Actually I was reluctant to post my theory now because that's not really what I'm all about this time 'round. I don't need the theory to make the points I'm making now. But the theory can serve to explain how John Ramsey MIGHT have done this crime and hoped to get away with it, so it's useful in that respect. Could it have happened differently? Yes.

>>1. John kills his daughter JonBenet, probably in connection
>>with some sort of sexual molestation. It’s difficult to account for >the reason behind the head blow, but it would seem to have followed >strangulation and been part of a coverup effort.
>Leaving aside that there is ZERO evidence of John having
>molested either of his daughters,

Not according to Dr. Wecht and other forensic experts, who saw clear evidence of chronic sexual abuse in the coroner's report.

>does it really make sense
>that John would select Christmas night to undertake these
>activities given that everyone needed to get up bright and
>early the next morning: (Patsy: JBR, honey, why are you so
>tired?" JBR: "Oh, Daddy kept messing around with me last
>night.").

There is a Yiddish saying I won't quote here verbatim because it's a tad vulgar. But the gist is that at certain times of sexual arousal the human male does NOT often "make sense." We have to remember, also, that they were about to visit other members of the family and there would have been a danger that JonBenet might confide in one of them.

>Why would he take the enormous risk of molesting
>his daughter with his wife in the house ("Honey, the reason
>I was in the BASEMENT with our DAUGHTER when you
>unexpectedly woke up was because I needed her help looking
>for my golf clubs") when there surely would be other
>opportunities to do so when neither Patsy and/or Burke were
>around? Doesn't compute.

See my version of the above Yiddish proverb. Lots of things don't compute under certain circumstances of sexual arousal. OR the anxiety of being "found out."

He may not have needed to stage for the police, but he would have had to stage for Patsy. If she didn't find a point of entry for an intruder she might have had a problem buying a kidnapping. And might have insisted on turning the house upside down looking for JonBenet. No he would have needed a stage breakin for BOTH the police AND her. But for her he needn't have been so thorough. As far as the danger of her awakening, that would always have been a concern for him ,throughout the whole episode, for sure. But what other choice would he have had, short of a confession? As it happened, she panicked and called the cops before he even had the chance to show her his staged breakin.

I meant he needed to stage NOT ONLY for the police but also for Patsy.

CEO's and other execs who travel often routinely withdraw large amounts of cash. I know because a relative of mine is in that category and has done that. No problem.

And so what if the bank filed a federal report on his withdrawal? He'd have reported the whole thing to the police the next day anyhow.

Yup.

>According to your theory, he will go to the trouble of
>collecting 1,000 $100 bills and 900 $20 bills all with the
>intent of discarding these?

Destroying them, leaving no trace. He'd probably have cried his eyes out doing it, too. But consider the alternative: the chair!

You SURE you're Ms. Marple? :-)

He'd have opened the window first, silly. It opened IN. He'd then reach over and break the window from its outside face, so the glass would fall inside.

>(remember that the only glass found was one
>little shard on the suitcase.

Now ask yourself how it got there. Smit says it was via the intruder's shoe. I say it was from John breaking glass in the window pane.

>Some RDI theorists argue John
>could have pick up any big pieces of glass and put them in
>his pocket; I don't subscribe to this view, but there's not
>physical reason it couldn't have happened.

'Course not.

>In contrast,
>there literally is no way for John to have retrieved shards
>of glass that inevitably ended up in the window well if the
>window were punched through from the outside. This single
>fact along largely does in your theory.

See above. My theory ain't that easily refuted, Ms.

I am enjoying seeing Miss M respond - - I will just watch for a bit.

Here's why:

"1. John kills his daughter JonBenet, probably in connection with some sort of sexual molestation. It’s possible he does this “accidently” during gentle manual strangulation, concocting the “garotte” to point investigators away from possible fingerprints on her neck. (See the Althusser case, in France, where strangulation was so gentle as to leave no signs at all on the outer part of the neck.)"

The "gentle" strangulation that left no EXTERNAL marks on Dr. Althusser's wife's neck did in fact leave INTERNAL marks.

As we have seen in JonBenét's autopsy, there was no damage to the larynx nor to the thyroid gland.

"Neck: Dissection of the neck is performed after removal of the thoracoabdominal organs and the brain. The anterior strap musculature of the neck is serially dissected. Multiple sections of the sternocleidomastoid muscle disclose no hemorrhages. Sections of the remainder of the strap musculature of the neck disclose no evidence of hemorrhage. Examination of the thyroid cartilage, cricoid cartilage and hyoid bone disclose no evidence of fracture or hemorrhage. Multiple cross sections of the tongue disclose no hemorrhage or traumatic injury. The thyroid gland weights 2 gm and is normal in appearance. Cut sections are finely lobular and red-tan. The trachea and larynx are lined by smooth pink-tan mucosa without intrinsic abnormalities."

"Thyroid: The thyroid gland is composed of normal-appearing follicles. An occasional isolated area of chronic interstitial infiltrate is seen. There is also a small fragment of parathyroid tissue."

Answering Althusser's cry for help, "Normale Sup's" school physician discovered Hélène Althusser, 70, dead on their bedroom floor across the courtyard. An autopsy next day disclosed that she had indeed been murdered: her larynx was fractured and her thyroid gland damaged, common indications of strangulation.

SO, my FIRST question is how does your theory work if the very first premise is false, Doc?

HOW did this go unnoticed by the computer geeks that took his computer and VERY VERY LIKELY examined most recent computer activity that would have displayed the rn FONT having been used and displayed (software access)?

Excellent points Margoo!
I can't wait to see how docG explains away this fly in the ointment.

JS :D

If you don't save a word processing text it won't get on your hard drive. Some word processors routinely save backups, but that's an option that can be turned off. Why on Earth would you expect anyone to save such a text on his hard drive? And he could easily have changed the font to something else before he turned the computer off.

The extraordinary naivete of so many of the questions I get about my theory says a LOT about the problems people are having following this case in general. If you can't see beyond the most obvious issues how can you claim to have any real insights regarding this case?

You cannot "hide" your computer activity by not saving it. Have you ever checked your computer for "activity"? You will find that you don't need to "save" anything for the computer to record it.

As for your last statement, I have to say "back atcha, Doc". I am AMAZED and PERPLEXED by some of the assumptions and misconstruing of absolutes within this case.

>As for your last statement, I have to say "back atcha, Doc".
> I am AMAZED and PERPLEXED by some of the assumptions and
>misconstruing of absolutes within this case.

You mean stumped.

Stumble on, Margoo, the only one you're fooling is yourself.

I'm not saying JonBenet's strangling was a carbon copy of the Althusser case, just that this case is an example of how someone could be manually strangled without leaving any external marks. The JonBenet autopsy showed that someone could be strangled without damaging the larynx or thyoid gland. Are you claiming she wasn't strangled at all? If not, what's your point?

Doc, have you missed all the information posted over the years regarding manual versus ligature strangulation?

YES, I am claiming she was NOT STRANGLED - MANUALLY. The damage to the larynx and thyroid are absent. That means she was NOT strangled manually - not even "gently".

The damages to JonBenét's neck are clear indications that she was strangled by LIGATURE. PERIOD.

Autopsy: The anterior strap musculature of the neck is serially dissected. Multiple sections of the sternocleidomastoid muscle disclose no hemorrhages. Sections of the remainder of the strap musculature of the neck disclose no evidence of hemorrhage. Examination of the thyroid cartilage, cricoid cartilage and hyoid bone disclose no evidence of fracture or hemorrhage. Multiple cross sections of the tongue disclose no hemorrhage or traumatic injury. The thyroid gland weights 2 gm and is normal in appearance. Cut sections are finely lobular and red-tan. The trachea and larynx are lined by smooth pink-tan mucosa without intrinsic abnormalities.

Evidence of Manual Strangulation:
- haemorrhage under the skin of the neck and bruising of the strap muscles
- often limited signs of suffocation as fingers are more likely to probe deeper neck structures and cause reflex cardiac arrest
- sustained pressure may cause congestion and blueness of the tongue, pharynx and larynx
- damage to the larynx - particularly the superior horns of the thyroid cartilage, and the greater horns of the hyoid bone

Autopsy: In the lateral aspect of the left lower eyelid on the inner conjunctival surface is a 1mm in maximum dimension petechial hemorrhage. Very fine, less than 1mm petechial hemorrhages are present on the skin of the upper eyelids bilaterally as well as on the lateral left cheek. On everting the left upper eyelid there are much smaller, less than 1mm petechial hemorrhages located on the conjuctival surface. Possible petechial hemorrhages located on the conjunctival surfaces of the right upper and lower eyelids, but livor mortis on this side of the face makes definite identification difficult.

A deep ligature furrow encircles the entire neck. The width of the furrow varies from one-eighth of an inch to five/sixteenths of an inch and is horizontal in orientation, with little upward deviation. The skin of the anterior neck above and below the ligature furrow contains areas of petechial hemorrhage and abrasion encompassing an area measuring approximately 3x2 inches. The ligature furrow crosses the anterior midline of the neck just below the laryngeal prominence, approximately at the level of the cricoid cartilage. It is almost completely horizontal with slight upward deviation from the horizontal towards the back of the neck. The midline of the furrow mark on the anterior neck is 8 inches below the top of the head. The midline of the furrow mark on the posterior neck is 6.75 inches below the top of the head.

The area of abrasion and petechial hemorrhage of the skin of the anterior neck includes on the lower left neck, just to the left of the midline, a roughly triangular, parchment-like rust colored abrasion which measures 1.5 inches in length with a maximum width of 0.75 inches. This roughly triangular shaped abrasion is obliquely oriented with the apex superior and lateral. The remainder of the abrasions and petechial hemorrhages of the skin above and below the anterior projection of the ligature furrow are nonpatterned, purple to rust colored, and present in the midline, right, and left areas of the anterior neck. The skin just above the ligature furrow along the right side of the neck contains petechial hemorrhage composed of multiple confluent very small petechial hemorrhages as well as several larger petechial hemorrhages measuring up to one-sixteenth and one-eighth of an inch in maximum dimension. Similar smaller petechial hemorrhages are present on the skin below the ligature furrow on the left lateral aspect of the neck

RECOGNITION OF LIGATURE PATTERNS
A ligature pattern is generally going to be located about the level of the victim's larynx or lower. In homicide cases it is generally going to be a uniform and horizontal mark encircling the neck completely. But it can also be a partially circling mark, visible only in the front, the assailant having pulled the ligature tightly from behind. This is in keeping with a homicidal strangulation rather than suicidal or homicidal hanging<6>. In either case, the ligature pattern will mark the skin of the neck generally the same way all around, and will not rise sharply to a suspension point(<7>, <9>).

PETECHIAE & OTHER SIGNS OF TRAUMA
There are associated physical evidences of traumatic asphyxia, which can often be easily visibly identified in conjunction with ligature strangulation. Petechiae are often present on the victim(<1>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <9>). Because veins are normally at lower pressure than arteries, traumatic injuries from an offending force to the neck (i.e. -ligature strangulation) cause an increase in venous pressure and an increase in capillary pressure that then causes damage to the inner walls of those capillaries. This damage produces minute points of bleeding which can be visible as pinpoint hemorrhages in the softer tissues. These minutes points of bleeding are called petechiae<3>.
Look for scleral hemorrhage and petechiae in the eyes and insides of the eyelids<4>. Also look for petechiae in the cheeks and neck at or above the ligature furrow. Another place to look for petechiae is inside the nostril on the nasal membrane. The nasal mucosa is often overlooked by even trained pathologists for presence of petechiae.
Petechiae are not to be confused with freckle-like Tardieu spots. These are seen in hanging cases as, with time, punctate hemorrhages occur due to hydrostatic rupture of the vessels from blood pooling in the forearms, hands, and legs. Petechiae are much more minute, and associated with the soft tissue areas in the neck and head.

There was NO MANUAL strangulation. Everything in the autopsy report matches the physiology of LIGATURE strangulation.

And you received your degree in forensic pathology where?

I guess his theory just went down the tube BIG TIME!

ROTFLMAO

Regardless of Margoo's lack of a forensic pathology degree, Dr. Meyer DOES have a degree and would certainly be able to ascertain whether or not JonBenet was strangled manually or with a ligature.

All evidence, including autopsy photos, clearly show this was a ligature strangulation. And Doc, it isn't that difficult for even a layman to tell the difference--even just from photos.

Rainsong

Huh?
I think a man in the "suggested situation" might stage an accident, stage an intruder rapist/killer OR stage a kidnapping which means no child would be found in the house. I do NOT see a parent staging a kidnapping and forgetting to remove the body.

Not in the dark while everyone is asleep? He plans to wait until Patsy is awake to do that? Did he really expect to call 911, have the cops come and say - -"Yep, that's a ransom note!" and leave? So he put her in a very VERY warm and damp room and just hoped they would not check the house, not stay long enough to smell the decomposing body and NOT monitor any of his movements after?
He would also have to hope Patsy wouldn't either.

How do you figure THAT works?

I don't think so. If he was going to stage a kidnapping, the body would be removed - - dropped somewhere BEFORE calling 911.

I don't see how getting THAT note would stop Patsy from searching the house. But let's follow your suggestion, shall we? Why didn't John tell her NOT to touch anything - - to stay still and not disturb anything the "kidnapper" might have touched? He didn't do that. She could have gone anywhere - he wasn't trying to stop her at all.

frighten her into not calling police? Then he TELLS her to call 911? Doesn't work for me.

setting up fake kidnapping.... doesn't work. Pretty lame staging of a kidnapping - leaving the body and not calling to set up the ransom drop.

As for making the bank suspicious - - any time a person takes that kind of money from the bank, red flags go off. If it isn't"normal" for that account - - you can bet they take notice.

As naive as we all may have been in 1996, no one thought a millionaire's kid could go missing and LE would simply not search the house but would simply check things out the slightest bit and talk for a while then go away. And if he DID think the cops were that stupid, why stage anything after? Why would he think they would EVER come back to check anything?

Another point here - - there wasn't enough glass found to fill the whole in the window - - it was clear most of the glass from the hole was gone. And it was not in the trash - -the cops checked.

If that was the plan, why didn't he ask Fleet and Priscilla to take Patsy AND Burke home - - and stay there - - so John (and the cops) could focus on - - whatever?

So he intended to let Patsy and friends see the note - but not call the cops - - then intended to dump the body and burn the note? Doesn't fit. The note didn't give him a starting point - - a phone call would have to be made and even then we all knew recrds of incoming calls were kept by phone companies. How was he going to handle all that? No - - far easier to dump the body in the night and skip all this tricky stuff.

But he TOLD her to call 911. You can't just say - - "What if we change that fact."

He could have claimed he didn't know a thing about who opened or closed the window. We know at least two others were in the basement that morning, Fleet and a cop. John didn't have to KNOW anything about the window.

>10. When Arndt asks John to search the house, he goes
>directly to the basement because it is necessary for him to
>discover the body – so he can claim it was right out in the
>open rather than carefully hidden in a corner under blankets
>(which is why Fleet White didn’t see it earlier). This,
>rather than any attempt at “contaminating the crime scene,”
>is his real reason for “discovering” the body.

And his footprints and other imprints in the mold would have exposed that lie. But it didn't happen.

>

I don't believe it. If that had been the case, John would NEVER have allowed Patsy to be around all those people the first 48 hours - - friends and police - medicated and alone with people who were obviously listening to every word she said. He would have followed the police suggestion that they go to a hotel - - and he would have been right by her side every moment. Didn't happen that way.

Come again? She GOT that note and DIDN'T search the house. Obviously if there were NO note, she'd have turned the house upside down looking for JonBenet.

>But let's follow your suggestion,
>shall we? Why didn't John tell her NOT to touch anything -
>- to stay still and not disturb anything the "kidnapper"
>might have touched? He didn't do that. She could have gone
>anywhere - he wasn't trying to stop her at all.

How do YOU know what was said between them at that time? What, you're going by what THEY reported? They're the suspects, Jameson, or doesn't that matter to you?

>
>frighten her into not calling police? Then he TELLS her to
>call 911? Doesn't work for me.

We don't know WHAT he told her or she told him. Only what was reported. Which was contradictory. In the documentary, she said SHE was the one who told HIM she was making the call, remember? We've been over this a thousand times, why do we need to do it again?

>setting up fake kidnapping.... doesn't work. Pretty lame
>staging of a kidnapping - leaving the body and not calling
>to set up the ransom drop.

Read the WHOLE thing before jumping the gun, Jameson. Please?
>
>As for making the bank suspicious - - any time a person
>takes that kind of money from the bank, red flags go off. If
>it isn't"normal" for that account - - you can bet they take
>notice.

$118,000 isn't big money in the world of big business, trust me. If some nobody from the street withdrew it, maybe. Not the CEO of a billion dollar company. It might get placed on some file to be reported at a future date. So what?

OK - - but couldn't he have said HE'D search the basement? Same result - she would think the basement had been searched and she wouldn't go down there- - until.... after he moved her? Honestly, I don't see that happening. Patsy wouldn't be leavingto search the streets leaving John to man the phone and move the body. Just doesn't work.
>
>>But let's follow your suggestion,
>>shall we? Why didn't John tell her NOT to touch anything -
>>- to stay still and not disturb anything the "kidnapper"
>>might have touched? He didn't do that. She could have gone
>>anywhere - he wasn't trying to stop her at all.
>
>How do YOU know what was said between them at that time?
>What, you're going by what THEY reported? They're the
>suspects, Jameson, or doesn't that matter to you?

So you think now she is telling lies to - - - what? To protect him? To follow his lead without question? Sorry - I don't think Patsy ever followed.
>
>>
>>frighten her into not calling police? Then he TELLS her to
>>call 911? Doesn't work for me.
>
>We don't know WHAT he told her or she told him. Only what
>was reported. Which was contradictory. In the documentary,
>she said SHE was the one who told HIM she was making the
>call, remember? We've been over this a thousand times, why
>do we need to do it again?

So you think now she is telling lies to - - - what? To protect him? To follow his lead without question? Sorry - I don't think Patsy ever followed.
>
>>setting up fake kidnapping.... doesn't work. Pretty lame
>>staging of a kidnapping - leaving the body and not calling
>>to set up the ransom drop.
>
>Read the WHOLE thing before jumping the gun, Jameson.
>Please?

If it was fiction, Icould, but step by step your story is NOT what happened. I can't pretend otherwise and then come to a grand conclusion based on LOTS of small things that make nosense to me. Sorry.
>>
>>As for making the bank suspicious - - any time a person
>>takes that kind of money from the bank, red flags go off. If
>>it isn't"normal" for that account - - you can bet they take
>>notice.
>
>$118,000 isn't big money in the world of big business, trust
>me. If some nobody from the street withdrew it, maybe. Not
>the CEO of a billion dollar company. It might get placed
>on some file to be reported at a future date. So what?

Cash? No, you are wrong, it raises eyebrows. I have a few friends who are worth millions - - they could pay cash for a house or car - - but they do NOT ever give more than 9 thousand in cash because that has to be reported to the IRS. They may make out a check - - but never cash.

You really need to read the whole theory, Jameson. And then sit down and think a bit before you post. Shooting from the hip won't do it.
>
>How do you figure THAT works?
>
>I don't think so. If he was going to stage a kidnapping,
>the body would be removed - - dropped somewhere BEFORE
>calling 911.

Exactly. Please read on.

Once again you are jumping to conclusions. He would have removed the body, certainly and my theory accounts for that. Read on.

A large portion of the hymen was missing. And there was "chronic" inflammation of the vagina. How is that absolutely no evidence? And please don't go into your song and dance about bubble bath, we've been there done that. The point is that there is evidence consistent with prior abuse and that possibility can't be discounted. It could also have had an innocent cause, sure.

>
>But let's just pretend for a brief moment that John did want
>tomolest his daughter -- why in hell would he take her to
>the damp and moldy basement to do it?

As usual you are jumping to conclusions. There's no evidence she was abused in the basement. It probably happened in her bedroom. She was stored in the basement after her death.

>AND - - the strangulation tells us something about the
>killer - - he had that fantasy. Nothing found in the Ramsey
>house showed John had that fantasy - -nothing in the books
>or on the computer. You can't just ignore that.

It's possible he didn't strangle her deliberately. It could have been an accident. I think that's the most likely possibility. All the rest could have been coverup.

We can only go around in circles so many times. See my reference to the Althusser case, above.

Only one Google hit for "accidental manual strangulation" and, guess what? It's yours from back in 2003 on this forum! LOLOLOLOLOL

How about that, docG,,,your theory is SO good you have your very own Google page!

It is debatable whether the girl was previously molested...by her father or by anyone at all. Unfortunately, because of different opinions by different doctors...no one can be CERTAIN either way. Maybe there were no tears, but molestation CAN happen without there being ripped or torn evidence. I can attest to this from being molested as a child myself.

Although there is NO evidence of the father owning a stun-gun, could he still might have owned one? Paid cash, bought if from someone else?

If he did, maybe that night was the first he decided to use it. Maybe he thought he could do his duty without waking her. Maybe he tried to molest her in her bed, she was waking up so her used it to subdue her, but it didn't last long enough. He didn't want to hurt her, so he figured if he kept her knocked out long enough to get her down to the basement, he could finish what he'd started upstairs. Downstairs was far from everyone (brother/mother) so he didn't fear getting caught. Maybe he didn't want his little girl to know it was him all along so he took her down there for quiet, to assure no one would wake up...and he used the garrote from the behind position so she couldn't see him. Wasn't it stated that whomever did this did it from behind?

While she was coming to, and realized what was happening, she screamed. Either she turned enough and saw him, or he was so aggitated that she woke up, in a fury hit her in the head. The attempt was to shut her up so he wouldn't get caught, and in his mental/physical state of being aroused and haulted, he hit her, thus the skull fracture.

Now he is scared, this was NOT something he intended. He is stressed out, he is frantic, he needs to get her out of the house, realizing he's killed her. In his fear, he tries to set up something to look as if someone else came in and tried to take her. He tried the suitcase issue. Maybe shoving her in it and trying to shove it out the window/grate, but it wouldn't fit. At this moment, his mind is all over the place...contemplating what to do next.

Then he writes the ransome note, throws in this and that...the only amount that comes to mind that he's not afraid to lose is his last bonus. Doesn't think about the retributions, just handing over the entire amount. He stages everything for his wife and the police...encourages his wife to call 911 after he's convinced she's convinced there is a kidnapping. He knows the body is downstairs, and IF it gets found out, then it will turn out how it actually did, an attempted kidnapping gone awry. IF it doesn't get found out, he could come back and dispose of it later, maybe when he thinks he will be the one going to the bank for the ransome money, after all, this is supposed to look like a kidnapping, not a murder. That would be a perfect way to grab the suitcase and head out. However, it did not turn out that way.

When he goes down to the basement BEFORE the body is found, he takes the girl out of the suitcase and lays her on the floor the best he can, or maybe she's already there, but he checks on her, rearranges some things down there, disposes of the extra glass...who knows what he does down there...but he's down there. He NOW knows he needs to be the ONE who finds her body if it comes to that...and he does and is. This way, any contamination of the crime scene is tampered with, flawed, and certainly useless.

Handprint? Could have been there from long ago. Footprint? Same thing. Pubic hair? Could have come from anywhere, just a coincidence...

Again, I believe in the mom/dad's innocence, I believe an intruder did all this, but playing the devil's advocate, I can see how someone who can't get past the parent theory could come to this conclusion...

Either way, I take pleasure in knowing God has plans for this precious little girl's killer........

Thanks, Christmas. You are among the very few on this forum willing to even consider the possibilties I've presented. Be careful. You don't want to be caught on the Internet with an open mind. :-)

>It is debatable whether the girl was previously
>molested...by her father or by anyone at all. Unfortunately,
>because of different opinions by different doctors...no one
>can be CERTAIN either way. Maybe there were no tears, but
>molestation CAN happen without there being ripped or torn
>evidence. I can attest to this from being molested as a
>child myself.

Thank you. I believe many people are naive about child molestation and the circumstances in which it can occur. And how common it could be.

>Although there is NO evidence of the father owning a
>stun-gun, could he still might have owned one? Paid cash,
>bought if from someone else?

If there were proof that a stun gun were actually used, the whole case would take on a different light. A stun gun would be far more consistent with an intruder than a family member and there is no evidence the Ramseys owned one. But there is also no evidence that a stun gun was used, that's just a theory and a highly speculative one at that.

>While she was coming to, and realized what was happening,
>she screamed. Either she turned enough and saw him, or he
>was so aggitated that she woke up, in a fury hit her in the
>head. The attempt was to shut her up so he wouldn't get
>caught, and in his mental/physical state of being aroused
>and haulted, he hit her, thus the skull fracture.

There are many possible scenarios that could be considered for the attack and murder themselves. But there's no evidence that we can put to use to help us puzzle out all those details. Nor do we need to do that to solve the crime.
>
>Now he is scared, this was NOT something he intended. He is
>stressed out, he is frantic, he needs to get her out of the
>house, realizing he's killed her. In his fear, he tries to
>set up something to look as if someone else came in and
>tried to take her. He tried the suitcase issue. Maybe
>shoving her in it and trying to shove it out the
>window/grate, but it wouldn't fit. At this moment, his mind
>is all over the place...contemplating what to do next.

I don't see any reason for him trying to shove her out the window. But I do think his mind would have been "all over the place," yes.

>Then he writes the ransome note, throws in this and
>that...the only amount that comes to mind that he's not
>afraid to lose is his last bonus. Doesn't think about the
>retributions, just handing over the entire amount. He stages
>everything for his wife and the police...encourages his wife
>to call 911 after he's convinced she's convinced there is a
>kidnapping.

I don't think he would have wanted the police called, no. I think he would have been opposed to that. I think Patsy called anyhow, possibly because she felt herself to be in danger. Maybe she thought the "kidnapper" was still in the house.

He knows the body is downstairs, and IF it gets
>found out, then it will turn out how it actually did, an
>attempted kidnapping gone awry. IF it doesn't get found out,
>he could come back and dispose of it later, maybe when he
>thinks he will be the one going to the bank for the ransome
>money, after all, this is supposed to look like a
>kidnapping, not a murder. That would be a perfect way to
>grab the suitcase and head out. However, it did not turn out
>that way.

I don't think she'd have fit in the suitcase. But I think you get my drift, yes. And no, it didn't turn out that way -- because Patsy called the police against his wishes. I think he manipulated her into lying about that later.

>
>When he goes down to the basement BEFORE the body is found,
>he takes the girl out of the suitcase and lays her on the
>floor the best he can, or maybe she's already there, but he
>checks on her, rearranges some things down there, disposes
>of the extra glass...who knows what he does down there...but
>he's down there. He NOW knows he needs to be the ONE who
>finds her body if it comes to that...and he does and is.
>This way, any contamination of the crime scene is tampered
>with, flawed, and certainly useless.

I don't think he needed to contaminate the crime scene. He needed to discover the body so he could move it to the center of the room. Don't forget, when Fleet White looked in there earlier he saw nothing. I think she was hidden in there under a blanket.

>
>Handprint? Could have been there from long ago. Footprint?
>Same thing. Pubic hair? Could have come from anywhere, just
>a coincidence...

The handprint has been traced, to Melinda, I think. The pubic hair also. I think that came from Patsy.
>
>Again, I believe in the mom/dad's innocence, I believe an
>intruder did all this, but playing the devil's advocate, I
>can see how someone who can't get past the parent theory
>could come to this conclusion...

Thank you for being open minded enough to consider that possibility.
>
>Either way, I take pleasure in knowing God has plans for
>this precious little girl's killer........

Yes.

No portion of her hymen was missing.

Rainsong

What utter BS!!! The possibilities are being considered. YOU, Doc, don't want to hear anything that shows your theory's weakness - and that's a fact.

You, yourself, have, over the years, had to reconstruct your theory to MAKE it "fit". WE - at THIS forum - continue to show you your theory's weaknesses. (You don't want any feedback?)

OBVIOUSLY, your posts are being read and contemplated and CONSIDERED under the limitations of the FACTS.

It's a FACT, for example, that JonBenét was strangled by a LIGATURE. The known FACTS about manual versus ligature strangulation and the autopsy SUPPORT THAT FACT.

What are you asking our minds to do in reference to being your version of "open"? Disregard these facts? We're asking you to take into account such indisputable facts as the TEMPERATURES in Boulder Dec 25-26, the REAL facts surrounding DNA (not your interpretation), the REAL facts surrounding physical clues of manual versus ligature strangulation, the reality of spiders and their webs, etc.

I, for one, am SICK of your references to us (me) NOT having an open mind. I will DISPUTE what is INDISPUTABLE 'til the cows come home, Doc. Adjust your theory to work in what cannot be taken OUT of the case. You cannot change what is indisiputable anymore than you can have the sun rising at 6:00 PM and setting at 6:00 AM.

And there was "chronic" inflammation of the vagina.

Poor hygene - not bubble bath.

> There's no
>evidence she was abused in the basement. It probably
>happened in her bedroom. She was stored in the basement
>after her death.

The evidence points to ber being in the basement when she was strangled and when she died. We have been over that a hundred times as well.

>
>It's possible he didn't strangle her deliberately. It could
>have been an accident. I think that's the most likely
>possibility. All the rest could have been coverup.

I think that is as likely as the suicide theory.

Everyone seems to have their own set of "facts." The theory I've presented is self-consistent and consistent with the facts as I understand them. But it's admittedly speculative. I posted it as a reference for those who expressed an interest in seeing it.

Go to my other thread for the solution to the case, which is NOT based on my theory but IS based soley on verifiable evidence and documented testimony. AND also on your own testimony regarding John's exemplars. I have no problem at all with that. But it WOULD help if we could actually have a look at them.

Then obviously you don't understand the 'facts.'

Rainsong (Sorry, Doc. Had to do it.)

Now there's an image! Picasso on crack! I LUV IT!

This interests me. What evidence are you referring to?

In all due respect, the only part I agree with in my post is that whether a hymen is torn/damaged or not does NOT consitute whether a child has been molested or not. Unfortunately I know that from personal experience. If evidence states that nothing was wrong with JB's hymen, that does NOT mean she was not molested...HOWEVER, I don't think her parents killed her. I think she was the victim of a sick, cruel sub-life. As always I close in saying...I take pleasure in knowing God has plans for whomever killed this child.

I don't suppose docg or Linda Arndt will ever change their minds about John Ramsey. As far as I'm concerned there is no real evidence against John. I believe in the intruder theory, and I'm not the only person who believes that theory.

The only hard evidence against John is that he was in the house when JonBenet was murdered. All the rest is manufactured evidence. If there was any staging, I believe that staging was done by Fleet White in order to frame John Ramsey. If there was any prior sex abuse of JonBenet I believe that was done by Fleet. There is no real evidence of incest at all, as docg and Dr Wecht have suggested.

Another aspect of this which tends to get overlooked is the behavior of John Ramsey and Fleet White since the murder. To me Fleet's behavior at JonBenet's funeral was appalling, and Fleet's desperate efforts to have the Boulder DA changed to an anti-Ramsey DA is highly suspicious.

I believe if John Ramsey was involved in the murder that his family would have turned against him. There would be public scenes in the family of punch-ups, and the like, and the rest of his family would have moved away from him, and never spoken to him again. Nothing like that has happened. John's family have only had the highrest opinion of him as a father, and said so publicly, and there certainly hasn't been any divorce, as one might expect if there had been any real suspicions of John.

This is from the Fox lawsuit that never happened about, this time last year. To me it's supporting evidence of an intruder:

"John Ramsey did not murder his daughter, JonBenét.

Patsy Ramsey did not murder her daughter, JonBenét.

Burke Ramsey did not murder his sister, JonBenét
THE FALSE AND DEFAMATORY FOX NEWS BROADCAST
On December 27, 2002, in connection with the sixth (6th)
anniversary of the murder of JonBenét Ramsey, Fox News televised
a news segment about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation on
the Fox News Channel (the Ramsey segment).

In the Ramsey segment, Ms. McKinley uttered the following
false and defamatory statements of and concerning John, Patsy
and Burke Ramsey:
Detectives say they had good reason to suspect
the Ramseys. The couple and JonBenét's nine-year old
brother, Burke, were the only known people in
the house the night she was killed. JonBenét had
been strangled, bludgeoned and sexually
assaulted, most likely from one of her mother's
paintbrushes. The longest ransom note most
experts have ever seen three pages was left
behind. Whomever killed her spent a long time in
the family home. Yet, there has never been any
evidence to link an intruder to her brutal
murder.

The gist of the statements uttered by Ms. McKinley in the
Ramsey segment is that in all probability, one or more of the
Ramseys murdered JonBenét.

The gist of the statements uttered by Ms. McKinley in the
Ramsey segment is false and defamatory.

The statement uttered by Ms. McKinley that there has never
been any evidence to link an intruder to brutal
murder is a false statement of fact and defamed the Ramsey
family members known to be in the home the night of her murder,
namely, John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey.

Substantial evidence gathered by law enforcement officers
in the investigation of JonBenét Ramsey's death links an
intruder to her brutal murder, including:
Male DNA found on JonBenét's panties that is not the DNA
of anyone in the Ramsey family and has not been sourced;
Male DNA found under JonBenét's fingernails of both hands
that is not the DNA of anyone in the Ramsey family and
has not been sourced;
Two pairs of marks on JonBenét's body which indicate that
a stun gun was used to subject and torture her;
Evidence of an intruder found in the Ramseys' basement,
including a broken open window with a suitcase and broken
glass under it, and a window-well to this window with
signs of recent disturbance;
Material from the window-well found in the room where
JonBenét was discovered;
Male pubic or ancillary hair and numerous fibers found on
JonBenét's body, clothing and blanket which do not match
anything in the Ramsey home and have not been sourced;
Unidentified shoe prints in the basement and unidentified
palm prints on the door to the room where JonBenét was
found, which do not match those of anyone in the Ramsey
home and have not been sourced;
JonBenét's autopsy findings, which indicate that she was
sexually assaulted, strangled, tortured and then
bludgeoned at or near the point of death physical
evidence of the manner and timing of her death which does
not fit the theory of an accidental killing by a parent
or sibling followed by staging;
The garrote and slipknots used to bind and kill JonBenét
were sophisticated torture and bondage devices which no
one in the Ramsey family had the knowledge to construct;
Materials used to assault and strangle JonBenét the
stun gun, nylon cord and duct tape which necessarily
existed but which were never owned by the Ramseys and
were not found in their home;
A missing portion of the paintbrush handle which was used
to construct the garrote and may have been used to
sexually assault JonBenét;

A three-page handwritten ransom note which law
enforcement experts have not identified as being authored
by any member of the Ramsey family;
Missing pages from the pad on which the ransom note was
written;
The butler's door found open the morning of the murder,
near which was found an unsourced baseball bat that had
fibers on it consistent with those found in the basement
where JonBenét's body was found; and
Complete absence of evidence of motive or history
indicating that John, Patsy or Burke Ramsey were capable
of murdering JonBenét or staging an elaborate cover up of
the crime."

Yes, and there are a great many who believe in intelligent design as well. They can cite reams of "evidence" to back that up as well.

> The only hard evidence against John is that he was in the
>house when JonBenet was murdered. All the rest is
>manufactured evidence.

Manufactured by whom? You're saying there was some vast conspiracy on the part of the BPD, DA's office, FBI, etc. to frame the Ramseys?

>If there was any staging, I believe
>that staging was done by Fleet White in order to frame John
>Ramsey.

John wasn't framed. As he himself stated anyone out to frame him would not have written a hand printed note and left it at the scene for the police to examine.

>If there was any prior sex abuse of JonBenet I
>believe that was done by Fleet.

And what, pray tell, is the evidence for THAT?

>There is no real evidence of
>incest at all, as docg and Dr Wecht have suggested.

There is evidence that could be construed as consistent with incest, yes. Incest can't be proven but it can't be ruled out either.
>
>Another aspect of this which tends to get overlooked is the
>behavior of John Ramsey and Fleet White since the murder. To
>me Fleet's behavior at JonBenet's funeral was appalling, and
>Fleet's desperate efforts to have the Boulder DA changed to
>an anti-Ramsey DA is highly suspicious.

Fleet White is one of the very few eye witnesses, a key eye witness. He obviously saw some things that disturbed him very deeply. He was also incensed by John's decision to hide behind a lawyer and not cooperate with the police. I find his rage understandable.

>
> I believe if John Ramsey was involved in the murder that
>his family would have turned against him.

Typically in a case such as this the family supports the accused.

>There would be
>public scenes in the family of punch-ups, and the like, and
>the rest of his family would have moved away from him, and
>never spoken to him again. Nothing like that has happened.
>John's family have only had the highrest opinion of him as a
>father, and said so publicly, and there certainly hasn't
>been any divorce, as one might expect if there had been any
>real suspicions of John.

I feel sure Patsy believes him to be innocent. But we have to keep in mind one very important fact. He was ruled out as writer of the note very early on, in fact his own "experts" ruled him out early in Jan. of 1997. Patsy knows SHE didn't write the note. So the only possible alternative in HER mind would therefore be an intruder.

Now that we know John has two different printing styles, only ONE of which was examined by the "experts" the decision to rule him out must be reversed and ALL his exemplars re-examined. The difference in styles and the fact that he used only one to print his exemplars is in itself strong evidence of deception.

>This is from the Fox lawsuit that never happened about, this
>time last year. To me it's supporting evidence of an
>intruder:

I'm very familiar with these long lists of "intruder evidence." What you and many others don't seem to understand is that this is the sort of list one will find in just about any murder case. Compiling such lists is what criminal lawyers do. I'm familiar with every piece of evidence in that list. Each item is either sheer speculation, a huge stretch, or inconclusive. What is never acknowledged by team Ramsey is that there is significant evidence on the other side which is NOT speculative, NOT inconclusive and in fact very convincing if not totally irrefutable on its face. For this reason the BPD AND FBI decided against the intruder theory and concluded that this was most likely an inside job. That's not MY theory alone, but the thinking of a large number of experienced LE experts. The tough part of my job is NOT to convince people that there was no intruder. That's already been done by the experts. What's tough for me is convincing people that Patsy must be innocent of any crime against her daughter and that John has to be the sole perpetrator of this crime. That's something few on this forum want to address.

Hmm, yes, and there are those who believe in the Tooth Fairy without any evidence whatsoever.
>

>Manufactured by whom? You're saying there was some vast
>conspiracy on the part of the BPD, DA's office, FBI, etc. to
>frame the Ramseys?

There is no evidence, physical or otherwise, that points to John Ramsey as a sexual abuser or as a murderer. No matter how hard BPD tried, they couldn't find one iota, not one scintilla of hard evidence nailing JR as either. From the 'leak' about semen found on JonBenet, to the confiscating of computers, to the 'adult store' tale to the 'black Israeli wool fibers' found on JonBenet's genitalia, the BPD lied. And they lied to place pressure on one of their prime suspects. The tactics didn't work.

>John wasn't framed. As he himself stated anyone out to
>frame him would not have written a hand printed note and
>left it at the scene for the police to examine.

Not yet, but you do keep trying.

>There is evidence that could be construed as consistent with
>incest, yes. Incest can't be proven but it can't be ruled
>out either.

Re-read your own words: COULD BE. Is that the type of investigation you would wish on any suspect? COULD BE? I want honesty, not some damn fool cop's (or wannabe cop) COULD BE

>
>Fleet White is one of the very few eye witnesses, a key eye
>witness. He obviously saw some things that disturbed him
>very deeply. He was also incensed by John's decision to
>hide behind a lawyer and not cooperate with the police. I
>find his rage understandable.

I would think anyone finding the body of a dead strangled six-year-old would find that deeply disturbing.

He was ruled out
>as writer of the note very early on, in fact his own
>"experts" ruled him out early in Jan. of 1997. Patsy knows
>SHE didn't write the note. So the only possible alternative
>in HER mind would therefore be an intruder.

I will repeat: John Ramsey was ruled out by FOUR handwriting experts hired by BPD. Do you think they are all fools? Inept? Does the ineptness of the BPD rub off on such experts?

>Now that we know John has two different printing styles,
>only ONE of which was examined by the "experts" the decision
>to rule him out must be reversed and ALL his exemplars
>re-examined. The difference in styles and the fact that he
>used only one to print his exemplars is in itself strong
>evidence of deception.

This paragraph shows how little you know of handwriting analysis. Keep researching, Doc. Learn something about handwriting analysis before making any determination. And then realize, even if a person's handwriting evolves, there are still going to be characteristics which do not change over time.

Rainsong

ST: Okay. When you uh, after the note and after what I’m assuming is just sort of pandemonium, after seeing the note, uh, and you called for John, you went to the kitchen and called 911?

PR: Well…

ST: Is that right?

PR: …I called, um, I, ran up and opened, you know, pushed open her door and realized she wasn’t there and I ran to the stairwell that goes up to our room and called for John and, and, then, you know, momentarily went downstairs to the kitchen to call.

ST: Was that when John was checking Burke and the rest of the house that you made that call?

PR: Uh, I believe so. I mean everything just happened so fast right there. I, I don’t remember, I just remember at one point, you know, we were saying what about Burke and John ran into check Burke and I ran back downstairs and then suddenly he was downstairs and I mean it was just…

ST: Okay.

PR: …so fast, you know, everything.

ST: Um, and obviously Burke was Okay and he was able to sleep through this until he was later awakened. Is that right?

PR: Right.

ST: Okay. Um, but at some point John came back and caught up with you. You don’t recall if it was during the 911 call or after.

PR: Well I remember I, I remember myself being of the phone and he was crouched down on the floor there in the hallway looking, reading at the note.

ST: Okay.

PR: And I was on the phone so I don’t know which happened first or it, simultaneously or.

Patsy's testimony above is consistent with the version she provided in the first Tracey documentary:

Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911."

She said she ran to the stairwell leading to the upstairs and called to John, which implies he was on the floor above her. In the documentary she states that she told him she was going to call the police and he said OK. Then in both versions she goes DOWNSTAIRS to the kitchen to make the call. In neither version above is there any reference to John telling HER to call the police.

By the time of the 1998 interview her version of this event has changed:

So I went over to these

3 stairs and yelled out for John, called to him

4 and he came down. And I said "she's been

5 kidnapped, here's a note," whatever. And I was

6 panicking, you know. I think -- I can't

7 remember exactly what I did then, whether -- I

8 think I ran downstairs again.

9 I said, you know, "what do we do,

10 what do we do?"

11 He said, "call 911, call the

12 police."

It's this last version that appears in their book. It's consistent with the version John offered the public in their first CNN interview. But the versions Patsy presented in her first interrogation and the documentary tell a different story.

If John actually did tell Patsy to call 911, then it's hard to see him as writer of the note. And if she called without giving him any argument about it, then it's hard to see HER as writer of the note. If both agreed immediately to call the police, then it's really impossible to see either of them as involved in the note at all, because one very clear purpose of the note was to ensure that the police were NOT called. Calling the police at that time negates the note as the staging of a phoney kidnapping because the police are sure to find the body and once it is found the note no longer serves any purpose for the killer.

But if Patsy's initial version of what happened, which is consistent with what she states in the documentary, is true, then SHE was the one who initiated the call, NOT John. And we have no way of knowing, based on that testimony, whether John wanted the call made or not.

I'm in disagreement with docg as to why Fleet White seemed to get so absolutely furious. I believe Fleet's plan was for one or other, or both, or all the Ramseys to be arrested and for him to be the key witness in their trial. When he discovered that none of the Ramseys were to be arrested he became absolutely furious and started to campaign for the removal of Alex Hunter and for a different Boulder chief of police to be appointed, instead of Mark Beckner.

Fleet also seemed to have difficulty controlling his temper when the media asked some perfectly relevant questions about the JonBenet murder, like who pulled the duct tape off JonBenet's mouth, and who was first down the basement on the morning of the murder? Perhaps it was guilty conscience on Fleet's part rather than the "compassion" of Fleet being upset by JonBenet's murder as docg seems to think?

Fleet's attitude to JonBenet's murder was mentioned in the Steve Thomas deposition in 2001 with Lin Wood:

14 Q. 331, the second full paragraph, it

15 starts with "Fleet and Priscilla White were

16 being hauled over the coals because they

17 wanted to see their previous statements,

18 pointing out that they were being denied the

19 same privilege given to the Ramseys"?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. "Chief Mark Beckman declared to

22 the Whites, who had supported another

23 candidate for his new job, were 'morally

24 empty' and again suggested putting Fleet White

25 in jail."

429

1 When did that occur?

2 A. That was late spring, I believe,

3 of '98, certainly in 1998. But I recall

4 this.

5 Q. Do you recall Mark Beckner ever

6 asking you if you thought that Fleet White

7 could possibly be the murderer?

8 A. Mr. Wood, I think maybe even in

9 this same passage.

10 Q. I think that's where it is, here

11 it is, I'm sorry. "'For what?' I had asked

12 Beckner incredulously. Beckner later asked me

13 if Fleet could possibly be the murderer."

14 Have I read that correctly?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. That would have been a comment

17 made in 1998 by Chief Beckner?

18 A. That's correct.

If so, it's hard to see why he'd have left a note in his own hand. Why not a printed note? And wasn't his DNA tested? I know most Ramsey defenders are convinced that's the killer's DNA but I suppose you don't agree?

That's exactly my theory. I believe Fleet White murdered JonBenet. His plan was for the Ramseys to be arrested and for him to be the key witness at their trial. I presume, but don't know exactly what was going through his mind, that he hoped to make many thousands from book deals and television rights after the innocent Ramseys had been imprisoned.

I don't know if the libel laws in America have changed at all recently with regard to the internet. I notice on some other forums that people outside the United States and Canada are being banned from posting. I presume this may be something to do with libel law.

It has always seemed to me a bit strange that any internet posters can post the most vile and defamatory things about the Ramseys but as soon as anybody suggests the Whites and their friends and relations night be involved in JonBenet's murder there is shock, horror, and denial, except from one or two posters who are in agreement with me.

I realize Jameson is on record as saying Fleet White is innocent. It's just I'm in disagreement with her about that.

My feeling about the ransom note is that it was an attempt to give the impression it was written by a Ramsey, probably Patsy Ramsey. That's what I call trying to frame her. I honestly have no idea who wrote it and nobody else seems terribly sure either. It might be Priscilla White, or even as Evening has suggested one of the Santa Bill people, or his wife.

That "fat cat" reference is interesting to me. I believe it was quite an unusual expression in America and John Ramsey distinctly remembers Priscilla White speaking of "fat cats."

I believe the purpose of the ransom note was to confuse the Ramseys and LE into thinking JonBenet had been abducted many miles from the Ramsey house and so no tracker or sniffer dogs would be called for who could trace JonBenet's scent to the location of Fleet White's Christmas night child sex party which Nancy Krebs firmly believes took place. That's exactly what happened. Fleet's plan worked perfectly.

I think it was Miranda, and some other posters, who have posted that they have never seen any official confirmation that Fleet's DNA was tested. It was supposed to be the assignment, according to Steve Thomas, of Boulder detective Jane Harmer. I realize there have been tabloid newspaper reports that Fleet was DNA tested, but you can't believe everything you read in newspapers.

I'm not qualified to pontificate about the DNA in the JonBenet case. I can't quite see that it was an Asian sneeze as Henry Lee has suggested. That sounds like wild speculation to me and I would like to see the scientific certainty, and the forensic tests and reports if Henry Lee is still suggesting that.

I believe there have been significant advances in DNA testing in the past few years and even minute amounts of DNA can now provide valuable information. Frankly, I believe LE may believe the DNA in the JonBenet belongs to Fleet White. This would be confidential police information and it could be only a few people know about it.

Unfortunately even that Fleet DNA evidence may not be enough evidence to convict Fleet as his criminal defense lawyer would strenuously contest that the DNA in the case files was not relevant to JonBenet's murder.

START A NEW THREAD OR BE DELETED

It would appear she was in the basement when the garrote was made - - the paintbrush was made there as evidenced by the shards of paintbrush on the floor.

But you are right - the killer COULD have broken the paintbrush and made the garrote inthe basement then carried it upstairs and put it on her while she lay in her bed.

BUT - - the child wet herself that night, in the basement, on the carpet in front of the basement door. Not in her room but in the basement.

You don't urinate AFTER death.