JonBenet Ramsey

[serialbuster]

Prinetta.

It has never seemed that much of an issue to me that the body was left
at the scene. Even in the Lindbergh baby case, the infant was killed
before he ever left the property, then discarded in a roadside ditch near
the scene. It was only after news reports told the kidnapper that the
parents were still hopeful their child was still alive, that the ransom
demands were made.

I think JonBenet's killer was a closet pedophile who wanted to hurt or
destroy, or possibly simply to "blame", John or Patsy Ramsey, or both.
Maybe he thought it was THEIR fault he was "turned on" by her. Its
hard to say, really. I think the reason for the ransom note may have
been to DENY the real REASON for the crime. As in, he wants to
communicate to others that he is a kidnapper, a member of some
foreign group, a religious fanatic, a smart cookie, ANYTHING but a
pedophile.

Judging from Rainsong's description of the way in which the body is left,
the killer is not ashamed of his "kill", he's ashamed of his "intent". The
arms, the ropes, the tape, the garrott, are all displayed shamelessly, but
the torso is covered. This is the part he doesn't want to draw attention
to. And if the ransom note was written in advance, as it surely must have
been, you will notice many references to "John", but (and I haven't read
it in its entirety since 1999 or so), but I dont recall any mention in the
note of the pageants or any particular lust for the girl, and yet it clearly
is notable within the contents of the note, in my opinion.

But in light of this new evidence, I can see no reason to believe there
was no intruder. Even if the parents had hired him themselves, to cover
up thier "accident" or crime, they would have had to call him from a
phone. Surely their phone records have been gone over with a fine tooth
comb by now. And even if you could imagine that the dna on the panties
came from some man at a yard sale or thrift store, how would the same
dna be present on the waistband of the long johns? Same man, same
yard sale or thrift store, where both were purchased? I cant see it. I
can honestly say that I have tried to see it from that viewpoint, but it just
doesn't fit, in my opinion. Of course, you are entitled to your own.


buster

[The Real Suspect Zero]

ANGRYWOLF.
Although you may not side with me here, it's comfort enough for me to know that the FBI_CASKU does.
And I bet they know more than most here.

Chris
_________________
It's best you don't know what's going to happen next.

[The Real Suspect Zero]

serialbuster.

Jameson is in actruality, Sue Bennett, from Hickory, NC.
Same place where the Suretape brand duct tape is manufactured.

Chris
_________________
It's best you don't know what's going to happen next.

[The Real Suspect Zero]

serialbuster.
Although I have just read your message dated; July 12, 2008 at 9:27pm, I have not read beyond this point as I honestly do not desire to continue a debate that will undoubtedly accomplish nothing.
This debate has been ongoing since the very day this tragic crime was discovered and debated by those having much more experience and expertise than most here.
And nothing has come to light except a great deal of animosity and bickering back and forth.
It's ruined relationships and nearly ruined several good people's lives.

I know this case very well, that's an honest statement.
And yes, I am privy to information that is yet to be disclosed.
But that's simply a benefit of investigative research and garnering trust and due to my prior contacts with certain sources very close to this case while living in Boulder.

If I make a statement here on this forum I give my word it is factual and from credible sources.
But there is information I am not permitted to disclose as I gave my word that I would allow justice to prevail for this little girl.
I don't know if this case will ever be solved but I pray it will and I don't want to be remembered as the one who said something that affected the integrity of the case or allowed the one responsible to avoid responsibilty through legal maneuvering.


Chris
_________________
It's best you don't know what's going to happen next.

[The Real Suspect Zero]

Very well, ANGRYWOLF...
I can respect your position although I am in complete opposition with you here.
At least we can agree to disagree, right?

I have a very good trust in certain members of the FBI, not all.

Especialy in Bill Hagmair of the CASKU.
He's absolutely one of the finest and competent behaviouralist I have noted.

I have a very good respect for Gregg McCrary and Robert Ressler as well.

Mr Douglas, although hired by the defense side, believes the Ramsey's are innocent in the death of their child.

Mr Ressler had took the position that JonBenet's killer was no stranger.
And that the killer had ready access to the home and to her.

Mr McCrary feels the killer is someone having no remorse for his crime, that he's not sorry for killing her but trying to mislead the investigators away from him by writing the ransom note.

The famous Henry Lee told the DA Alex Hunter early on that her death may have been the result of an accident then was staged to appear as a murder.
He said the investigators should approach the case with that in mind.

There appears some variation between each expert's point of view.

The evidence that remains in the crime is somewhat ambiguous and this opens the case to various interpretations, and is being interpreted differently based on each professional's personal experiences and way of looking at the evidence, both physical and psychological.

The same goes with the several medical experts who reviewed the case.

Dr. Jones, Dr. Mouteleone, and Dr. McCann all felt the trauma to her vaginal area was dated from an earlier injury from a few weeks to several months.

Dr. Krugman suggested the injury was part of the staging after death.

Dr. Spitz felt the trauma occurred either just prior to or during her death.

They are all respected professional's in their area of expertise, yet they also differ in how they are interpreting the physical evidence.

Who's right and who's wrong in this?

I am not a forensic scientist.
Nor am I a medical professional of any sort.

And so, the physical evidence pertaining to the possibility of sexual assault/penetration of this child is not an area I have a very good knowldge base.

But I do recognize the psychological evidence that exists in this crime.
I do believe I have a very good understanding of criminal conduct as it relates to crime.

And it is from this this that I am basing my statements in regards to the most probable scenario and the most probable candidate.

Chris
_________________
It's best you don't know what's going to happen next.

[The Real Suspect Zero]

Concerning there being no "motive" identified in her mother's possible involvement in her daughter's death?

I have heard this over and over and yet, there is one viable motive if you want to call it that.

It's called an accident.
There was no premeditation attached or atleast identified and therefore no motive would be identified.

But there are a number of possible "precipitors" present in this woman's life that could account for a momentary and violent outburst that may have contributed to this accident.

There doesn't have to be a history of violence or abuse observed or noted in a parent's background for there to have been such an accident.
That's one big mistake to make..
To believe that if there is nothing along these lines found in the past then it will not be present at some future point in time.

I can give you an example I researched just a few months ago, of someone who acted in a very violent way, seemingly out of character to those who lent support later in court.

It was the case of a PSYCHIATRIST who worked at the VA hospital in the Washington, DC area.

A man and two of his young children in a mini-van were traveling along the highway passed in front of the Dr and was not traveling fast enough and failed to allow the Dr to pass him.
The doctor became enraged and drove up alongside of the man and fired several shots into the side of the van.
Police pulled him over an arrested him at gunpoint.
The doctor's attorney's excuse was that the doctor was under a lot of stress lately from his job as a psychiatrist and this was totally out of character for him.

This is but one quick example I can contribute because I do not have access to my database to give other, more pertinent examples.

But my point is, stressors in our lives can and do often times result in out of character behaviours and sometimes these episodic outbursts can be violent and even fatal.

This may be the case we are seeing here.

Patsy's recurrence of cancer was undoutebly at the root of all her fears and subconscious thoughts.
Her expectations of/for her child and in these pageants as well as her child's recent regression in toilet training may have added to her already stressful and damaged psychological status.

This is not beyond belief and I believe it is a viable an explanation as any other I've heard.

Chris
_________________
It's best you don't know what's going to happen next.

[The Real Suspect Zero]

You say that it's simply specuation?

I say it's as viable as any other theory proposed.

There is nothing to support either side as being definitive proof to be quite honest.

But I can say to you that the behaviours displayed by the Ramsey's long before anyone, especially they themselves may have believed they came under suspicion, considered them possibly being involved in the death of the child, made them suspect from an investigative perspective.

I can completely understand some of the legal maneuvering and reluctance that was clearly observable after the Ramsey's believed they were under some suspcion, that's a natural reaction and this is what retaining legal counsel is all about. Many people are under the impression that because someone "lawyer's up" soon after being confronted by law enforcement that that person or persons must be guilty.
They say; "why else would they seek legal counsel so soon?"
That's not a correct statement nor is it an accurate way to look at this, and it is wrong for anyone to suggest such a thing.
It's simply a prudent thing to do when faced with the prospect of being falsely accused and possibly loosing one's freedoms.

But let's examine their behaviours for a moment, prior to all this legal/political circus began.

First, I want to make it very clear that I understand completely that we, as human beings, are very different and will react differently under similar or same conditions/circumstances or personal truma.
So, we cannot be expected to "expect" anyone to react the way we think they should because we ourselves have reacted this particular way.

But before all the legal maneuvering and manipulation began here, we can note deception on the part of both parents.
Deception for whatever reason may be, but deception none-the-less.
We can observe behaviours that most would probably consider suspicious or at least exciting our curiosity or concern.

Do you know what I am alluding to ANGRYWOLF?
Are you familiar with the case well enough for me to present these points to you and then respond in a timely manner so as we can keep a proper flow to our discussion going, as we are doing now?

If so, I will continue to discuss the case particulars with you.

Chris
_________________
It's best you don't know what's going to happen next.

[The Real Suspect Zero]

Good day, Prinetta.

I just read your post and would like to make a comment if I may, concerning Mr Douglas's having stated he didn't believe the letter received and sent to him by the King County Sheriff's Office in the Green River murders was from the actual perpetrator, when in fact is was later determined to have been composed by Gary Ridgway.

It was my understanding, and I may not be entirely correct here, but Mr. Douglas felt that the letter had contained enough information pertaining to the actual appearance of the crime scenes when discovered, that someone
within the investigation or someone having been given inside information was more than likely responsible.

Although my initial impression was that it was indeed from the actual perpetrator, I too "seriously" considered the possibility of it's being written by someone having inside information.

Sort of what occurred in the Zodiac case with Inspector David Toschi.

Therefore, I do not honestly believe Mr D's assessment was something I'd consider being "inaccurate" as much as I believe he was being "cautious" more than anything else.
Afterall, that's a very, very difficult call to make with so little to go on.

Chris
_________________
It's best you don't know what's going to happen next.

[The Real Suspect Zero]

OK, ANGRYWOLF.
It's been over 45 minutes since my last post to you..

I can see that my request that we continue to discuss this case in a timely manner was /is not being met for whatever reasons exist.
I can fully understand and accept this with little disappointment.

I have to attend to other issues right now as well, but would definitely like to continue to debate this case in opposition to one another.
I believe it's good to have an opposing force in order that all avenues be given proper consideration and analysis.
That way we don't focus on what we often times do and preventing others from broadening our knowledge base from hearing from their perspective and experiences.
Good day, my friend..

Chris
_________________
It's best you don't know what's going to happen next.

[The Real Suspect Zero]

ANGRYWOLF, you wrote:

"is simply speculation again....
Where's the proof....?
Using that you could have said the Lindburgs killed their own child.....
or that Mark Klass killed Polly or the Smart Family kidnapped Elizabeth...
We know what really happened in those cases...but I bet those families would have been suspects and you would have said the same thing about them as you have about the Ramseys......before the actual guilty party was determined.... "

That is purely conjecture on your part.
You cannot infer that I would have came to such a conclusion in any one of these cases based on my conclusions in this particular case.
Therefore you are making the same kind of judgements you have accused me of, i.e., (Not having definitive proof to support my conclusion)

That's creates an interesting paradox does it not?

Chris
_________________
It's best you don't know what's going to happen next.

[The Real Suspect Zero]

And how on earth could you use Mark Klass as an example when the evidence supported an intruder came into the home and abducted his little girl in front of other witnesses?

The evidence was clear in her case and your use of this as analogy was in no way pertinent to our discussion.

Chris
_________________
It's best you don't know what's going to happen next.

[The Real Suspect Zero]

John Ramsey stated during the formal interview finaly obtained by BPD that his son, Burke was asleep untill being awaken the following morning to be taken to the home of Fleet White.
Patsy Ramsey claimed the same thing, not knowing that police had made an enhanced version of the 911 tape that morning where Burke's voice is clearly audible asking his parent's what they found and his father's response being that they were not speaking to him.

The Ramsey's were unaware of the tape having been enhanced and therfore kept to their original story.
That's called deception and it's also known as giving false information in a police investigation, obstruction of justice and if given while under oath, perjury.

Patsy Ramsey gives two different accounts of when and how she came to discover the ransom note.
(When you are telling the truth, the answers are consistent and remain the same.)

Deception again.

These are but two instances for discussion and analysis by anyone here who would care to explore the "why" and the possible implications of such.

I am always open to discussing the various possibilities because there may be several reasons behind such behaviour and we can interpret things differently based on our own abilities at comprehending that which we see, hear and experience and it's only fair to hear others opinions/views/analysis.
I won't shut you off simply because you don't agree with my views or analysis.
Why do you feel you have to do so to me and to others?
That says a lot about how you apparently feel about your abilities in supporting your viewpoint.
If you feel you have a stronger case than I or any other who may happen to oppose you, then make your point here and now..
I'm certain logic and sensible thought will prevail if you have the tenacity to continue in a mature and professional manner.

Chris
_________________
It's best you don't know what's going to happen next.

[The Real Suspect Zero]

NEVER MIND.......

This topic is no longer a consideration for me due to those who cannot consider other people's viewpoints without getting on the defensive and shutting down.

You can prod and taunt me all you wish, but I absolutely will no longer correspond with anyone here on this matter who does not give myself or others sharing the same view a good measure of consideration or who apparently cannot handle proper analytical discussion without taking the discussion, the topic at hand, off on some irrelevant tangent.

But I will be available to those who care to continue to discuss the issue maturely.

Good day..

Chris
_________________
It's best you don't know what's going to happen next.

[The Real Suspect Zero]

"The FBI did not believe JonBenet's vaginal trauma was the result of prior sexual abuse, and the trauma WAS NOT committed for the PERPETRATOR'S GRATIFICATION-the penetration which caused minor genital trauma was more likely part of a STAGED crime scene intended to mislead police."

This information was from the Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit- which has done consultations for various police agencies on thousands of cases involving child abductions and murder.

They have more experience than anyone here and a vast database to draw from.

But some armchair detectives can't handle that thought and continue to oppose anyone who don't agree with them.

Chris
_________________
It's best you don't know what's going to happen next.

[The Real Suspect Zero]

IF in fact John Ramsey removed the duct tape from his daughter's mouth in the basement as he suggests, and Fleet White also handled it and found it was "sticky" before replacing it on the blanket before returning to the first level of the residence, then why is it there was NO fingerprints found by the Colorado Beureau of Investigation on the duct tape belonging to either of these men?

Why was the Maglite found on the kitchen counter printless,
inside and out, including the batteries?

Why is it that only a SINGLE unidentified partial heel imprint from a Hi-Tec hiking shoe found on the cement floor in immediate proximity to JonBenet's body?

Why was only a SINGLE hair, either pubic or ancillary, found on the white blanket that covered JonBenet's body?

Why was only a SINGLE partial palmprint found on the door to the room JonBenet's body was found?

Why was there only a SINGLE smudged mark found on the wall directly beneath the broken window in the train room?

That's because this ALL shows a deliberate attemtpt at planting evidence to appear someone had enetered the house and committed this crime.

Why would John Ramsey leave the upstairs around 10:00am and go to the basement.
And while there searching for his daughter, fail to check the small room.
And then returning upstairs, fail to tell detective Arndt that this broken window was OPEN and that the intruder may have possibly made entrence to the residence by this manner?

Why did Fleet White go to the basement a few minutes after arriving at the Ramsey residence and when entering the train room, upon noticing the broken window and glass on the floor beneath it as well as on the suitcase sitting directly under the window having glass on it's upper portion, pick up the glass from the floor and replace some of the fragments on the windowsill as well as move the suitcase for a better view?
When returning upstairs, tells John Fernie, yet fails to say anything to John Ramsey or to detective Arndt, although this again may have been the manner in which the "alleged" intruder entered the residence?

Why did John Ramsey tell investigators that the window was discovered open and Fleet White say it was closed but unlatched?

After detective Patterson decalerd the rest of the home off limits, why did detective Arndt tell Fleet White, John Ramsey and John Fernie to search the house once again.
Whereby Fernie remains upstairs and Ramsey and White return to the basement to find JonBenet's body?

Why did White again return to the basement after detective Arndt told him to stand-by the door to the basement and not allow anyone to go downstairs?

At approximately 1:00pm when Ramsey and White were in the basement at the time JonBenet was discovered, John Ramsey and he stood in the train room whereby Ramsey explains the broken window and how it came to be.

How come Officer French or the other officer's who checked both the inside and outside the residence for signs of forced entry/break-in, fail to note the broken window in the train room or that it was said later to be open by Ramsey and that he shut it, and closed by White, but unlatched?

Why would John Ramsey tell detective Arndt that;
'no one knew about the wine cellar and that it " has to be an inside job."

Why would Patsey Ramsey call several close friends and their personal minister only minutes after placing the 911 call thereby jeopardizing the life of her daughter as the "kidnapper(s) warned that any attempt to call the police or anyone would result in her being beheaded?

Why would Patsy say concerning the ransom note that; "Whoever left that note knew that I always come down those stairs in the morning."
This was overheard by both victim advocates at the Ramsey residence.

Why would the BPD respond to a reporter's question, "We had no reason to believe the child would be in the house at the time...The intitial efforts of the police were to COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE RANSOM NOTE."
When in fact they had not complied with the instrustions in that note nor had the Ramsey's.

Why was the dog not at home this paricular night?
(I realize it often stayed across the street at the Barnhills)

Why did John Ramsey fail to set the burglar alarm this particular night when he always set it?

Why was the security light at the SE corner of thje residence not on as it normally is and has been for years?

Who was the child heard as a " Horrifying" scream at around 2:00am by neighbor Melody Stanton?

Why did Patsy Ramsey say that after she had awaken, she she went down to the second floor level by way of the spiral staircase and stopped at the laundry area just outside JonBenet's room where she washed a solide jumpsuit belonging to JonBenet in the sink/And after finishing the laundry, she continued down the spiral staicase to the first level where at the near the bottom she saw hree sheets of paper on oone step but stepped pover them to look at them then after reading them without touching them she ran backup stairs to check JonBenet's room and not finding her there, she checked Burke's room as well.
Yet she also gave a completely didderent version..

What was in the paper bag containing children's clothing that detective Arndt discovered next to the door of the den, yet moved this to the cloakroom?

Victim advocate, Grace Morlock stated to detecitves that John Ramsey
stated more than once that he didn't think the kidnapper meant to killl JonBenet Ramsey because she was WRAPPED IN HER BLANKET.

He also had a copy of one of John Douglas's books in his bedroom, I believe it was MINDHUNTER, but I cannot be certain without access to my database where I have a great wealth of information detailing this case.

Why was Burke's red scout knife,the one earlier hidden from him in the cupboard outside JonBenet's bedroom, found a few meters away from JonBenet's body location?

When detectives Steve Thomas and Gosage interviewed Susan Richart at Access Graphics, she told them thatJohn Ramsey's PREVIOUS yearly bonus was $118.000 and the only ones who she knew that were privy to this was two executives of the company and Mr Ramsey.
And accordding to Ramsey and associates, there was a certain former employee allegedly claiming that Ramsey's company owed him just short of $118, 000???

Patsey's mother stated;
"I can tell you one thing, whoever killed that child knew her dog wasn't going to be in the house that evening... the killer knew the dog had alraedy been taken across the street to the Barnhill's."

Brian Scott the Ramsey's gardener when asked about the broken window in the window-well said he never recalled seeing it broken.


There's tons more here to ponder the why..

We can also do a little forensic/linguitsic letter analysis.

In my opinion, the ransom note is much too drawn out and unnecessary to be realistic or having true purpose relating to a kidnapping plan or a simple way to cover the truth of a sexual assault upon this little girl.
It's obviously an amateurish attempt to throw the police off on another path and it's absoultely not effective.

It's obviously been composed by someone withsome education, possibly a college degree.
The phrases, the puctuation and particular word usage tells me that it was most probably composed by a female.
(I mean well in this ladies... Female writers, including their handwriting style is much more refined than most male's for the most part)

The part where it says;
"When you GET home"
Is not what one would expect from such an educated composer when one notes other more promising words such as hense, etc..

This tells me that the write may be from a southern part of the country.
I am basing this on my particular knowledge of how us southerners talk and compose our letters.

I would have expected, When you return home or return.

If we monitor you GETTING the money..
Would better read, If we monitor you picking up or withdrawling or some other word that is consistent with someone having a good idea of grammar.

This to me is suggestive of puposeful attempt to diguise the writer's grammatical form.

.......
_________________
It's best you don't know what's going to happen next.