JonBenet Ramsey Case

#202
#202
Clearly something bad happened. But accident in this case to me means it was not an intentional murder/homicide of a 6 year old girl that was planned that night. Something happened in the spur of the moment (thus incidental/accidental), and then a cover-up ensued because the truth would have meant public embarrassment and likely prison time.

It most likely happened in the bathroom after the girl wet herself. Patsy did something to cause the tub or toilet to contact the girls head. She probably thought she was dead. Then later when she realized the child was still alive the strangulation occurred.

Patsy wrote the note because she caused the death. She had no reason to write the note to cover for her husband. She could have turned him in and been a hero. Patsy is dead. So there can't be a trial. And since you can't cover up what never has been proven in court, John walks too. Lose/lose situation for the poor victim. And since the brother was not asleep (as the parents had originally lied), God only knows what he saw & heard that night. He may have some demons haunting him for the rest of his life.

Chasing fame can create the pressure that causes the ruination of an entire family.
 
#203
#203
Sandvol said:
Again, I'll re-state the question:

Isn't it more plausible that whoever wrote the ransom note did not want the police called?
Click to expand...

It is most plausible that whoever wrote the note caused the crime. Otherwise incriminating yourself when you didn't take part in a crime (which this become once the cover up began) is absurd. Since we know Patsy wrote the note, we can infer she was the reason the note was even thought to be needed. And the driving force behind it. Then she called police because John had to back her on "her" version of events or else come up with his own. She put the ball in his court. The note talked about using his "good southern common sense". That is her talking directly to her Husband. Imploring him to side with her.

Unless of course it is John talking to himself, urging common sense from himself AFTER he has commited the dumbest crime ever, against his own daughter in his own home no less.

I'm sticking with Patsy as the instigator at this point.
 
#204
#204
The multiple attempts at getting the note "just right" scream Patsy. I don't see John sitting down going over and over a ransom note making it more self incriminating. Sorry Sandman.
 
#205
#205
But you are right in a sense. If Patsy wanted the police called, she could have called them herself. When whatever happened first occurred. But when she didn't, it became clear she didn't want to call for help. Probably cuz she thought the child was beyond help. And she knew she was the reason for the injury to the child.

People in such predicaments rarely desire "help" from law enforcment officers. But with her cover-up seeming sillier by the minute, she relented and finally called. Most likely @ John's behest.
 
#206
#206
"It is most plausible that whoever wrote the note caused the crime. Otherwise incriminating yourself when you didn't take part in a crime (which this became once the cover up began) is absurd."

Awesome PimpVol. I actually got a logical inference out of someone on this board. Now you can do it again. Please read the note in its entirety and don't wander into speculation and then answer this question:

Isn't it more plausible that whoever wrote the ransom note did not want the police called? (I think you kind of almost wandered into the answer above but could you give us a yes or no?)

P.S.-I won't address any of your other statements right now because I want to stay on track.
 
Last edited:
#214
#214
Sandvol said:
If it's for the sexual abuse and murder of a six-year old girl he's gonna fry!
Click to expand...

Personally, I'm for killing all pedophiles. Too much chance of repeat offenders. But your obsession makes me wonder if the case has gotten a little too personal for you.

If something happenned to you in the past, I suggest seeking therapy. Not even joking. If wrapping yourself in this case is a coping mechanism, it seems unhealthy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#215
#215
Weezer said:
Personally, I'm for killing all pedophiles. Too much chance of repeat offenders. But your obsession makes me wonder if the case has gotten a little too personal for you.

If something happenned to you in the past, I suggest seeking therapy. Not even joking. If wrapping yourself in this case is a coping mechanism, it seems unhealthy.
Click to expand...

Thank you Dr. Weezer.
 
#220
#220
Sandvol said:
"It is most plausible that whoever wrote the note caused the crime. Otherwise incriminating yourself when you didn't take part in a crime (which this became once the cover up began) is absurd."

Awesome PimpVol. I actually got a logical inference out of someone on this board. Now you can do it again. Please read the note in its entirety and don't wander into speculation and then answer this question:

Isn't it more plausible that whoever wrote the ransom note did not want the police called? (I think you kind of almost wandered into the answer above but could you give us a yes or no?)

P.S.-I won't address any of your other statements right now because I want to stay on track.
Click to expand...
Patsy would not want the police called to find the body in her house. A house with no forced entry. A house with no real property damage. A house with her dead baby in the basement. So no, she most likely did not want to call the police. It had no possible gain for her, and actually it was quite PLAUSIBLE she'd spend quite a bit of time in prison if the police were called (after the cover up began of course, there was initially a chance to be honest but it musn't have seemed to PLAUSIBLE to her).

Read the entire ransom novel? I did years ago. That's when I knew for myself that Patsy wrote it. Which makes her the most PLAUSIBLE prospect to be the killer. The note is written with knowledge of John's affairs.In his own house. And the final nail in the coffin? It was written TO John. By the culprit. No one but Patsy wrote that note.
 
#221
#221
mcompton said:
passive aggressive in a condescending manner, much?
Click to expand...

Yeah, he pretty much called me a wandering dolt there. But it a mellow kind of way. And then he is going to get back to my other points a bit later. At his leisure mind you, he doesn't want to get thrown of track. :eek:lol: :eek:lol:
 
#223
#223
PimpVol said:
Patsy would not want the police called to find the body in her house. A house with no forced entry. A house with no real property damage. A house with her dead baby in the basement. So no, she most likely did not want to call the police. It had no possible gain for her, and actually it was quite PLAUSIBLE she'd spend quite a bit of time in prison if the police were called (after the cover up began of course, there was initially a chance to be honest but it musn't have seemed to PLAUSIBLE to her).

Read the entire ransom novel? I did years ago. That's when I knew for myself that Patsy wrote it. Which makes her the most PLAUSIBLE prospect to be the killer. The note is written with knowledge of John's affairs.In his own house. And the final nail in the coffin? It was written TO John. By the culprit. No one but Patsy wrote that note.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll take that as a yes. Awesome. We have two inferences here:

(1) It is more plausible to conclude that whoever wrote the ransom note did not want the police called. (And, we know that because the note said don't call the police or FBI or I'll behead your daughter-by the way that's pretty strong.)
(2) It is more plausible to conclude that whoever wrote the ransom note is the one who committed the murder. (That was excellent by the way because most people conclude the exact opposite.)

All right next question:

Isn't it more plausible to conclude the whoever wrote the ransom note did not intend for the police to obtain the ransom note because it was potentially incriminating?

(Also, I'll get to why the note was written to John in due course we have to take this step by step.)

P.S.-If you really want to come to the correct conclusions when you think through these cases like this you can't be prejudicial. You have to go into it with a completely open mind and follow the inferences no matter where they lead.
 
Last edited:
#224
#224
Sandvol said:
Coug,
Can you just stop with the insults and answer my question above and I'll try to help you logically infer your way through this? (Speculation has no bounds, but inference does.) Also, you have to just look at the probabilities, someone in her family molested her, and someone in her family cracked her skull open. Why not the most probable of the three?
Click to expand...

I don't believe anything that I wrote in my previous post is insulting and if you think there is feel free to point it out. I'll be more than happy to discuss each and every detail with you.

No, I won't answer your question. There is no point as I've already wasted more than enough of my time entertaining this topic and your obsession. At this point I'd be nothing more than an enabler to keep this up. This thread went from a decent debate into you trying to plow it into everyone's head that not only did John Ramsey do it but that everybody in this thread is wrong except you.
 
#225
#225
coug said:
I don't believe anything that I wrote in my previous post is insulting and if you think there is feel free to point it out. I'll be more than happy to discuss each and every detail with you.

No, I won't answer your question. There is no point as I've already wasted more than enough of my time entertaining this topic and your obsession. At this point I'd be nothing more than an enabler to keep this up. This thread went from a decent debate into you trying to plow it into everyone's head that not only did John Ramsey do it but that everybody in this thread is wrong except you.
Click to expand...

Of course you won't or can't answer it. You believe Patsy did it and that's what you believe (based on nothing) and no one or nothing is going to change your mind including facts-period. And, no I don't need to point out where you were rude you know what you wrote and we don't need to go off on any more tangents than you've already taken us on. And, if you are so clever answer the question and point out the flaws in my logic. Otherwise stop discussing a case you know nothing about.
 
Last edited:
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top