound from the east side duct would not have been broadcast along a pipe directly to Stanton's house and no other. Sound radiates in a circle through air. The Barnhills did not describe hearing it. Glenn Meyer is not known to have heard it. Obviously Gibbons (who was awake at the relevant time given his report of light in the house at the time) and Brumfitt have said nothing. And Burke's own bedroom window was right above the duct opening."
I just can't make this theory work in my mind because that means I'd get no money in exchange for a dead girl.
Last edited by Tobiashen; 11-15-2015 at 11:53 AM..
Reason: add link
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.
