JonBenet Ramsey Case

#101
#101
Sandvol said:
Always been interested in unusual cases like this and the Amanda Knox case for instance-especially when the perpetrator is so obvious but the authorities bungle it. Hate to see the devils get off. If you're interested a good place to follow and learn about these types of cases is WEBSLEUTHS.COM.
Click to expand...

Do you think Amanda Knox is guilty?
 
#102
#102
davethevol said:
Do you think Amanda Knox is guilty?
Click to expand...

That case is much easier. Read the Giordano sentencing report. It is the only plausible explanation. It will answer all your questions. Our wonderful media makes the Italians out to be a bunch of bungling idiots who have no sense of justice. No wonder Americans are so loved around the world. (In the Amanda Knox case the police didn't bungle it but they succumbed to international pressure.)
 
Last edited:
#106
#106
Sandvol said:
That case is much easier. Read the Giordano sentencing report. It is the only plausible explanation. It will answer all your questions. Our wonderful media makes the Italians out to be a bunch of bungling idiots who have no sense of justice. No wonder Americans are so loved around the world. (In the Amanda Knox case the police didn't bungle it but they succumbed to international pressure.)
Click to expand...
Are you going to apply for a Boulder police detective yet?
 
#108
#108
Sandvol said:
John Ramsey
Click to expand...

You think John Ramsey did it?

Why did Patsy write the note?
Why crack her skull when he planned to strangle her?
That was his daughter he had no reason to kill her and had no record of abuse of any kind.

Why would Patsy kill her? Tell a former psycho pageant beauty queen that you're not going to dress up anymore and participate in pageants because you're tired of it and she's going to bash you in your head out of rage.
 
#109
#109
coug said:
You think John Ramsey did it?

Why did Patsy write the note?
Why crack her skull when he planned to strangle her?
That was his daughter he had no reason to kill her and had no record of abuse of any kind.

Why would Patsy kill her? Tell a former psycho pageant beauty queen that you're not going to dress up anymore and participate in pageants because you're tired of it and she's going to bash you in your head out of rage.
Click to expand...

John Ramsey killing her is the only scenario that fits all the facts of the case. Patsy didn't write the note. If you only look at the wording of the note you can surmise that a man wrote it for one thing. John was a retired naval officer so look at some of the wording in the note
Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar with law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart [sic] us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.

words like "proper burial", "small foreign faction", "countermeasures", and also the use of 99 or100 percent". John used percentages a lot in his conversations if you go to you tube you can watch some of his interviews where he uses percentages a lot and the words "proper burial". Also, the knot he used to tie the paint brush handle on the garrote is a knot used by sailors. No one can know the exact scenario of how the actual murder happened. Four prominent forensic pathologists wrote that Jon Benet was subjected to both acute and chronic sexual abuse from their examination of the autopsy report: (quote from autopsy exam of vaginal mucosa: "All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation." Also, from the other sections of the autopsy report there is no doubt she was sexually assaulted at the time of her death. If you look at the statistics of sexual abuse then who is the most likely perpetrator in a family to sexually abuse a 6 year old daughter-let me answer that for you- 90% of the time according to FBI statistics its the father. Patsy had no motive to kill her-testimony from family and friends indicated Patsy adored and doted constantly on her daughter. When the case first broke years ago I thought John Ramsey did it. I knew the probability for Patsy or Burke committing the crime was very low. The facts of the case just didn't fit. I thought whoever wrote the ransom note also committed the murder. The when John was ruled out of writing the ransom note by the so called "experts" I felt it must have been an intruder. It is the only explanation. The Kolar's book came out in 2010 proving there was no intruder. He believed Burke did it and John and Patsy covered for him. So, how could Patsy have done it. Then when I was on WEBSLEUTHS I saw some of the posts of docG and some of the handwriting samples of John Ramsey. Then I wondered how he could have been "ruled out." docG started a blog about it in 2012 and proved the case against John Ramsey. It is beyond refute. The whole world needs to know beyond a reasonable doubt who killed Jon Benet.
 
Last edited:
#111
#111
DocG is much better at laying out the case against John Ramsey. Here is an excerpt from his blog of John Ramsey police interview:

Here's an excerpt from his 1998 police interview:

7 JOHN RAMSEY: I came down the stairs. I went in this room here. This door was kind of blocked. We had a bunch of junk down here and there was a chair that was in front of the door. . . . I moved the chair, went into this room, went back in here. This window was open, maybe that far.

LOU SMIT: Okay. You said -- or how far were you? An inch?

JOHN RAMSEY: An inch, maybe, or less. It was cracked open.

LOU SMIT: Which window?

JOHN RAMSEY: I think it was the little one. There's three windows across here, as I recall. I think it was the middle one. It was that was broken. There was pane [of g]lass broken out of it, which I attributed to breaking myself. . .
JOHN RAMSEY: But it was open and there was a suitcase under it. This hard Samsonite suitcase.

LOU SMIT: Describe how the suitcase was positioned?

JOHN RAMSEY: It was against the wall. I think the handle was on top. It was directly under the window, as I recall. And I closed the window, I don't know why, but I closed it.

LOU SMIT: When you closed it, did you lock it or close it?

JOHN RAMSEY: I latched it. There's a little latch on it.

LOU SMIT: And you're sure of that?

JOHN RAMSEY: Pretty sure, yeah. Yeah, I am sure. I don't think I looked anywhere else. . .

SMIT: Did you tell anybody about that?

JOHN RAMSEY: I don't really remember. I mean, part of what is going on you're in such a state of disbelief this can even happen. And the, you know, the window had been broken out. And you say hah, that's it. But it was a window that I had used to get into the house before.
He accounts for the window being broken by claiming he's the one who broke it months before.

It was cracked and open a little bit. It wasn't terribly unusual for me. Sometimes it would get opened to let cool air in because that basement could get real hot in winter.
Now he accounts for the window being open by claiming he'd kept it open anyhow in the past. Pretty lame! So what if it wasn't that unusual, that's still no reason for secretly closing it! And what about the suitcase, shouldn't he have reported THAT at least?



From the previous year, John's 1997 police interview. ST is Steve Thomas:

ST: OK. When you had previously broken that basement window to gain entry to the home when you had been locked out, can you approximate what month that was?

JR: Well, I think it was last summer. Because Patsy was up at Lake (inaudible) all summer, and it would have been July or August probably, somewhere in that time frame.

ST: Did you remove that grate and get down into the window well?

JR: Uh-huh.

ST: And what did you use to break the pane?

JR: Ah, I don’t remember. Might have been my foot, I don’t know.

ST: OK. You reach in, I’m assuming, unlatched it and gain entry through that small window.

JR: Yeah.

ST: Did you then replace the grate onto that window well?

JR: Oh I probably would have done it that night. I’m sure I didn’t the next morning or, you know, or thereafter.

ST: Did you remove that whole grate off onto the, off the well, to jump down there and get in?

JR: Ah, probably. I don’t remember.

ST: Is there any reason that window went unrepaired?

JR: No. I mean it’s, Patsy usually took care of those things, and I just rarely went to the basement, so it just, I guess, got overlooked. Although she did think that she asked the cleaning lady’s husband to fix it over Thanksgiving when they were doing some repair work there, but I don’t know if that’s ever been confirmed whether he fixed it or not.


In my original post I interrupted the above dialogue from time to time with some sarcastic comments. What bothered me, as it should anyone reading here, is how much John can't recall, how vague he is about so much in his story. He's not sure if it was last summer or not. He's not sure how he got in the well, how he broke the pane, not sure when he replaced the grate. But worst of all, he's not sure whether or not the window was ever repaired. As I wrote at the time,

How can you not know whether or not that window had been repaired? You have a whole team of investigators working for you. If the window HAD been repaired, then the break must have been done by the intruder, no? Wouldn't that be one of the most important things you'd want to determine?
 
#112
#112
Also, John was very wealthy, why would the ransom only be $118,000? It was about the amount he received in a recent bonus. This is a convenient sum for him to get his hands on and be able to explain to his wife that he paid the ransom and not hurt himself financially.
 
#113
#113
Sandvol said:
Also, John was very wealthy, why would the ransom only be $118,000? It was about the amount he received in a recent bonus. This is a convenient sum for him to get his hands on and be able to explain to his wife that he paid the ransom and not hurt himself financially.
Click to expand...

Hand writing is a far more precise indicator than speech pattern when it comes to a deceitful ransom note. Don't forget that Patsy also graduated with a journalism degree. She would be well educated in english, writing, and penmanship. As a journalism student you'd also be subjected to material about other countries, "foreign factions", etc.

The amount of the ransom $118,000 would be known both by John and Patsy as he would have told her how much his bonus was. They were married after all.

This last statement is moot because Jonbenet was in the basement, already dead before the note was written and nobody was getting the $118,000.
 
#114
#114
coug said:
Hand writing is a far more precise indicator than speech pattern when it comes to a deceitful ransom note. Don't forget that Patsy also graduated with a journalism degree. She would be well educated in english, writing, and penmanship. As a journalism student you'd also be subjected to material about other countries, "foreign factions", etc.

The amount of the ransom $118,000 would be known both by John and Patsy as he would have told her how much his bonus was. They were married after all.

This last statement is moot because Jonbenet was in the basement, already dead before the note was written and nobody was getting the $118,000.
Click to expand...

Actually no it isn't. Hand writing analysis isn't even a peer-reviewed science and the note was written by a male and not a female from the look of the note and the verbiage used. So, are you saying that Patsy murdered her daughter and got John to help her in the cover up? I mean if you believe Patsy did it then go through the sequence of events that explains all the facts in the case.
That is if Patsy did it please explain the ransom note. Also, by the way the cleaning lady said in her police interview she doesn't ever remember a broken window.
 
Last edited:
#115
#115
coug said:
Hand writing is a far more precise indicator than speech pattern when it comes to a deceitful ransom note. Don't forget that Patsy also graduated with a journalism degree. She would be well educated in english, writing, and penmanship. As a journalism student you'd also be subjected to material about other countries, "foreign factions", etc.

The amount of the ransom $118,000 would be known both by John and Patsy as he would have told her how much his bonus was. They were married after all.

This last statement is moot because Jonbenet was in the basement, already dead before the note was written and nobody was getting the $118,000.
Click to expand...

You're close to understanding the case. What was the purpose of the ransom note within the context of the case?
 
#117
#117
Sandvol said:
Actually no it isn't. Hand writing analysis isn't even a peer-reviewed science and the note was written by a male and not a female from the look of the note and the verbiage used. So, are you saying that Patsy murdered her daughter and got John to help her in the cover up? I mean if you believe Patsy did it then go through the sequence of events that explains all the facts in the case.
That is if Patsy did it please explain the ransom note. Also, by the way the cleaning lady said in her police interview she doesn't ever remember a broken window.
Click to expand...

Looking at sample writing from Patsy and comparing it to the note it's obvious she wrote it while trying to hide her own writing style. I maintain that I don't know exactly who in the house killed Jonbenet but it was definitely one of them and one or more may have been involved with covering it up.

You can't go through much scenario when there is no exact timeline for what transpired. All you've got is what he said, what she said, what the police said, and then a lot of what everybody else suspects.
 
#118
#118
coug said:
Looking at sample writing from Patsy and comparing it to the note it's obvious she wrote it while trying to hide her own writing style. I maintain that I don't know exactly who in the house killed Jonbenet but it was definitely one of them and one or more may have been involved with covering it up.

You can't go through much scenario when there is no exact timeline for what transpired. All you've got is what he said, what she said, what the police said, and then a lot of what everybody else suspects.
Click to expand...

Have you ever looked at a sample of John Ramsey's hand writing? Probably not because he was ruled out right? Oh, yeah, she wrote it left handed right? A two and a half page note left handed. Very talented lady especially right after she killed her daughter. If she wrote the note then why is SHE the one who made the 911 call? And, why did SHE write the note after sexually assaulting her daughter with the body still in the house? And, why would SHE leave a potentially incriminating note if SHE was the one who did it? If you would just read the note and try to understand its purpose in the context of the case you would understand the case. The note was not the ravings of a lunatic-it was written by a sociopath. It had a specific purpose. It is the only explanation that fits the facts of the case.
 
#119
#119
If you would go through each potential scenario you will uncover the scenario that fits the facts of the case: I'll go through the first one for you-Burke did it. If Burke did it then somehow he and his sister were in an argument or fight and accidentally hit her on the head with strong enough blow to fell a full grown man. We know a nine year old could not have written the ransom note so either Patsy or John wrote it. So John and Patsy were covering up for Burke? So, Burke tied the intricate knot on the garrote? Or did they do that to stage it as a sexual assault? And, then why would they do that and write a ransom note and then leave the sexually assaulted body of their daughter in the house for the police to find? And, then they start to stage a phony break in by breaking the basement window but before they finish with their staging they call the police? And, why would they kill their daughter when they could just explain it away as an accident and get her to the hospital? Burke at 9 was too young to be charged for a crime anyway. So why would they do all that if Burke did it? They wouldn't. So, now you only have two scenarios left. Patsy did it or John did it. Can you go through a scenario that would explain Patsy did it like I just did that makes sense and fits the facts of the case? The note and the 911 call are the keys to the case. (Also, remember she had been chronically sexually abused.)
 
Last edited:
#120
#120
coug said:
Looking at sample writing from Patsy and comparing it to the note it's obvious she wrote it while trying to hide her own writing style. I maintain that I don't know exactly who in the house killed Jonbenet but it was definitely one of them and one or more may have been involved with covering it up.

You can't go through much scenario when there is no exact timeline for what transpired. All you've got is what he said, what she said, what the police said, and then a lot of what everybody else suspects.
Click to expand...

How is it obvious that she was trying to hide her writing style? Maybe, just maybe, it is because she didn't write the note.
 
#121
#121
I'll go through one other scenario for you real quick. Both John and Patsy did it. That doesn't work on the face of it because if they were both in on it they wouldn't have written the ransom note and called the police before disposing of the body. That one is easy to debunk. So, it had to be one or the other. The ransom note and the 911 call are the keys to solving the case.
 
Last edited:
#122
#122
"It is obvious she was trying to hide her handwriting style."

I have seen that statement thrown out there for years. People wanted to believe Patsy wrote the note so they assumed she must have disguised her handwriting style because the note really didn't look like her handwriting. This is called supposition. It is not a fact. That is how John Ramsey has gone scot free for years. It is because so much crap thrown out there for years (a lot by the Ramsey team which John controlled) has been mistaken as facts. And, it has blinded the investigators and the public from the facts of the case.
 
#125
#125
Toujours Pret said:
I'm starting to think Sandvol killed her.
Click to expand...

This is really ironic because this demonstrates why the case has never been solved. So many preposterous theories about who did it have been thrown out there for years: Patsy did it, Burke did it, the housekeeper did it, the Uncle Santa did it, John Andrew did it, an alien did it. When in all these years the most obvious perpetrator of the crime, the person who the on-scene detective wanted to charge right away, who all the facts of the case point to, who inexplicably was ruled out, has been hiding in plain sight.

(Only a sociopath would allow his poor wife all these years to take the brunt of the public's wrath and criticism and hide behind her skirts like the coward he is.)
 
Last edited:
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top