|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 222
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 7:28 am: | 
|
No one asked you to step off the thread Sarah. As long as you don't insult my opinions, I'll refrain from insulting yours.
I think it's manipulative for several reasons. First, she was not known to wear repetitive outfits. She was a former beauty queen, alwasy immaculately groom and while I do on some occasions throw on the same jeans and tshirt from the previous day, we are talking about a woman who cared about her clothes, her appearance, etc to an EXCESSIVE degree and she put on the same *party clothes* from the night before? A wool suit? No, I just can't by that. Especially when you consider that she had to get up, get her house in order and get on a plane.
The manipulation aspect comes in when she gives the police interview and they ask her about it. The very next day, she is wearing the same outfit in a TV appearance. Establishing recorded evidence that she does wear the same outfit on successive days. Of course, this wouldn't count for diddly squat since the police could point out the convenience of her act.
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 223
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 7:51 am: |
|
After re-reading my post, I have decided I am not allowed to post without first drinking coffee. It is a dangerous thing to do these days when the spelling police are about.
But I had another thought. Let's be realistic here. How many women would dress the same way for a television appearance as they would for a police interview? Does that seem at all likely? If you only had one good outfit, maybe, but this woman had closets full of outfits. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 514
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 8:50 am: |
|
Ok, maybe you have a point about the tv appearance but with regards to her having the same thing on the day of her daughter's murder, well, just bear with me here. After discovering her daughter had been kidnapped, or so she thought, what if she went upstairs and just put on what was laying out i.e. her clothes from the previous night. She was hardly going to go routing around in her wardrobe for something special to wear. Maybe she also does, on occasion, wear the same thing twice in a row.
Sarah |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 226
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 8:59 am: |
|
Hi Sarah,
That actually is a reasonable scenario..but according to her own testimony is not what happened. She said that she got up, got dressed, laid out some clothes to do laundry for then went downstairs and found the ransom note. This is what made the police suspicious. She dressed before she found out her daughter was missing so there would be no panicked "grab the first thing you can" which would have been reasonable under those circumstances. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 515
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 9:08 am: |
|
Then possible she put on her previous night's clothes as she was doing some laundry and thought that since no-one else was going to be seeing her that it would be ok. I don't know. They were supposed to be going on holiday that morning anyway so I don't know why she going to be doing laundry for in the first place.
Sarah |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 227
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 9:25 am: |
|
According to her supporters, when asked that same question (why was she doing laundry) they claim that by doing some laundry she just meant she laid out shirt with a spot on it to be taken to the dry cleaners when she returned.
My main argument against this scenario is that according to their reports, they were planning to leave on the plane at 7. It was their own private plane, however, I still do not believe for a second that if planning to leave at 7 they didn't bother to get up until a quarter to 6 and didn't wake the kids up first thing. I mean really, ket to kids up, dressed and to the airport in less than an hour? Nope. Not really believing that one either. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 517
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 9:51 am: |
|
Ally,
I have just read an interview of Stephen Singular who wrote his book "Presumed Guilty" about the JonBenet Ramsey case. When he was asked why people were so quick to accuse John and Patsy, part of his answer was "People need to hate other people and the media feeds this need....None of this has anything to do with solving murder cases.It's just dollars and cents." He also goes on to say that the cops who thought they were guilty were going purely on statistics that say 10 out of 11 children found dead in the home are killed by a parent. This of course means that 1 out of 11 children are NOT killed by a parent when found dead in the home.
He also talks about a photographer called Randy Simons who he believes should have been looked at more carefully as he had photographed JonBenet before and had asked other pageant mums if he could photograph their daughters in the nude or semi-nude. Apparently, the police were focusing too much on the Ramseys and not enough on any other suspects.
You can see the whole interview here:-
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/singular/index_1.html?sect=7
Sarah |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 229
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:08 am: |
|
Sarah,
I have read that interview. I have read almost everything related to that case. That man's opinion doesn't change the facts and he is using inflammatory emotionalism by saying the only reason to suspect the Ramseys is that "people need to hate people". This is a crock and ignores the many reasons to look at John and Patsy. I don't hate the Ramseys. Anyone who hates someone who they have never met and who has never done anything directly to them is emotionally immature and shallow. Here are some very solid reasons to look at the Ramseys that have nothing to do with hate.
1. No sign of forced entry.
2. The fact that the "ransom note" was written on the Ramseys paper with the Ramseys pen, that there were several drafts of the note, and the writer put the pen back in the cup in which it belonged when finished writing it. It strains credibility to believe that a kidnapper would hang about writing several drafts in the very house s/he planned to do a crime in.
3. Patsys jacket fibers found under the duct tape on JonBenet.
4. Numerous inconsitencies in the Ramsey story.
5. And the body being left there. This killer supposedly hung about for hours writing drafts of the ransom note waiting for the opportunity to take her. Then doesn't do it. Why? He just decides to hang about in the basement rather than grabbing her and going?
Nope. Doesn't make sense at all. People who want to say the police were foolish to focus on the Ramseys have to be able to overlook all the inconsistencies in the intruder theory to do so. |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:14 am: |
|
Ally,
I agree that the wake up time doesn't match up with the proposed plane departure time. That simply makes no sense to me. I can't imagine getting my son up and dressed and making to the airport in that short of a time and I'm 10 minutes from the airport.
Sarah,
There are certainly people who should have been more closely investigated, however the Ramsey's kind of forced the focus onto themselves by refusing to grant a police interview for 4 months. Which regardless of their guilt or innocence was a huge impediment to the investigation.
Regards,
John |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 518
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:19 am: |
|
Ally,
With regards to your points:-
1. The window in the basement was unlocked so there was no need for a forced entry.
2. Where were these drafts found? As much as this seems incriminating to the Ramseys, I don't see them writing several drafts and then leaving them out for the police to see.
3. This one I cannot explain unfortunately.
4. Such as?
5. As I mentioned a while ago, the person could have easily wanted to kidnap her for the money as the Ramseys were rich, but upon getting her to the basement she struggled and tried to call out, leaving the kidnapper(s) no option but to kill her or get caught. They weren't going to drag the body out the house once she was dead. Also leaving the body there DOES put the parents under suspicion, maybe this was the killer's intention once he has killed her. This would explain why the ransom call never came which also made the Ramsey's look bad. I doubt they would do so much to incriminate themselves.
The Ramseys had no violent history either so I can't see them killing their daughter suddenly, it just doesn't make sense.
Sarah |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 230
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:38 am: |
|
1. The basement window wasn't unlocked it was broken. John Ramseys said that he had broken it weeks before. However, there is some evidence that the window had not been opened recently due to cobweb growth. This is not substantiated by photos so I can't say for sure, but the officers who were on scene said there were unbroken cobwebs across the window grate.
2. The drafts were not found. The writing tablet that the note was written on was examined. There were imprints of other similar wordage to the ransom note that was not found on the ransom note itself, on the remaining pages. As well as torn out pages between the top sheet and the bottom.
4. I have listed several inconsistencies so far, the clothing, the time shortage, others are John apparently seeing the body in a darkened room without turning on the light when his friend Fleet White had looked in that darkened room earlier and seen nothing. I do not have my books or my notes here with me so I can't answer this question as fully as I would like. I'll have to get back to you, these were the ones that just popped off my head.
5. Why didn't the killer just walk out the door? Maybe he needed the basement window to get in, but he didn't need it to get out. |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 11:06 pm: |
|
Ally,
Do you know if the handwriting on the drafts was compared with the Ramsey's and/or the final ransom note? I would think that there are at least two possible explanations for the multiple drafts. To perfect the wording, or to practice disguising the writing.
I cannot for the life of me come up with a legitimate reason for an actual kidnapper working through multiple drafts of a letter in the victims own house. Surely they would have brought their own with them rather than take the added risk.
Add to the inconsistencies in their story Patsy's tale of finding the notes on the spiral staircase and stepping OVER them before reading them from below. When detectives tried that they found it wasn't possible to do so while keeping their balance.
It's also worth noting that although the note rambles on movie fashion about the surveillance that they would be under, and the dangers of notifying the police, that this was not mentioned in the 911 call. After reading that note, *I* would certainly inform the 911 operator of that particular information rather than demanding that they hurry, hurry, hurry to send someone over. Unless of course they were either hysterical, stupid, or knew there wasn't any danger to the child due to her already being dead.
Sarah,
"As I mentioned a while ago, the person could have easily wanted to kidnap her for the money as the Ramseys were rich, but upon getting her to the basement she struggled and tried to call out, leaving the kidnapper(s) no option but to kill her or get caught."
If they wanted to kill her, they could easily have simply beaten the girl to death. She suffered blunt head trauma, so we know they were capable of hitting her. Whoever killed her by ligature strangulation did so because they either wanted her to suffer, or wanted to watch her die slowly. There are MUCH easier ways for an adult kidnapper to kill a 6 year old girl than the elaborate method used.
Additionally, the alleged kidnapping motive is inconsistent in my opinion with the apparent sexual abuse. No money motivated kidnapper is going to take the time to molest the victim INSIDE the house.
And if kidnapping was the motive, why the odd amount? It's odd both in that it matches the bonus John Ramsey recently received, and it's an oddly low figure to ask for from such a rich family.
Regards,
John |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 239
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 7:26 am: |
|
John,
I don't know right off the top of my head. I had summaries somewhere of different points but can't for the life of me find them. I'll hit the books tonight and see what I can find. I agree though and I believe it is generally accepted that the drafts were done to disguise handwriting. Whether there was enough of it to do a comparison...don't remember.
As for stepping *over* the note, I would not go so far as to say it was impossible to do without keeping your balance, different people with differing abilities. I will say it's improbable. The stairs were not that narrow, why not just step to the side of the paper?
And while I agree that the method of the killing is not at all consistent with, she cried out/woke up they had to get rid of her in a hurry, etc., (who would take the time to MAKE a garrotte when they could just strangle her with a cord if that was their aim) my main issue with this whole scenario remains: Why would the kidnapper have gone back to the basement in the first place?
There is absolutely not a single reasonable explanation for that to have occurred. They have the child, they have the option of walking out the door and going or going down into the basement with her where they must then figure out a way to haul/push/pull her up and out a small window 6 feet off the ground. When they could have just walked out the door.
Nope. Not buying that. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 530
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:29 am: |
|
Just a quick question. What does this bonus have to do with JonBenet's murder? I don't see a connection. Even if her parents did kill her, how would John be able to get that money as a bonus? Basically how are these conencted? It doesn't make sense to me.
Also, why are there only two options here anyway? Why it is between 1) the parents did it, or 2) someone wanted to kidnap her but messed it up. Sorry if I'm getting that wrong by the way. Why couldn't someone have wanted to set the parents up, or wanted to make it look like a kidnapping so they wouldn't find the body until the murderer was long gone, this would explain the many drafts of the letter as they would have wanted it to look right.
Just some more thoughts.
Sarah |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 244
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 6:32 am: |
|
Sarah,
The more you post, the more I get the feeling that you really don't know anything about this case which leads me to believe that you have been arguing this all along from your own emotion based perspective that the Ramseys have been wronged and you are not willing to examine the evidence that shows that may not be true.
You have yet to address a single point or question asked to you, instead you continue to come up with these out of left field questions.
To anyone who has the smallest idea of the facts of the case, it is OBVIOUS what the bonus connection is.
I find this exteremely ironic considering you posted this to another poster today:
"at least have the dignity to do some of your own readinginto the case first.
I just wanted to add to Glenn's point that Cornwell hadn't read a single line about the case before she started her project. Even then she only read up on things she could link to Sickert. I can see her now, flicking through some Ripper books and ignoring most of it and only taking note of some things which she can twist to make Sickert look guilty."
Ironic, no? Now viewing the evidence that points to the Ramseys, well they must have been framed! Some sick bastard just killed a child to frame those poor Ramseys. Please, credibility can only be stretched so far.
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 535
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 6:51 am: |
|
Ally,
I thought we were going to discuss this rationally. I offered two other alternatives and you yourself haven't addressed them. I have read into this case quite a lot and I just obviously see other possible reasons for things that occurred. I read into this a little while ago and whilst some minor things are fuzzy, e.g., the window being unlocked which was in fact broken but it leads to the same thing. Maybe I don't delve into these things as much as you as I am very busy with work, the psychology course, the gym, badminton, etc. but I think I still deserve to put my opinion across.
Just because you don't think something could have happened, it doesn't mean it didn't.
"well they must have been framed! Some sick bastard just killed a child to frame those poor Ramseys. Please, credibility can only be stretched so far"
Where is your evidence for this then? You are the one talking about evidence, so please enlighten me here where your evidence is that shows they weren't set up? I also didn't say they were set up, I merely suggested it. Sometimes things are not either black or white. I always look at things in this light which is why I do not have a straight forward answer to any murder case that hasn't been solved.
By the way, which points haven't I answered? Please can you point these out to me.
Also, if you see that it is so straight forward why have the Ramsey's been cleared?
Sarah |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 245
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 7:03 am: |
|
Sarah,
Don't attempt to derail by saying I am not acting rationally. If you were offended by those words, that's a shame considering that they were yours. There are several points you have failed to address, read up a few lines, I'm not going to retype them.
You did not present two alternatives, you presented one: that the parents were being deliberately framed. An idea which I did address and which I find laughable. As for me presenting evidence that they were framed, I don't believe they were..that was your idea not mine.
There are a lot of miscarriages of justice Sarah. Lack of prosecutorial evidence often mean that guilty people can't be charged. This is the real world after all. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 536
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 7:46 am: |
|
Ally,
I meant that I wanted you to provide evidence that they weren't framed. I also did give two alternatives. One was that they may have been framed and the other was that someone wanted to make it look like a kidnapping but wasn't. This one isn't that good as the ransom note was quite long and therefore not very plausible why someone would waste time doing that. Even so I still presented two alternatives.
I also wasn't offended by my own words. Where did I say that I was offended? I think you'll find I didn't.
The only point I can see that I haven't addressed in some way was when you asked why they didn't walk out the door. To that, I can only say that I have no idea. Do you? Unless we know who these people were and we know them personally and can ask them then I'm afraid we won't know.
Anyway, we are not here as judge and jury, this is just a discussion we do in our spare time, well I do. As it is not up us whether they get sent to jail or not we can look into all the possible options no matter how strange they sound.
I have another question to you. If you believe them to be guilty then how do you explain their polygraph tests showing they were telling the truth? You can't say, oh, well they are always accurate as there would have been no point in them taking it in the first place.
Sarah |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 7:46 am: |
|
Ally,
I believe that Patsy's story was that the 3 pages were side by side, and REQUIRED her to step over. And unless memory fails me, she's not a tall person. It's certainly not conclusive, but it's an odd little detail.
I did a bit more reading last night and couldn't much detail of the drafts, but it seems that a number of the investigators felt that it was Patsy's handwriting on the final note so the point may be moot anyhow.
I agree 100% regarding you point about them not just walking out the door. That makes no sense at all, period. Whoever it was appeared to be extremely comfortable hanging out, and felt under no pressure at all to leave. Or use their common sense.
John |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 247
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 8:24 am: |
|
Sarah,
The Ramseys took PRIVATE polygraph tests not administered by police and they took them YEARS after the event. There is no way that they would be conclusive under those two circumstances.
You say how can I possibly say why the crooks didn't walk out the door, unless we know them personally..blah blah. That argument is a red herring. The fact of the matter is, if the person wanted to take JonBenet, they would have walked out the door. They didn't. There was never an attempt at kidnapping which pretty much rules out the possiblity that it was anyone outside her immediate circle who did it.
You may claim to know about this case, but the fact is, you don't know about the drafts of the ransom note, the content of it, you don't know about the evidence that those who think they are guilty use, you don't know about the clothes, the threads beneath the duct tape, the interviews, etc, etc. These are not minor details, these are important facts in the case.
This entire debacle was based not on you having a good factual basis for your beliefs, but on stubborn determination of opinion unsupported by facts. You don't know the facts of the case. Even still you are not providing evidence that might show them to be innocent, you are providing theory as to possible alternate scenarios in which the evidence would prove them not guilty, framed etc.
In short, you have come unarmed to this debate and it is pointless to attempt a rational discussion. Your argument isn't based on the facts, it's based on 'what ifs'. I don't have patience for "what ifs".
This will be my last reply to you on this matter.
John,
Now that I am thinking about it, you are right they were supposedly laying side by side. However, I am a short woman and I have no problem skipping a step. I am not saying it's meaningless, I just think with all the weight of other stuff, I wouldn't put too much into this one.
Peace,
Ally |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 538
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 9:46 am: |
|
Ally,
"and they took them YEARS after the event."
What does this matter? As time passes, the truth doesn't get altered. Whoever JonBenet's murderer was will still be her murderer 10 years from now.
"The fact of the matter is, if the person wanted to take JonBenet, they would have walked out the door."
How do you know this? I didn't mean to make my argument a red herring. I do not think about my answers to these posts to that extent that I would think of putting a red herring in my posts. Unless you have managed to track down her murderer and ask them, how could you know what was going on in their head. You told me earlier that I can't possibly know how the Ramsey's were feeling so how can you claim to know what the murderer was thinking?
"you are not providing evidence that might show them to be innocent"
How can I? There isn't evidence to show their guilt either. If there was the D.A's office wouldn't have cleared them. I have showed lots of alternative options but just because you disagree with them it doesn't make them untrue.
You accused me of making judgments on my personal emotions and now you are making judgements based on yours. You are trying to show that you know what the murderers would and wouldn't have done based on how you would act, at least that's how it's coming across to me.
Sarah |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 172
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:55 am: |
|
Sarah,
You have not answered most of the points raised by Ally, and none of the ones I have raised. But as a courtesy, some quick response to your own points:
"What does this bonus have to do with JonBenet's murder? I don't see a connection. Even if her parents did kill her, how would John be able to get that money as a bonus? Basically how are these conencted? It doesn't make sense to me"
He had already received the money. The significance is that 118,000 is an odd amount to begin with, it matches an amount of cash that JR recently received, and it's a figure that would be only known to the Ramsey and a limited set of people at Access Graphics.
As far as the frame up possibility goes, everyone who had a potential grudge against the Ramseys was looked at, including those employees at Access Graphics who would have had access to the bonus info. Ally is right, that's a complete non-starter for any number of solid reasons. (Including the fact that a note was left at all.)
"What does this matter? As time passes, the truth doesn't get altered. Whoever JonBenet's murderer was will still be her murderer 10 years from now."
Polygraph's don't measure TRUTH. They measure physiological changes in response to specific questions. These tests are only as good as the person asking the questions and interperting the results under the best of circumstances. And a person who is being paid by the Ramsey's has little motivation to pursue the questions as aggressively as they should. Additionally, they're not hard to beat if you understand the basis behind them, and they had a LONG time to prepare. I have several off the shelf books that tell exactly how to do it. Polygraphs are not admissible in court because of their notorious unreliability.
Do some research on polygraphs before putting your faith in them, which they rarely deserve in any case. But the circumstances under which the Ramsey's took their's were the worst possible for getting anything like an accurate result.
Ally's point regarding the kidnappers return to the basement is NOT emotionally based, but common sense based. If these were kidnappers, they were without a doubt the WORST kidnappers in the history of the crime. A few points:
1) Rather than bring their own note, they hung out doing multiple drafts while in the house.
2) Rather than bring a weapon, they used on site materials.
3) Rather than a simple exit through the front door, they went back downstairs.
4) They took time to molest her in the house.
5) They killed her slowly and purposefully which is add odds with the whole basic premise of kidnapping.
I could list more, but do I really need to?
"There isn't evidence to show their guilt either."
There are PILES of evidence to show their guilt, but not enough to gain a conviction. BIG difference there. It's a particular problem when you have 2 (or 3) people who could be involved, but with no way to determine who played what rule. It makes prosecution problematic.
John |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 541
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 12:10 pm: |
|
John,
When a person lies, they tend to sweat ever so slightly, no matter how good a liar you are. The machine is set to allow a bit of sweating as it is nerve racking taking a test anyway, even if you are telling the truth. Also, your heart beat quickens which is also picked up by the machine so if it says you are lying when you are telling the truth you would have to be a very nervous person.
With regards to the "PILES of evidence", I just don't see most of it as evidence against them.
Also, what do you mean by saying they took time to molest her. There was no proof that she had been molestered at all. There were dark fibres found and a couple of spots of blood in her knickers. There was no sign of forced entry into her vagina and no trace of sperm either. It was found that she had wet the bed and so it good also be the equivilant to having herself wiped down, albeit quite hard.
Sarah |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Sarah,
"When a person lies, they tend to sweat ever so slightly, no matter how good a liar you are. The machine is set to allow a bit of sweating as it is nerve racking taking a test anyway, even if you are telling the truth. Also, your heart beat quickens which is also picked up by the machine so if it says you are lying when you are telling the truth you would have to be a very nervous person."
It is nowhere NEAR as simple as that. Every persons physiology is different and the machine needs to be calibrated by a series of control questions. And frankly, their general reliability sucks.
I really suggest you do some reading on the subject, before accepting that test as meaningful or asking others to do so. Try typing "polygraph" and "reliability" into a search engine, you should find 1000s of documents on the subject.
"With regards to the "PILES of evidence", I just don't see most of it as evidence against them."
With all due respect Sarah, I suggest you read an unbiased book on the case. Lawrence Schiller's "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" is a great overview if more than a little daunting in size and detail. It covers the inconsistencies in their stories, the political manipulation, the physical evidence, the grand jury testimony, etc.
"There was no proof that she had been molestered at all. There were dark fibres found and a couple of spots of blood in her knickers. There was no sign of forced entry into her vagina and no trace of sperm either. It was found that she had wet the bed and so it good also be the equivilant to having herself wiped down, albeit quite hard."
There was dried blood found around the entrance of her vagina. Also hyperemia in the tissue around and just inside the vagina which could indicate trauma. The hymen was not intact, and there were visible abrasions along the vaginal wall.
If she was not molested on the spot (Which is of course a possibility) than it is more than likely SOMEONE close to her was molesting her. The evidence is NOT consistent with a hard "wiping down".
John |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 544
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 5:38 am: |
|
John,
I'll have a look into polygraph machines then but I've heard being used in UK courts, that's why I presumed they are reliable.
I got the "hard wiping down" from a web site on JonBenet's murder where there also many other details so that wasn't my personal explanation for the blood and the fibres.
I have found another one that does say that there was a small hole in her hymen but not enough that a penis would have been pushed through. It was only 1 cm x 1 cm.
Also, with regards to them hiring a solicitor, they were asked about it during an interview and John's answer was:-
"Well, we were fortunate from almost the moment that we found the note to be surrounded by friends, our minister, our family doctor, a personal friend of mine who is also an attorney, and we relied on their guidance almost from that moment on and my friend suggested that it would be foolish not to have knowledgeable counsel to help both us and with the investigation."
Just wanted to point out there reason for hiring a solicitor. It was, as I suspected, them taking advise from a friend who himself was a solicitor.
Sarah |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 182
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:54 am: |
|
Sarah,
I think you'll find looking into polygraphs very illuminating. They are unreliable things at best, and not all that difficult to beat.
As far as the 1cm x 1cm hole, please note I used the word "molested" as opposed to "raped". A finger, or other object could have caused that damage. We simply do not know the exact circumstances that the trauma occurred, however it is certainly extremely suspicious. (The "Hard wipe" theory is just plain silly IMO.)
I've never said that hiring a lawyer was a bad idea. I would possibly do the same thing under the circumstances. But I don't know that the word of either of the Ramesey's should be accepted at face value at this point. They've said a lot of things that don't add up.
And in my opinion, if they cared at all for the investigation they would not have waited 4 months before giving a formal interview to police. Even if they were innocent. ESPECIALLY if they were innocent, it showed a tremendously callous disregard for the investigation into their daughter's murder.
Again, I can only suggest that you find a good unbiased book on the subject. Many websites out there are pushing an agenda, and not everyone contributing to them knows what they are talking about.
Regards,
John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 680
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 7:19 am: |
|
Hi John,
I haven’t read up much about this case, I’m afraid. So one thing I don’t quite understand which may be explained in the literature is why the police allowed the parents to delay so long. Why didn’t they insist on formal interviews with separate statements much sooner after the event?
Re the polygraph tests, you argue well for them not being hard to beat, being notoriously unreliable, and rarely deserving of anyone’s faith in them. ‘And frankly, their general reliability sucks.’
Yet you stated recently on another thread that you would love to have carte blanche to interrogate the Maybrick diary and watch suspects, ‘while they're attached to a polygraph’.
As Ally says, there is ‘no way’ that private polygraph tests not administered by the police and taken years after the event would be conclusive. So even if you were satisfied with the testing methods used, and found the results were ‘meaningful’ for you in the case of the suspected forgers, no one else would now feel inclined to be swayed by them, whatever they indicated.
And, naturally, any reliance placed on polygraph results merely on the basis that they confirmed beliefs already set in stone could immediately be rubbished, simply by quoting the arguments you make here.
Love,
Caz
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 9:35 am: |
|
Caz,
The parents were a very politically powerful family with connections. They used that to their advantage throughout the case.
And yes, polygraphs do suck. They're very unreliable. And while I said I would like to attach to the diary principals (I believe I also suggested sodium pentathol  ), it wasn't from any hope that I would obtain definitive "truth", but with the basic idea that I was going to go through was I view as a meaningless exercise that anything is better than nothing.
And of course no one else should be swayed by the results, nor would I expect them to. Nor would I treat them as definitive in any way. I never once suggested such a thing.
However a few interesting results might pop up that could lead to more profitable lines of inquiry in the real world. That's why they're often used in law enforcement to question suspects, yet not used in court. They might help lead you to proof, but they can't prove anything in and of themselves. They just measure physiological changes, not actual truth.
"And, naturally, any reliance placed on polygraph results merely on the basis that they confirmed beliefs already set in stone could immediately be rubbished, simply by quoting the arguments you make here."
LOL! They wouldn't need to quote ME Caz, there are plenty of actual experts on polygraphs that could be quoted in a much more authoritative way.
Regards,
John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 684
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Hi John,
Very well squirmed. 
I know this is all kind of tongue-in-cheek anyway, but you did make me smile with the ‘anything is better than nothing’ line, after your little rant about the general worthlessness of polygraph tests.
Love,
Caz
|
misty.martin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 3:24 pm: |
|
I am writing a paper for my masters and trying to get as much information as possible. Can you beleive that after this long, we're still this focused on this case?
|
James Jeffrey Paul
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 12:05 pm: |
|
John Douglas in his new book, THE CASES THAT HAUNT US (in which he also offers a profile of JTR), explains why he feels that the Ramseys didn't kill their daughter. |
Christina Nordstrom
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 7:45 am: |
|
Hello, just so everyone knows, I am working on becoming a member and am trying to get a head-start on conversation and debate regarding the JonBenet murder. So far the only research I have done on the case is reading a book titled 'JonBenet - Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation' which was written by the lead detective on the case, Steve Thomas. At the current moment, I believe that Patsy Ramsey, the mother of JonBenet, was aware of and involved in the murder of her daughter, and that John Ramsey, the father of JonBenet, was aware of Patsy's involvement throughout the investigation. However, I am open to hear the opinions of others and am willing to observe the evidence and make an opinion based on what new evidence may be shown to me on this message board.
I look forward to discussing the evidence and facts regarding the murder of JonBenet Ramsey with those who have researched and are knowledgable on the subject, and am eager to partake in a rational debate and learn as much as I can about the case.
Thank you,
Christina
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 630
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:18 am: |
|
Howdy Christina,
Membership is not required so don't feel you need to hurry to do it to get a good conversation. I have long been fascinated by this case as well. I do not at all buy "the intruder" theory...as to who in the house actually commited the murder, I am open.
What do you think of John's decision to run for public office?
|
Christina Nordstrom
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 7:45 pm: |
|
Ally,
As it is right now, I don't understand that decision at all. If his reasoning is really that he wants to 'move on' or 'give something back', then why do so in politics? It's as if he's trying to push himself back into the spotlight, but for reasons that I don't comprehend right now...
It's true that I haven't heard much about his decision to run for public office, so maybe if I heard some more about it I could come up with a better opinion.
If you don't mind me asking you the same question, what are your views of John's decision to run for public office?
Christina |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 631
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 10:56 am: |
|
I'm sort of the "6 of one, half a dozen of the other" mentality on this.
On the one hand, he could be saying "Would I run for office and open myself up to this if I were guilty?" and he might convince people with that argument. They would say "Well gee, a guilty man would just lie low".
On the other hand, there is no new evidence in the case. Putting himself in the spotlight is hardly going to lead to an arrest at this point, so it's really a win-win proposition for him.
If he actually is innocent, I don't know what he hopes to accomplish by this. It will no doubt re-open a lot of wounds for his family and once he is a "public figure" that will open him up for a media onslaught and remove his right to sue everyone and their grandmother for libel.
It should be interesting all around.
|
Christina Nordstrom
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 6:57 am: |
|
Yea, I understand what you are saying. It doesn't seem as though running for office would put him in a better position, and it does seem to invite more harm than it would anything else. I can't say that there's really anything strong pointing to John running for any beneficial reasons, although it does seem a bit awkward. Although, the Ramsey's have been behaving rather bizzare ever since the morning of December 26, 1996, the morning after the murder of thier daughter.
I'm pretty sure though, that John Ramsey himself had nothing to do with the murder of his daughter. From the observation of Linda Arndt, John started to act odd after he vanished for some time while police were at the home. They assumed that he had gone out to check the mail. They later discovered that during the time he disappeared, he had gone down to the basement to look around, and it was when he came back that the police officer at the home, Linda Arndt, noticed he was acting quite differently. I believe that he realized what was going on after he found JonBenet in the basement, and then decided to protect his wife, who I believe committed the murder. That would also explain why when John and Fleet White, the family friend, were asked to search the house for anything 'suspicious' or 'out of place', he went straight down to the basement, to the room where JonBenet's body was found, as though he knew right where it was.
If that were the case, then I can see why he might act a bit strangely. Discovering that your wife murdered your child, and then deciding to protect her despite what she did, yea, I'd be a bit wierd myself. Of course that's not to say that he was right in protecting Patsy Ramsey if she did indeed murder thier daughter the previous night. Frankly, I think that if Patsy did kill JonBenet, and John was aware of it and didn't say anything, he's just as bad as she is.
Of course, there is no proof that this is what happened, but from observing the evidence, that is my opinion.
Earlier you said that you didn't buy the intruder theory, but you weren't sure who in the house committed the actual crime. Does that include Burke Ramsey, or do you believe that it was one of the parents?
-Christina |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 636
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 8:27 pm: |
|
I haven't ruled out anyone in the house at all. I don't even have a "least likely". As far as motiviation/evidence considerations, I would lean towards casting John in the "least likely" category, except that he was the one to find the body. However, since I think that a large portion of the evening was spent in staging, then he was probably in on the cover up and his finding the body was just indicative of this.
As for most likely, I am somewhat torn. The pineapple bowl w/Burke's fingerprints on it and Patsy claiming that JonBenet had not eaten any pineapple before going to bed despite the pineapple being found in her stomach means that I would not rule out Burke either.
Patsy if of course the favorite suspect of most people, however, I don't buy the motive put forth by S.T. in his book. Let's face it, according to all reports, Patsy took JonBenet's bedwetting in complete stride, it was a regular event and I just don't see her suddenly blowing it over something so mundane. If she did do it, it was over something else.
Ally
|
Christina Nordstrom
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 6:05 pm: |
|
If I recall correctly, I don't have any documentation with me at the moment, but I believe that Patsy's fingerprints were also on the pineapple bowl.
Although I will have to agree with you, the bedwetting of JonBenet being a motive is rather out there. After 6 years, Patsy would have been right on top of it. It seems like a mother who had been taking care of her daughter's bedwetting for so long could have taken care of it that night as well, with no effort whatsoever.
Although I do believe that Patsy was involved in JonBenet's murder, I am at a loss for a motive. The only explanation that has risen so far is the bedwetting issue, and I just can't buy that. It may sound silly for me to think that Patsy was involved, but that there was no motive that I can see, but her behavior after the murder of her daughter was rather unusual, add onto that a whole stack of evidence that points to the Ramsey's and it's kind of hard not to look at her as the prime suspect. For me anyway..
-Christina |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1100
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Did anyone see the (I assume) latest documentary on the case last night on ITV1? If so, could you do a quick summary here for me please?
I really wanted to watch it but fell asleep halfway through.  . No use my asking hubby - he was snoring after five minutes. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 2:11 pm: |
|
HI
I did see some of it Caz.
mainly the end section after the football!!
What they seemed to be saying(bearing in mind I had not seen all of it)was that a man they would not name was responsible for the murder and also other crimes in the area which involved breaking into peoples houses whilst they were out hiding then attempting to sexually assault young girls. Very nasty.
Having missed most of the programme (as i was out)and finding its content hard to follow therefore I did not see the conclusion. lets hope it gets a repeat
Jennifer
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1148
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Caz
An institutionalised police force hooks onto the closest and most logical suspects - the parents in this case - and then actively represses evidence, including DNA sampling and evidence of sexual assault - which indicates that the crimes are of a ‘stranger’ nature.
Witnesses are intimidated and ignored - not by the killer/killers but by the ‘force’ - and even senior agencies involved in the judicial process are persuaded by the force to ignore compelling evidence which appears to indicate that the crimes were committed by known suspects with records for similar crimes and assaults in the immediate neighbourhood.
The force however are committed to the ‘obvious’ suspects, the parents, and unable to exercise any form of self-examination pursue their erratic course into self-destruction to avoid any loss of ‘face’.
Ultimately the higher judicial powers in the state are sick to the teeth of this farce and reappoint the only law-enforcement officer who showed any common sense in the original investigation but was fired for this and the case finally proceeds in the direction it should have years ago.
Just a normal police investigation, Caz, happens everyday here and everyday there.
I still don’t understand why folks get so excited about this case.
It is the ‘norm’.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 5:28 am: |
|
Thanks Jenn and AP.
A group hooking onto 'the closest and most logical suspects' eh?
Tales of intimidation and ignorance eh?
People who should know better 'persuaded by' the group 'to ignore compelling evidence' eh?
This group 'however are committed to the ‘obvious’ suspects...and unable to exercise any form of self-examination pursue their erratic course into self-destruction to avoid any loss of ‘face’' eh?
Surely not?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 107
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 10:04 am: |
|
Caz,All,
The documentary is titled 'Who Killed the Pageant Queen?' It focuses on Michael Helgoth as a prime suspect in JonBenet's murder. The program suggests a second, unidentified person, who is still at large, might have helped Helgoth in the crime. Helgoth, 26, a gun fanatic and pedophile, fatally shot himself on February 14, 1997, one day after then-Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter said in a televised news conference that investigators were narrowing their list of suspects. The unidentified person is a man with a violent past who is believed to be involved in a similar and more recent attack on a 12-year-old girl in the Ramseys' neighborhood.
Helgoth was brought to authorities' attention by Colorado Springs private investigator Ollie Gray and former El Paso County sheriff's homicide Detective Lou Smit. The documentary reports that Helgoth owned a stun gun. Smit believes a stun gun was used on JonBenet. Helgoth also had owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots. That is potentially significant because police found a print made by such a shoe near the spot in the basement of the Ramseys' Boulder home where JonBenet's body was found.
Take care,
Kevin
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Caz
there is no point in trying to bait me until you get a hook on your line.
But I always love your posts just the same. |
Mr Davey P
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Quick summary of the ITV programme (from memory!)...
1) A local paedophile with a preference for blonde girls close to JonBenet's age "committed" suicide the day after the local police chief read out his FBI written "list of suspects" speech. The paedophile enjoyed killing/torturing pets, and also dressing as a ninja and stalking people at night. This ties in with a series of suspected bulgaries in the area that stopped after the murder - items were rarely taken, but the person(s) involved tended to gain entry to the house and the creep from room to room during the night. In the times when the householder's were disturbed they reported the intruder as being dressed entirely in black from head to toe.
2) The paedophile in question had a pair of the rare HiTek trainers that matched the imprint in the Ramsey cellar. The HiTek logo on the trainers appeared to have dirt the same colour as the Ramsay's cellar floor embedded in it. He had a collection of stun guns (and also real guns). He also had a collection of unusual videos taped from TV - one had a clip of a young girl being woken up by Santa Claus, followed immediately by a news story about an abused or abducted young girl (I forget which). His ex-wife had taken out an injunction against him after finding him in bed naked with their young daughter and he had admitted that he couldn't help himself.
3) The paedophiles suicide was highly suspicious and it seemed more likely he was murdered. After the suicide, a work mate contacted the local police on several occasions as he suspected there might be a connection between the suicide and the JonBenet case. The paedophile had also mentioned to work colleagues that he was working with a partner (in some unnamed venture) that would net him $59,000 (2 x $59,000 = $118,000). He had also been overheard saying he would like to crack a human skull open.
4) The paedophile was known to be an aquaintance of the unnamed "prime suspect", who colleagues described as a very violent and dangerous man. I think the programme also said he was a known paedophile. There was evidence that the "prime suspect" had done work inside the Ramsay's house before they moved in.
5) A few weeks after the murder, there was a similar event close to the Ramsay's home. A wife put her young daughter to bed and, being a light sleeper, woke when she heard noises from her daughter's bedroom. She grabbed some mace and left her bedroom in time to see a man (dressed entirely in black) run from her daughter's room and out through a first floor balcony window. The father (who was away at the time) felt there was a link to the JonBenet case, but police dismissed it.
6) The whereabouts of the "prime suspect" is unknown, but if he is found then they would be able to test his DNA against the mystery DNA contained in JonBenet's panties.
Although you could argue that the evidence presented was one-sided, I found it very compelling. That it was not investigated by the local police at the time is frankly shocking and reeks of incompetence.
I should also point out that the programme maker's had the actual name of the "prime suspect" but chose not to use it (presumably either because of the ongoing investigation, or the potential for slander). |
jonbenetsvoice
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 7:51 pm: |
|
If anyone has any theories could they please e-mail me with them.. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 664
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 7:51 am: |
|
There is so much I want to reply to you with and so much of it would get me banned.
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 420
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Ally,
Be careful. I would hate to see my Goddess banned.
Love & miss ya,
Mikey |
mariastuckey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
There is something everyone is missing here.....
we are almost 10 years down the road.
Patsy and John are still together.
Strictly from logic:
If the father were guilty of murdering his daughter, Patsy would have gone crazy that night...she would have been repulsed by John
If Patsy were guilty, John would have loyally stuck by her, but years down the line, he would have discretly, quietly divorced her.
That leaves one other person....that both parents have to protect....that neither nor both
can turn on, nor walk away from......
Burke
Burke murdered his sister....not premeditated....
but accidently, to quiet her because he was doing something to her he didn't want known....and she was threatening to tell.
}}}} |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 383
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Maria,
Burke was like 8 years old at the time JonBenet died. What is it you suggest he was doing? And I assume you're suggesting the parents staged the crime scene. If that's the case, why were they not able to provide a viable method of entry for the 'intruder'?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 956
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 3:20 pm: |
|
Why Tom,
You are sounding like a liberal! Are you saying that 8 is too young to commit murder? If the parents staged the murder, placing the body in the basement which had a broken out window was probably considered to be a viable method of entry.
|
Angel
Sergeant
Username: Angel
Post Number: 24
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 1:49 am: |
|
Out here in Australia we have a much easier method of apportoning guilt where evidence fails, especially in cases where family members are accused of murder.
We blame DINGOS.
There is no such thing as right or wrong - only places to stand.
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page