Family Innocent in Jonbenet Ramsey Murder

[Aaronsmom]

Whether or not I believe the Ramseys were responsible, there's no question the investigation was badly botched from the get-go, and because of that, those who say the murder will probably never be solved, or the mystery resolved, are probably right. And that's so sad.

For years I would not believe the Ramseys could be guilty of murder and cover up--mainly for one reason: I couldn't believe parents like them with not one shred of history of abuse could suddenly turn into monsters/ psychopathic killers they would have to be to do what was done to this beautiful little girl. Not scientific, I know, but that's how I felt. Even if a mother was upset discovering her child had wet a bed, it seems unthinkable to me she would go so far as to violently bash the child's head in--not a parent with no history of abuse and nothing in her history to show she had capability of violent rage. Why would Mrs. Ramsey suddenly become so enraged at a bed getting wet as to be savagely violent? Even if she was tired after a long day, why would she go so horribly berserk.? It simply defies logic. And if the child got the head injury in some accident, why would the parents not immediately call an ambulance? Why would either parent conclude instantly (which it had to have been if that's what happened) that the child was a lost cause and if anyone found out, the parents would be disbelieved that it was an accident, and one or both would be charged with murder? That just makes sense. Yet, that's what had to have happened if you believe death resulted from an accident and a cover-up ensued? So neither deliberate violence against the child or cover-up of an accident seemed at all plausible.

But over time, the more I learned of the death and the crime scene, the more the intruder theory seemed implausible as well. Nothing about it was consistent with a crime committed by someone breaking into the house and violently assaulting the child--either a paedophile or a kidnapper abducting for ransom. The most perplexing inconsistency was both a ransom note and evidence of sexual assault (whether I believe there was a real assault or if it was staged) were found. A crazed paedophile would abduct a child from her bed and leave the house with her, or take the child to another part of the house to assault her. He wouldn't ALSO leave a ransom note. Additionally, it was proved that the note had to have been written on the pad of paper in the Ramsey home. A kidnapper for ransom would bring a brief written demand with him to leave in the house. It's not credible that either a sex criminal or an abductor for ransom would sit in the house writing out a lengthy ransom note. An

abductor for ransom would demand a large sum from

parents known to be wealthy--like a million or half a million. Why would anyone specifically demand $118,000? When it came out that it was the same sum as Mr. Ramsey's bonus, there was the disturbing implication that whoever wrote the note was deliberately trying to direct focus on a fall guy--

someone who knew the sum of the bonus AND was resentful enough to abduct a child for ransom in the same amount of the bonus. Coincidentally, there was a person who might fit the bill--a work associate of Mr. Ramsey's. if this work associate wanted ransom in the amount of the

bonus to get even, why not complete the abduction rather than brutalize and violate the child in the house where she would be certain to be found very soon? That's why I started believing that the author of the note was making a deliberate point to implicate an innocent person, to focus the

investigation on someone other than him (or her) self. But who would have a motive to do that? Someone who was likely to be suspected? If the killer was unknown to the family, why try to implicate someone else in particular? It didn't add up. What it looked like was a person who was in a crazed panic to cover up a horrible event in the house that night and wasn't in a frame of mind to think any of it through logically. There were too many "clues" on the scene, to quote Inspector Poirot. The killer did the bizarre thing of leaving too many, and contradictory, suggestions of motive for the crime. Who would do something so bizarre, and something that wouldn't further the motive of any onr abductor? A frantic parent desperate to hide a brutal accident or deliberate assault, not thinking anything out, just going to extremes to point blame on anyone other than the parent? But that brings me back to the original stumper: why would parents like the Ramseys do something so heinous to their own child? It makes no sense.

This left me with the conclusion that neither an intruder (paedophile or ransom seeker) or the victim's parents could be responsible. And yet, the crime happened, so one of the two theories had to be the explanation. How could that be?

The only way I can believe Mrs. Ramsey did all those atrocious, unspeakable things is if she was under the spell of an evil hypnotist and had no consciousness of her actions, or she was possessed by an alien from another planet, or by the devil. But I don't believe in any such things. So how and why did it happen? But I also can't accept a person outside the family was in the house that night. So my ultimate conclusion is that I am thoroughly stumped. I can give no opinion on who murdered Jonbenet Ramsey. I will say that just because some judge or district attorney says the parents couldn't be behind the crime doesn't make it true. I think that as long as the questions remain open, no one--including John and Patsy Ramsey--can be ruled out, nor convicted with certainty. And as I said, I doubt those questions will ever be answered definitively.

My one observation is, if the Ramseys were behind it, they are the ones that have been hurt the worst, and punished the most. If there is someone else responsible and still alive, someday he will strike again in a similarly bizarre way. But this murder happened over 15 years ago, and nothing remotely like it has occurred. Which means this person has either been dead a long time, or he simply never existed.

[Antilles]

From the article.

According to Carnes, the slipknots and garotte were both sophisticated bondage devices designed to give control to the user. Evidence from these devices suggests they were made by someone with expertise using rope and cords, which... could not be found or 'sourced' within the defendants' home. The black duct tape was also not sourced to the defendants. Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. Nothing in the Ramsey home found matching to the hair.

regi, I would say there was a total lack of DNA evidence to point to anyone in the Ramsey home.

[dekker87]

Whether or not I believe the Ramseys were responsible, there's no question the investigation was badly botched from the get-go, and because of that, those who say the murder will probably never be solved, or the mystery resolved, are probably right. And that's so sad.

For years I would not believe the Ramseys could be guilty of murder and cover up--mainly for one reason: I couldn't believe parents like them with not one shred of history of abuse could suddenly turn into monsters/ psychopathic killers they would have to be to do what was done to this beautiful little girl. Not scientific, I know, but that's how I felt. Even if a mother was upset discovering her child had wet a bed, it seems unthinkable to me she would go so far as to violently bash the child's head in--not a parent with no history of abuse and nothing in her history to show she had capability of violent rage. Why would Mrs. Ramsey suddenly become so enraged at a bed getting wet as to be savagely violent? Even if she was tired after a long day, why would she go so horribly berserk.? It simply defies logic. And if the child got the head injury in some accident, why would the parents not immediately call an ambulance? Why would either parent conclude instantly (which it had to have been if that's what happened) that the child was a lost cause and if anyone found out, the parents would be disbelieved that it was an accident, and one or both would be charged with murder? That just makes sense. Yet, that's what had to have happened if you believe death resulted from an accident and a cover-up ensued? So neither deliberate violence against the child or cover-up of an accident seemed at all plausible.

But over time, the more I learned of the death and the crime scene, the more the intruder theory seemed implausible as well. Nothing about it was consistent with a crime committed by someone breaking into the house and violently assaulting the child--either a paedophile or a kidnapper abducting for ransom. The most perplexing inconsistency was both a ransom note and evidence of sexual assault (whether I believe there was a real assault or if it was staged) were found. A crazed paedophile would abduct a child from her bed and leave the house with her, or take the child to another part of the house to assault her. He wouldn't ALSO leave a ransom note. Additionally, it was proved that the note had to have been written on the pad of paper in the Ramsey home. A kidnapper for ransom would bring a brief written demand with him to leave in the house. It's not credible that either a sex criminal or an abductor for ransom would sit in the house writing out a lengthy ransom note. An

abductor for ransom would demand a large sum from

parents known to be wealthy--like a million or half a million. Why would anyone specifically demand $118,000? When it came out that it was the same sum as Mr. Ramsey's bonus, there was the disturbing implication that whoever wrote the note was deliberately trying to direct focus on a fall guy--

someone who knew the sum of the bonus AND was resentful enough to abduct a child for ransom in the same amount of the bonus. Coincidentally, there was a person who might fit the bill--a work associate of Mr. Ramsey's. if this work associate wanted ransom in the amount of the

bonus to get even, why not complete the abduction rather than brutalize and violate the child in the house where she would be certain to be found very soon? That's why I started believing that the author of the note was making a deliberate point to implicate an innocent person, to focus the

investigation on someone other than him (or her) self. But who would have a motive to do that? Someone who was likely to be suspected? If the killer was unknown to the family, why try to implicate someone else in particular? It didn't add up. What it looked like was a person who was in a crazed panic to cover up a horrible event in the house that night and wasn't in a frame of mind to think any of it through logically. There were too many "clues" on the scene, to quote Inspector Poirot. The killer did the bizarre thing of leaving too many, and contradictory, suggestions of motive for the crime. Who would do something so bizarre, and something that wouldn't further the motive of any onr abductor? A frantic parent desperate to hide a brutal accident or deliberate assault, not thinking anything out, just going to extremes to point blame on anyone other than the parent? But that brings me back to the original stumper: why would parents like the Ramseys do something so heinous to their own child? It makes no sense.

This left me with the conclusion that neither an intruder (paedophile or ransom seeker) or the victim's parents could be responsible. And yet, the crime happened, so one of the two theories had to be the explanation. How could that be?

The only way I can believe Mrs. Ramsey did all those atrocious, unspeakable things is if she was under the spell of an evil hypnotist and had no consciousness of her actions, or she was possessed by an alien from another planet, or by the devil. But I don't believe in any such things. So how and why did it happen? But I also can't accept a person outside the family was in the house that night. So my ultimate conclusion is that I am thoroughly stumped. I can give no opinion on who murdered Jonbenet Ramsey. I will say that just because some judge or district attorney says the parents couldn't be behind the crime doesn't make it true. I think that as long as the questions remain open, no one--including John and Patsy Ramsey--can be ruled out, nor convicted with certainty. And as I said, I doubt those questions will ever be answered definitively.

My one observation is, if the Ramseys were behind it, they are the ones that have been hurt the worst, and punished the most. If there is someone else responsible and still alive, someday he will strike again in a similarly bizarre way. But this murder happened over 15 years ago, and nothing remotely like it has occurred. Which means this person has either been dead a long time, or he simply never existed.

or they were very young at the time and have 'moved on' past that experience....not specifically pointing at the ramseys son there...the note just seems so....childish and naive...

[Antilles]

Whether or not I believe the Ramseys were responsible, there's no question the investigation was badly botched from the get-go, and because of that, those who say the murder will probably never be solved, or the mystery resolved, are probably right. And that's so sad.

For years I would not believe the Ramseys could be guilty of murder and cover up--mainly for one reason: I couldn't believe parents like them with not one shred of history of abuse could suddenly turn into monsters/ psychopathic killers they would have to be to do what was done to this beautiful little girl. Not scientific, I know, but that's how I felt. Even if a mother was upset discovering her child had wet a bed, it seems unthinkable to me she would go so far as to violently bash the child's head in--not a parent with no history of abuse and nothing in her history to show she had capability of violent rage. Why would Mrs. Ramsey suddenly become so enraged at a bed getting wet as to be savagely violent? Even if she was tired after a long day, why would she go so horribly berserk.? It simply defies logic. And if the child got the head injury in some accident, why would the parents not immediately call an ambulance? Why would either parent conclude instantly (which it had to have been if that's what happened) that the child was a lost cause and if anyone found out, the parents would be disbelieved that it was an accident, and one or both would be charged with murder? That just makes sense. Yet, that's what had to have happened if you believe death resulted from an accident and a cover-up ensued? So neither deliberate violence against the child or cover-up of an accident seemed at all plausible.

But over time, the more I learned of the death and the crime scene, the more the intruder theory seemed implausible as well. Nothing about it was consistent with a crime committed by someone breaking into the house and violently assaulting the child--either a paedophile or a kidnapper abducting for ransom. The most perplexing inconsistency was both a ransom note and evidence of sexual assault (whether I believe there was a real assault or if it was staged) were found. A crazed paedophile would abduct a child from her bed and leave the house with her, or take the child to another part of the house to assault her. He wouldn't ALSO leave a ransom note. Additionally, it was proved that the note had to have been written on the pad of paper in the Ramsey home. A kidnapper for ransom would bring a brief written demand with him to leave in the house. It's not credible that either a sex criminal or an abductor for ransom would sit in the house writing out a lengthy ransom note. An

abductor for ransom would demand a large sum from

parents known to be wealthy--like a million or half a million. Why would anyone specifically demand $118,000? When it came out that it was the same sum as Mr. Ramsey's bonus, there was the disturbing implication that whoever wrote the note was deliberately trying to direct focus on a fall guy--

someone who knew the sum of the bonus AND was resentful enough to abduct a child for ransom in the same amount of the bonus. Coincidentally, there was a person who might fit the bill--a work associate of Mr. Ramsey's. if this work associate wanted ransom in the amount of the

bonus to get even, why not complete the abduction rather than brutalize and violate the child in the house where she would be certain to be found very soon? That's why I started believing that the author of the note was making a deliberate point to implicate an innocent person, to focus the

investigation on someone other than him (or her) self. But who would have a motive to do that? Someone who was likely to be suspected? If the killer was unknown to the family, why try to implicate someone else in particular? It didn't add up. What it looked like was a person who was in a crazed panic to cover up a horrible event in the house that night and wasn't in a frame of mind to think any of it through logically. There were too many "clues" on the scene, to quote Inspector Poirot. The killer did the bizarre thing of leaving too many, and contradictory, suggestions of motive for the crime. Who would do something so bizarre, and something that wouldn't further the motive of any onr abductor? A frantic parent desperate to hide a brutal accident or deliberate assault, not thinking anything out, just going to extremes to point blame on anyone other than the parent? But that brings me back to the original stumper: why would parents like the Ramseys do something so heinous to their own child? It makes no sense.

This left me with the conclusion that neither an intruder (paedophile or ransom seeker) or the victim's parents could be responsible. And yet, the crime happened, so one of the two theories had to be the explanation. How could that be?

The only way I can believe Mrs. Ramsey did all those atrocious, unspeakable things is if she was under the spell of an evil hypnotist and had no consciousness of her actions, or she was possessed by an alien from another planet, or by the devil. But I don't believe in any such things. So how and why did it happen? But I also can't accept a person outside the family was in the house that night. So my ultimate conclusion is that I am thoroughly stumped. I can give no opinion on who murdered Jonbenet Ramsey. I will say that just because some judge or district attorney says the parents couldn't be behind the crime doesn't make it true. I think that as long as the questions remain open, no one--including John and Patsy Ramsey--can be ruled out, nor convicted with certainty. And as I said, I doubt those questions will ever be answered definitively.

My one observation is, if the Ramseys were behind it, they are the ones that have been hurt the worst, and punished the most. If there is someone else responsible and still alive, someday he will strike again in a similarly bizarre way. But this murder happened over 15 years ago, and nothing remotely like it has occurred. Which means this person has either been dead a long time, or he simply never existed.

We must have posted at just about the same time because I didn't see this post. There is enough evidence to prove that there was an intruder from outside the house. You raise some good points especially about the lack of a motive for the parents to kill JonBenet. The ransom note stumps me too. I have no explanation for it but, you know, it seems that the police went to an awful lot of trouble to go through the Ramsey's records to find that exact amount. Just saying.

And yes, if not for the incompetence of the Boulder Police, this case would probably been solved a long time ago.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Antilles

[Regi]

From the article.

According to Carnes, the slipknots and garotte were both sophisticated bondage devices designed to give control to the user. Evidence from these devices suggests they were made by someone with expertise using rope and cords, which... could not be found or 'sourced' within the defendants' home. The black duct tape was also not sourced to the defendants. Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. Nothing in the Ramsey home found matching to the hair.

regi, I would say there was a total lack of DNA evidence to point to anyone in the Ramsey home.

I don't know what the evidence is because every article I read is conflicting re: the evidence.

Re: what you posted in red, using a garrotte for strangulation is elaborate. It's a very strange aspect. It was unnecessary and time consuming and items from the home were used.

I can't speak to the knots because that's subjective and what's sophisticated to one, might not be sophisticated to another.

From what I understand, the Duct tape was over her mouth.

Aaronsmom made an excellent, excellent! observation in her post #51: the motives are confused.

What makes them confused is that the note tells us that the perp's intention was to kidnap for ransom, but the body showed the perp to be a pedophile.

Those are two very different perps with entirely different motives.

[Antilles]

Well regi, that article was about the findings by a US District Court judge. I don't know how much more to the point you can be.

[Aaronsmom]

Dekker, I have heard the theory that Burke killed his sister (probably) and that the Ramseys tried to cover the crime, too. I pondered that thoroughly but came up rejecting that supposition as well. The skull was crushed with tremendous force, beyond what a 10-yr-old boy could muster. I don't believe Jonbenet could have sustained the blow to the head by bumping her head in an accident, such as in a tussle with her brother. If it was in an accident, it's ridiculous to think the parents would react by adding strangulation (forensics showed the strangulation had to have occurred within no more than a half hour from the time of the head injury) to the mix, then staging an incredibly brutal and demonic crime scene. If it's suggested maybe Burke did actually inflict the fatal blow and the other depraved stuff, there would be signs, before or by now, of such a seriously disturbed mind. It seems to me if a parent/s wanted to cover up a fatal injury inflicted on a child deliberately, or sustained in a fight, the most obvious way a parent would do that is to stage an innocent accident scene--making it look like she fell off a kitchen counter while attempting to sneak a special snack, or lay her on the floor directly under the balcony of a staircase so it would appear she fell while climbing on the balcony in play...something of that nature. What kind of twisted, sadistic, really psychotic mind would arrive at the plan the Boulder police proposed---to stage such a horrifying crime scene? Some I debated this with say Patsy Ramsey showed signs of mental instability. But her personality profile revealed nothing like the degree of insanity it would take to do the unspeakable things that were done. Further, let's say Patsy R. flipped out for some reason and went completely psycho for an hour or two. Where was Mr. Ramsey in all this? Could he not have been aware of such madness going on in his house. If he was aware, please explain to me how it would happen that the other parent would go just as psycho and go along with such an insane scheme? I can't believe that.

Even so, other explanations don't add up for me either.as regi said, it looked like there were two very opposing motives in play: one, a kidnap for ransom, and two, a paedophilac assault by a really deranged and psychotic child molester/killer. Was it someone with alter personalities changing from one to another every couple of minutes? Sounds pretty far-fetched, right? I saw one theory suggesting the killer behind it hated John Ramsey and set up this elaborate crime scene to frame him for murder. I had to LOL at that. Stuff like that doesn't happen outside of badly-written crime thrillers. Besides, if a person really wanted to frame someone, why go to such extremes and something so iffy? Why not make the scene like a clear-cut case of child abuse. Furthermore, if the revenge-seeker was ready to murder a little girl and brutalize her so monstrously, why not simply kill John Ramsey himself? That's a lot more certain to take care of him than counting on the police to put together a case against John Ramsey on the basis of so many insane things done in the course of the crime.

Given all the impossibilities of the scenarios outlined above, the best one I can come up with is one parent being taken over by an evil, alien force with no recollection of the events --or maybe one of the Rameseys were the ones with the alter personalities. And as I said before, I don't believe in evil spirits or demonic possession, nor do I think it's at all credible that either parent has/had alter personalities. Even so, it's the only scenario that explains all the insanity that went on in that house that Christmas Eve night.

So, without better evidence to support any of the theories that have been proposed, I personally can't pass judgment or pronouncement of guilt on anyone. Nothing makes any sense, which is why the supernatural force is so attractive. LOL Niothing makes sense--but someone did all those whacko things. I think Jonbenet's brutal murder will go down in history as one of the most mysterious and unexplainable crimes ever committed.

[Aaronsmom]

I had one other (brief) comment...it's in reply to what sig turner wrote back in Nov., though I don't know if he/she will see it. It's about the unusually charged level of emotions debate over this case raises in Internet forums for true crime discussions. I share your observation. I too am amazed at how contentious and charged up the debate over this murder stimulates. I have seen unbelievably terrible fights break out in such forums. There is a high level of outrage between debaters, and people really will tear each other apart verbally. I have been on one end of it or another myself a few times. It's a little frightening.

I have pondered the level of animosity that typically results from the debates. I wonder if some or all of it is due to the 1) horror and brutality of the crime vs. the beauty and innocence of the victim, combined with 2) the infuriating frustration of making sense of a host of details that contradict each other, while each detail seems more baffling than the one before, and which raises a dozen more questions with each detail. Few answers are revealed. I think people like crime investigators and armchair sleuths like us are driven nearly mad by mysteries that can't be solved. More than anything, unsolvable mysteries are the hardest frustrations to tolerate. It just goes against our very grain. It offends us wretchedly on a very deep and primal level. And this frustration and anger generated by inscrutable puzzles that defy reason and logic, and don't seem possible to solve perhaps reflects itself in the contentiousness of the heated debates.

[dekker87]

Dekker, I have heard the theory that Burke killed his sister (probably) and that the Ramseys tried to cover the crime, too. I pondered that thoroughly but came up rejecting that supposition as well. The skull was crushed with tremendous force, beyond what a 10-yr-old boy could muster. I don't believe Jonbenet could have sustained the blow to the head by bumping her head in an accident, such as in a tussle with her brother. If it was in an accident, it's ridiculous to think the parents would react by adding strangulation (forensics showed the strangulation had to have occurred within no more than a half hour from the time of the head injury) to the mix, then staging an incredibly brutal and demonic crime scene. If it's suggested maybe Burke did actually inflict the fatal blow and the other depraved stuff, there would be signs, before or by now, of such a seriously disturbed mind. It seems to me if a parent/s wanted to cover up a fatal injury inflicted on a child deliberately, or sustained in a fight, the most obvious way a parent would do that is to stage an innocent accident scene--making it look like she fell off a kitchen counter while attempting to sneak a special snack, or lay her on the floor directly under the balcony of a staircase so it would appear she fell while climbing on the balcony in play...something of that nature. What kind of twisted, sadistic, really psychotic mind would arrive at the plan the Boulder police proposed---to stage such a horrifying crime scene? Some I debated this with say Patsy Ramsey showed signs of mental instability. But her personality profile revealed nothing like the degree of insanity it would take to do the unspeakable things that were done. Further, let's say Patsy R. flipped out for some reason and went completely psycho for an hour or two. Where was Mr. Ramsey in all this? Could he not have been aware of such madness going on in his house. If he was aware, please explain to me how it would happen that the other parent would go just as psycho and go along with such an insane scheme? I can't believe that.

Even so, other explanations don't add up for me either.as regi said, it looked like there were two very opposing motives in play: one, a kidnap for ransom, and two, a paedophilac assault by a really deranged and psychotic child molester/killer. Was it someone with alter personalities changing from one to another every couple of minutes? Sounds pretty far-fetched, right? I saw one theory suggesting the killer behind it hated John Ramsey and set up this elaborate crime scene to frame him for murder. I had to LOL at that. Stuff like that doesn't happen outside of badly-written crime thrillers. Besides, if a person really wanted to frame someone, why go to such extremes and something so iffy? Why not make the scene like a clear-cut case of child abuse. Furthermore, if the revenge-seeker was ready to murder a little girl and brutalize her so monstrously, why not simply kill John Ramsey himself? That's a lot more certain to take care of him than counting on the police to put together a case against John Ramsey on the basis of so many insane things done in the course of the crime.

Given all the impossibilities of the scenarios outlined above, the best one I can come up with is one parent being taken over by an evil, alien force with no recollection of the events --or maybe one of the Rameseys were the ones with the alter personalities. And as I said before, I don't believe in evil spirits or demonic possession, nor do I think it's at all credible that either parent has/had alter personalities. Even so, it's the only scenario that explains all the insanity that went on in that house that Christmas Eve night.

So, without better evidence to support any of the theories that have been proposed, I personally can't pass judgment or pronouncement of guilt on anyone. Nothing makes any sense, which is why the supernatural force is so attractive. LOL Niothing makes sense--but someone did all those whacko things. I think Jonbenet's brutal murder will go down in history as one of the most mysterious and unexplainable crimes ever committed.

i tend to now agree with you regarding burke...from this train of thought though i'm now convinced that this crime was commited by a youth...and that is totally predicated on the 'ransom' note....it just screams immaturity to me...but then wasn't patsy ramseys writing supposed to be similar?

you're right AM....this is an incredibly complex and mysterious case...the emotion surrounding it and the early supposition of guilt of the parents by LE reminds me of the McCann case....

[Aaronsmom]

Yes, dekker. Hand-writing experts said Patsy Ramsey was the only one of all suspects tested who could NOT be ruled out. They suggested she may have written the note with her left hand to help disguise her hand-writing. Some experts also pointed to "evidence" to support there were styles of written speech that matched her writing style...and she was supposedly a journalism major,so writing a lengthy, highly dramatized letter would be in character for her. But if she wrote the ransom note, why in the world would she/he/they set up the sexual assault-brutal and insanely complex murder scene with the extreme brutality, sadism and savagery in the basement? I have to think even a parent half out of her mind over accidentally killing her child in a fit of uncontrolled rage make a sick crime scene like that, especially after going to such lengths to invent such an elaborate ransom letter? Who could be that insane--and incredibly stupid? Simply not believable.

[Aaronsmom]

Oh, and, re the McCann case: yes there was the same level of vitriol and cruel accusation of the McCann parents. But really, the mystery of Madeline McCann dramatically underscores (IMO) the non-sensical nature of Jonbenet Ramsey's murder. Abduction by a paedophile for sexual exploitation happens very much like Madelaine's disappearance than JBR's murder. The child is taken--quickly and directly--from the family residence and spirited away, far off the premises. Note Madelaine's abductor did not take her out of the family's hotel room and leave a ransom note--not a hastily scribbled one, let alone a 3-page one, written in the hotel room on stationary in the room, demanding some unlikely odd amount like $118,000. To top it off, the body was not discovered soon after, in some remote, in-feequently used utility room of the hotel--the body revealing homicide by elaborate strangulation with a device put together with odd objects lying around the room that would take a half hour to make, and a savage club wound to the skull AND the child's vagina mutilated by a sharp stick, possibly, and not one drop of semen anywhere. Madelaine's disappearance is a million times more consistent than JBR's murder with BOTH/EITHER a paedophile abduction OR parents covering up an accidental death of their child resulting from overly aggressive disciplining. Yet I never suspected for one minute the McCanns were guilty of harming Madelaine or being involved in any way with her disappearance. The McCanns behaved far more predictably as innocent victims of a parent's worst nightmare than the Ramseys did.

[dekker87]

thanks AM - you've given me a wealth of information there to get my head around...i'm getting more and more sucked into this case...and the more i know the less i know! as you say it just doesn't add up...however you want to throw the dice...

i'm gonna try thinking totally outside the box on this for a while, whilst also trying to absorb as many of the confirmed facts as possible and see what potential scenarios i come up with...

from your knowledge of this case it appears you have invested an awful lot of time and effort into this...

[Aaronsmom]

thanks AM - you've given me a wealth of information there to get my head around...i'm getting more and more sucked into this case...and the more i know the less i know! as you say it just doesn't add up...however you want to throw the dice...

i'm gonna try thinking totally outside the box on this for a while, whilst also trying to absorb as many of the confirmed facts as possible and see what potential scenarios i come up with...

from your knowledge of this case it appears you have invested an awful lot of time and effort into this...

Oh gosh I'm hardly an expert! You have to remember this murder happened in 1996. That means people have had over 16 years to mull over this case, and I would wager this may be the most "mulled over" crime mystery in the true crime buffs world (especially on the Internet). Compared to a whole bunch of JBR obsessives, I weigh in as a rank amateur! I read a couple of books on the case, an article or two, and learned the rest from following hundreds of discussions. There are tons of folks who know a million times more than I do about this. There's a lot of misinformation out there too, so it can be confusing. You're right though...I have invested an embarrassing amount of time on the JBR mystery. Like so many people captivated by this case, I got kind of obsessed w/ it too. I don't think it's just that this was a beautiful blonde girl born to wealthy white parents. I think it's really because of what we've been talking about here the last two days. This is the most, or one of the most, bizarre cases in crime history. The culmination of the collected facts too often seem to contradict each other, and no matter which way one (objective one) looks at every angle, none of it adds up...none of it makes any sense. Laci Peterson's murder and OJ Simpson's trial captivated worldwide attention too and had people talking for years. But unlike JBR's murder, the Laci Peterson and Nicole Brown-Ron Goldman murders were never much of a mystery--not to most of the world. The evidence in both those cases, the circumstantial as well as the forensic, didn't leave much doubt as to what happened. JBR's murder is very different. There's never been a case like this. I read in an article a few years ago that there is no other abduction/murder where both a written random demand and a grotesque, horrific, molestation scene discovered in the house of the victim within a short time of one another. To this day, people seem to be pretty evenly divided about what happened, with a fevered pitch of emotion on either side.

[Regi]

Well regi, that article was about the findings by a US District Court judge. I don't know how much more to the point you can be.

Well, Antilles, that's your point, not mine. I get it that the DNA is reported as 'foreign' and 'unknown'... it doesn't match the Ramsey's.

My 'point' is about my questions re: what the evidence/DNA is, and where it was collected from.

As far as I'm concerned, that article is vague in that regard.

I want to know what specimen showed male DNA, and from where it was collected.

What are the biological specimens which offered DNA...male DNA?

Was it the fingernail scrapings, or some other specimen, and where was it collected from?

It makes a big difference whether or not that hair collected from the blanket was pubic or axilliary, and they don't seem to know. Maybe a determination isn't possible, but it matters, and then it matters where on that blanket it was collected from.

Those hairs on the Duct tape that they say is 'alleged' beaver...is it possible those were from a paintbrush? I don't think they're morons, but the case isn't solved, and there's the bristle part of a paintbrush missing from the scene. (The wood handle was used in the garrotte, and the rest wasn't located.)

And what about those other "dark animal" hairs. Are those from that same alleged beaver, or some other animal...if some other animal, then what animal, and why didn't they identify it?

Edited March 22, 2013 by regi

[Regi]

Oh, and, re the McCann case: yes there was the same level of vitriol and cruel accusation of the McCann parents. But really, the mystery of Madeline McCann dramatically underscores (IMO) the non-sensical nature of Jonbenet Ramsey's murder. Abduction by a paedophile for sexual exploitation happens very much like Madelaine's disappearance than JBR's murder. The child is taken--quickly and directly--from the family residence and spirited away, far off the premises. Note Madelaine's abductor did not take her out of the family's hotel room and leave a ransom note--not a hastily scribbled one, let alone a 3-page one, written in the hotel room on stationary in the room, demanding some unlikely odd amount like $118,000. To top it off, the body was not discovered soon after, in some remote, in-feequently used utility room of the hotel--the body revealing homicide by elaborate strangulation with a device put together with odd objects lying around the room that would take a half hour to make, and a savage club wound to the skull AND the child's vagina mutilated by a sharp stick, possibly, and not one drop of semen anywhere. Madelaine's disappearance is a million times more consistent than JBR's murder with BOTH/EITHER a paedophile abduction OR parents covering up an accidental death of their child resulting from overly aggressive disciplining. Yet I never suspected for one minute the McCanns were guilty of harming Madelaine or being involved in any way with her disappearance. The McCanns behaved far more predictably as innocent victims of a parent's worst nightmare than the Ramseys did.

I wholeheartedly agree! The McCann case is a far, far cry than what we see in this case.

For the life of me, I don't know why the McCann's were vilified so- I think it was partly because they admittedly left their young children unattended- but there was never a question in my own mind but that their child was abducted!

The perp took notice of Madeline, kept watch of her family, and then seized the opportunity to take her.

Regardless of whether or not her parents were reckless...or careless...they aren't to blame; blame should be placed soley on the perp who took her!

You mention another aspect of the Ramsey case that never correlated with me, and that's the fact that JonBonet had a serious head injury together that elaborate strangulation. Yes, the method was time-consuming, and...needless to say, unnecessary. And since some of the items used for the garrotte were from the home, then that part of the crime appears to be spontaneous.

Now, spontaneous and time-consuming doesn't correlate, either, not when it occurs in the victim's home where others are present.

That perp had to have been comfortable.

The evidence is that there's marks 'consistent with' a stun gun...

There's was Duct tape over her mouth...

Her hands were tied above her head...

So, when and why would such a serious head injury occur under those circumstances?

Then there's the question of sexual assault. It's strange that there's even a question about it.

The motive isn't clear.

If the perp wanted to kidnap for ransom, then what stopped him? Even if she was injured during the kidnapping, no one would know that but the kidnapper, so what's the reason for the rest of it... of which, the only conclusive facts are that she had a serious head injury and was strangled?

If the note was brought before hand, then why was it left?

Whether it was before or after, the note appears to be a ruse.

[dekker87]

I wholeheartedly agree! The McCann case is a far, far cry than what we see in this case.

For the life of me, I don't know why the McCann's were vilified so- I think it was partly because they admittedly left their young children unattended- but there was never a question in my own mind but that their child was abducted!

The perp took notice of Madeline, kept watch of her family, and then seized the opportunity to take her.

Regardless of whether or not her parents were reckless...or careless...they aren't to blame; blame should be placed soley on the perp who took her!

You mention another aspect of the Ramsey case that never correlated with me, and that's the fact that JonBonet had a serious head injury together that elaborate strangulation. Yes, the method was time-consuming, and...needless to say, unnecessary. And since some of the items used for the garrotte were from the home, then that part of the crime appears to be spontaneous.

Now, spontaneous and time-consuming doesn't correlate, either, not when it occurs in the victim's home where others are present.

That perp had to have been comfortable.

The evidence is that there's marks 'consistent with' a stun gun...

There's was Duct tape over her mouth...

Her hands were tied above her head...

So, when and why would such a serious head injury occur under those circumstances?

Then there's the question of sexual assault. It's strange that there's even a question about it.

The motive isn't clear.

If the perp wanted to kidnap for ransom, then what stopped him? Even if she was injured during the kidnapping, no one would know that but the kidnapper, so what's the reason for the rest of it... of which, the only conclusive facts are that she had a serious head injury and was strangled?

If the note was brought before hand, then why was it left?

Whether it was before or after, the note appears to be a ruse.

the McCanns were vilified because they are middle class, articulate and educated...and yet 'failed' to look after their kids...it's a british class thing that probably doesn't translate very well....

we don't celebrate success like you do in the states...it's kind of like that crabs in a barrel ghetto analogy....

Edited March 22, 2013 by dekker87

[Aaronsmom]

First, McCann case: I read a lot of vitriole toward the McCanns at the time Maddy went missing. Most of it had to do with them being affluent AND leaving their children unattended in their cottage or suite. Like they were too cheap to pay a sitter. But that's a narrow view of things. The parents were dining outdoors in a plaza near the suite. It was within sight of the adults. They were in a small resort town in Portugal, in a vacation resort ffor upper middle class. They felt safe. They had one adult going in to check on the kids every 1/2 hr. With those conditions, I would think it reasonable to feel one's kids are safe. I grew up in a small town where people only locked the doors if they were really away from home or were in bed for the night. When I was Maddy's age, I recall my mother putting me down for a nap and sometimes I woke up and she wasn't there. She was either hanging laundry out in the backyard, or popped over occassionly next door to have coffee with a neighbor. The windows in both homes were open, and the houses were in close proximity. I'm sure mom felt confident that if I cried or called fr her, she would hear it. When I was younger, I also vaguely remember her placing me in the playpen she put in the yard, or my stroller, on a warm day while she was inside cleaning or cooking. All the neighborhood kids played outside unsupervised, even when we were very small. People felt safe in this little town. Yet, it's not like paedophile abductions were unheard of then... just not thought of in small towns. But anything could have happened. And my parents were reasonably good parents. We were never physically disciplined other than a light paddling on the butt occasionally. I can imagine though what some might have said had one of us got snatched from the house or in the yard. No doubt some people would suspect I was a victim of fatal child abuse and my body hidden somewhere to cover up the crime. Or had my body been found somewhere, molested, some would probably denounce my parents for leaving me alone in the house or the yard. I don't think it's fair to trash a parent for not having his or her kids in eyesight every second, or for leaving a door unlocked I. A small, quiet town. Millions of people do this all the time. Maybe one in a few million times, something totally tragic and extremely unlikely will happen. It's cruel and horribly harsh to come down on a couple of poor parents like a sledgehammer because they didn't allow for some completely freakish, tragic thing to happen, like one is expected to foresee any possible terrible event, even those so implausible, the odds against are astronomical.

The McCanns were the most unlikely suspects of child abuse or parental neglect. Their behavior after Maddy disappeared was totally consistent with what one would expect of innocent victims of an abducted child. They stayed in the area for weeks while the investigation ensued. They didn't leave town within a day. They cooperated fully with investigators. There was no ransom note that was suspect of being a ruse. If anything, Madelaine's disappearance starkly contrasts with the Ramsey crime, highlighting how night and day they are.

Oops! I need to put the rest of my reply on another post. Stay tuned..

[Aaronsmom]

There are cases I've heard of that were cover-ups of a fatal child abuse injury in which horrible things were done to the corpse/near-dead-victim in an effort to simulate a paedophile abduction-murder. Things like a fake strangulation and/or faked sexual assault. I know of no case in which a parent was suspected of writing a mock ransom note to cover-up a child fatality resulting from physically assaulting the child, or a tragic accident. What parent would be so bold and so dumb to do that? Give police a writing sample? Even if the parent thought he could disguise his hand-writing enough to fool LE? Further, what person in that situation would stage an abduction-for-ransom, then hide

the body in the house? Surely even a dim-witted parent would think the police would search every inch of the house--if only to look for evidence. In a cover-up, a guilty parent/s would try getting rid of the body a good ways away from the house, no matter how horrible the thought of it seemed.

What possible advantage would be gained by staging an abduction-for-ransom AND a grisly rape-murder??? A person would have to be a raving lunatic to do that. Neither of the Ramseys seemed raving mad or like dullards.

On the other hand, what criminal would do that either? If it was an abduction-for-ransom and say the child was fatally injured in the attempted abduction. Many criminologists believe this may have happened in the Lindbergh baby abduction. Note the abductor/s followed up on trying to collect a ransom. If a criminal goes to all the trouble to write a ransom letter--inside the victim's home and spend an hour writing it--and to get inside the house to nab the child--why not proceed with the ransom collection anyway? No one is going to know the child is dead, so the parents will still be motivated to pay the ransom. Craziest of all, though, if the abductor lost his nerve and decide to scratch the mission, wouldn't he just leave the child or body in the house and scram? What motive could he/she have for staging a sadistic, complex murder in the basement? A strangulation that, as has been pointed out, would have to have taken a very long time with that elaborate strangulation device with all those knots and handles made from found objects on hand? Yes, the idea of impulse and creating a bizarre device that would take a long time to make are indeed diametrically opposed. They contradict one another.

And if it was a sex crime, why wouldn't the paedophile commit the assault and leave quickly, or leave fast with the victim? There is absolutely no advantage in slowing things down by writing up a lengthy and unprecedented ransom letter IN THE VICTIM'S home. None of it adds up to make a cohesive picture. Each fact, each scrap of evidence, seems to contradict another. There isn't one theory that explains all the details in this case. Each one seems equally flawed as another.

[CuriousLittleOne]

the McCanns were vilified because they are middle class, articulate and educated...and yet 'failed' to look after their kids...it's a british class thing that probably doesn't translate very well....

we don't celebrate success like you do in the states...it's kind of like that crabs in a barrel ghetto analogy....

as above really, thats how our society are these days, in my opinion, the parents are at fault, and im still not convinced that they did not do it as Shannon matthews case shows,

Shannon Louise Matthews (born 9 September 1998) is a British girl who disappeared on the afternoon of 19 February 2008 in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, England.^[1] The search for her became a major missing person police operation which was compared to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.^[2] She was found on 14 March 2008 at a house in Batley Carr, a short distance from Dewsbury. The house belonged to 39-year-old Michael Donovan, uncle of Craig Meehan - the boyfriend of her mother, Karen.

Donovan - also known as Paul Drake - was arrested at the scene, and charged with kidnapping and false imprisonment.^[3][4] Matthews's mother was charged with child neglect and perverting the course of justice on 8 April 2008. The joint trial of Donovan and Karen Matthews at Leeds Crown Court commenced on 11 November 2008^[5] and concluded on 4 December with both defendants found guilty of kidnapping, false imprisonment, and perverting the course of justice.^[6] They were both given eight-year prison sentences.^[7] Karen Matthews's boyfriend Meehan was convicted on several accounts of possessing child pornography, discovered on his computer during the investigation, but otherwise unrelated to the kidnapping.^[8]

http://en.wikipedia....hannon_Matthews

but on topic, this poor little girl.......i believe ... that there is a possibility that the house was "scoped out" maybe???? prior, if the house was known before then the killer needed to not bring in any other tools as he knew they were where they were, and he could have got in by the broken window and snooped around either a previous night, or when the family were out....... i assume there was no alarm system in the house?

according to : http://jonbenetramse... of an Intruder

Ramseys "have indicated that their house was not secure during the night of December 25, 1997, (was it a regular thing to leave the house not secure of did it just lapse that night???, most alarms blink or sound when they are turned on and off, if the house was being watched , the killer/s would know what times the family went to sleep and could guarentee pretty much when they would go to bed...)and that they had not turned their security alarm on. and "at least seven windows and one door were found "open" on the morning of December 26, 1997. (SMF P 126; PSMF P 126.)" (Carnes 2003:86) "The term "open" was not defined. It is, therefore, not clear if the entrances were ajar or unlocked."

hummm, so now im thinking did they close all the doors as a routine at nighttime, if they did then it would be quite interesting........

but what really confuses me is the double knickers...why so big, why 2 ? wearing 2 hardly stops a little ones accidents

Edited April 27, 2013 by CuriousLittleOne

[Antilles]

The only reason I can think of is that Patsy really, really didn't want JonBenet wetting the bed. That, to me, is a reason to believe her story and in her innocence. You wouldn't kill your child because she wet your bed, then dress her in diapers/whatever. And no-one ever accused Patsy of being stupid or mentally unbalanced.

[CuriousLittleOne]

on this site: http://b.heart.50megs.com/ramsey/Images/

just wondering who this man is???

http://b.heart.50megs.com/cgi-bin/i/ramsey/Images/2-8-2002.jpg

http://b.heart.50megs.com/cgi-bin/i/ramsey/Images/2-9-2002.jpg

[CuriousLittleOne]

The only reason I can think of is that Patsy really, really didn't want JonBenet wetting the bed. That, to me, is a reason to believe her story and in her innocence. You wouldn't kill your child because she wet your bed, then dress her in diapers/whatever. And no-one ever accused Patsy of being stupid or mentally unbalanced.

but two layers of thin cotton or whatever the knickers were made of hardly stop or absorb the liquid???? i can partly see where you are comming from and i dont believe the mother did it.

[CuriousLittleOne]

anyone seen this documentary?

nice one for newbies to sink into and get facts

[CuriousLittleOne]

or this one?

*snip*

Edited April 29, 2013 by Saru
Video removed due to content / copyright

[Antilles]

anyone seen this documentary?

[media=]

[/media]

nice one for newbies to sink into and get facts

Thanks for the vid. It still remains so obvious that the Boulder Police destroyed any pertinent evidence and in that way, set the Ramseys up as prime suspects.