JonBenet Ramsey

[ThinkTank]

Suspect,

The way you try to control other posters. Every argument you have presented has already been discussed in great depth on this thread. I suggest you start from page one and read. Then you will see an already existing discussion of opposing views.

Think
_________________
Pearls of Wisdom.... Never, ever, ever take a sleeping pill and a laxitive on the same night.

[Prinetta]

With every last piece of the crime scene evidence compromised and, therefore invalid, it's impossible to come to a valid conclusion on this case. We only have the body position, if even this information is accurate, I don't know.

If the 'mysterious intruder' was smart enough to premeditate leaving the 'ransom note' as a red herring, why wouldn't he also plant false DNA evidence to lead the investigation arwy? To assume this 'MI' (mysterious intruder) was clever enough to plant a false ransom note and then leave accurate DNA of himself is hard to believe. The only reasonable theory for me is that this was an inside job staged to appear as an attempted kidnapping gone bad. Nothing else fits, to me. This is not pointing fingers at anybody specific. If perhaps John and Patsy were innocent, and felt that maybe their son did it, it could very well explain all their odd and nervous-type actions during the investigation...that to me is viable.....

As for the Ridgway note during the Green River investigation, Mr. D was more burnt than a charcoal grill on the Fourth of July, the FBI was running him into the ground, that's understood. My point was that nobody's infallible all the time, me, you, Sherlock, Plato, Nietzsche, Mr. D., Wyle E. Coyote, NObody. I usually always have backed Mr. D's conclusions, based on his experience, service and natural abilities, but I just happen to disagree on his assessment in the JB case. It's nothing personal, Mr. D knows for sure, I'M sure, that I'm a major backer of him and his past victories in saving lives and getting the job done, nor would I EVER attempt to attack or belittle him here at his own personal message board!
_________________
But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've gotta ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, DO ya, PUNK?

-Dirty Harry (copyright 1971, Warner Bros.)

[ThinkTank]

Also, you loose all credibility with me the way you constantly cite that "you have information we dont have". IN EVERY CASE? I KNOW I KNOW. Were supposed to trust your abilities.

[Edited to remove personal comments.]

Interesting thing about physics.... they could win the lottery if they were just that gifted. [Edited to remove personal comments.]
_________________
Pearls of Wisdom.... Never, ever, ever take a sleeping pill and a laxitive on the same night.

[Rainsong]

[Rainsong]

[Prinetta]

OOOPS! It just came to me, Bugs Bunny was, is, and always WILL be, infallible. My mistake!

I feel this case is all based on personal opinion since there is no real hard evidence and it's just like opinion on religion or politics, no one will ever agree and everyone feels their thoughts are the most relevant and revealing. I'd hate to see people here become enemies or start disliking one another over a case that has no real solution. All posters here are all in this together and it'd be really silly to break up a great thing like JD's board over an unsolvable case....it's a fascinating case to be sure, but not worth losing friendships over.
_________________
But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've gotta ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, DO ya, PUNK?

-Dirty Harry (copyright 1971, Warner Bros.)

[Rainsong]

[serialbuster]

Great discussion. Excellent flow, but its still the same old "accuse the
Ramseys vs defend the Ramseys".

Suspect,
I could answer every one of your questions using the same speculations
you used to ask them. A family has suddenly been thrust into a horrifying
situation, very soon after awakening, very early in the morning. They
called the police because that is what smart people do when their
daughter is gone and a ransom note is left ordering them not to call
the police. Whether or not she read the entire note before calling the
police is irrelevant. I haven't seen the transcript of the 911 call, but I
would bet the farm that if Patsy knew the ransom note said they were
being watched and not to call the police, she would have informed them
of that while talking to the dispatcher, allowing police to handle it in
whatever way they deemed appropriate.

But what I picture happening is a woman, awake in a large house, using
minimal lighting at this hour of the morning, finds a freaky note, reads
one or two horrifying lines, runs to her daughter's bedroom, screams
when she discovers her daughter missing (as the horrifying note has
claimed she would be). Awakening her husband and her son with her
scream, she then rushes to phone the police, attempting to fill in her
drowsy husband along the way, who begins searching logical places in
the house, while at the same time attempting to avoid alarming her son,
who has just wandered into the room wanting to know what's going on.
By now, police are on the phone, hearing background noises of tidbits
of two entirely separate conversations, one with her husband and one
with her son, alongside the conversation they are having with her at the
same time. That's not to imply that her husband's voice was also evident
in the enhanced version of the call, but rather that the enhanced version
picked up only "tidbits" of the other conversations, out of context, as
tidbits usually are. Patsy would have been too traumatized at this point
to remember accurately what was said to who, by whom, and in which
order it was said. She also would have wanted nothing more to do with
that note until, at the very least, she could surround herself with support
of friends, family, police, etc. Maybe the reason they called the lawyer
friend was due to thinking he might have some experience in dealing
with matters of the law - as in kidnapping for ransom. And the only
reason he convinced them to "lawyer up" was for fearing they might be
guilty, but had enough sensitivity not to tell them that. Or he may have
feared someone might be trying to frame them. Whatever the reason,
John and Patsy would have been very susceptible to suggestion at that
point, themselves "lost" for knowing what to do next.

To ALL,
Everyone keeps talking about the lack of evidence, but the ransom note
is the best psychological clue a profiler could hope for, lengthy and filled
with anger and contempt. If we study it objectively, putting aside all
accusation or defense of the parents, perhaps we could learn more from
it. Whoever wrote it, it is very hostile, even as it attempts to sound
"gentlemanly". And I disagree with whoever said it is indicative of a
woman's writing. I'm not sure if they meant the handwriting, the grammar
or the content, but the "attitude", the hostility and the manner in which
the instructions are being given, indicate, in my opinion, a male author.


buster

[The Real Suspect Zero]

ThinkTank,

I am not trying to control anyone on this forum, you obviously didn't grasp the simple fact that I was posing specific and pertinent questions regarding this case.

[Edited to remove personal comments.]

I don't care if this subject or a number of aspects pertaining to this crime have been discussed a million times before by anyone here on this forum.
I was asking these questions and expecting someone having an analytical mind to answer without all the "frills" you, yourself want to throw in.

[Edited to remove personal comments.]
Chris
_________________
It's best you don't know what's going to happen next.

[The Real Suspect Zero]

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

[The Real Suspect Zero]

Good morning, Prinetta.

I also agree, as I said yesterday, that Mr Douglas' assessment was not "bad" but more done with caution behind it.

Although the Ridgway letter gave certain details pertaining to various crime scene characteristics in some of the body recovery locations, the information also failed to provide more details that would have undoubtebly set it apart from a few others the King County Sheriff's Department had in their possession.

The information was that which could just as well been leaked as much of this was known even by officer's not directly involved in the Green River Task Force investigation.
I met the wife of such an officer through my girlfriend's mother who lives in Tukwila, just a mile north of the strip where the GRM was selecting his victims, who said her husband had learned many things about the dump sites through a close friend on the task force who he was a bowling partner.

So, it was very plausible the information was compromised and the letter not actually from the actual killer.

I think Mr Douglas' call was a prudent/calculated one.

But as you have said, I also agree that in the case of JonBenet Ramsey's parent's not having any involvement, I disagree with Mr Douglas's assessment. There are a few other FBI profilers who also oppose his conclusion and yet they have a great deal of respect and admiration for him as well, as I always will.

He stated that he had never profiled Mrs Ramsey and therefore I believe he is basing much of his conclusion on the several hour discussion he had with them.
I believe I also read that in one of the local Boulder newspaper articles.

It's very hard to sit here and say that I am at opposition with whom I feel is the very best of the best in criminal behavioral analysis, but I am an honest man and I am honest to myself as well.

I just believe the Ramsey's have done a very good job at manipulating the press as well as some people.

I'm not impressed with them.

I also read the first few pages of their book, Death of Innocence, and I was surprised to read that even in this book, they still refuse to admit that their son Burke was infact awake that morning when the 911 call was made.
There was no logical reason to conceal this as a fact other than for one purpose.
And I don't go with the "just tryng to sheild him from the harm" thing many want to suggest.
That's hogwash.
They carted him away as quickly as they could to Fleet White's home to prevent the police from interviewing him that morning and learning certain facts they'd not want known.
That's my assessment.
And I believe the evidence supports such a conclusion as well.

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

[The Real Suspect Zero]

Good morning, serialbuster.

From my brief reading of the book the Ramsey's had written, she claimed that it was difficult for her to get the 911 operator to understand her, believe her.
And without having the actual transcripts of that call in hand, I would not be able to go on anything other than what she herself said in her book and what was written in the book by Lawrence Schiller.

So I will assume from her statements alone, that she did not indicate to the operator that the letter had mentioned the house or the daughter being under surveillance by anyone.
The first officer on the scene, officer French, had indeed parked his patrol vehicle directly across the street from the Ramsey residence.
(To me this indicates that no such disclosure was evident from that call)
But later officer French moved the vehicle down the street along with other responding police vehicles once he read the ransom note.

Yet, the close Ramsey friends were parked out front of the residence as well.

I can of course, only imagine having to go through exactly what this family would have to go through that early morning.
And I would have to admit, in knowing myself quite well, that my own reaction would be to contact the police and inform them of what the situation was and what the letter demanded they do not do, which was to call police/FBI.
I would call even though the letter warned not to as I would need some professional advice and guidance.
I would want the FBI to be involved as they have the logistics and the training to deal with such things, but I would make it clear that NO police vehicles were to respond just in case the kidnappers were in fact watching the house.
To me, that would be a prudent response to the situation.
I would not have INVITED a number of friends over for my personal comforting when the letter warned that contacting ANYONE would result in my daughter's death, especially by being beheaded.
Although I'd have no other choice but to take that chance with the police/FBI.

I expect Mr Ramsey is an intelligent and insightful man.
I believe it was out of his character to immediately have his wife contact the police, instead of his doing so.
And that under the circumstances, he would be less inclined to irrational or hysterical dialogue when when speaking with the 911 operator or the police.


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

[The Real Suspect Zero]

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

[The Real Suspect Zero]

Hello Prinetta.

You had written;

"I'd hate to see people here become enemies or start disliking one another over a case that has no real solution. All posters here are all in this together and it'd be really silly to break up a great thing like JD's board over an unsolvable case...."

I have to disagree with at least a portion of your post here.

I believe that every case has it's solution.
And every case is solvable.
What's needed is the evidence and people having minds capable of analyzing the evidence and focusing on that which is relevant and not satellite.

The reasons that cases such as this, with a wealth of physical and psychological evidence go unsolved is that the right approach is often not taken, or if it is, the right questions are often times not asked.

There's really no such thing as an "unsolvable" murder case if one accepts the idea that any interaction between two people, the killer and the victim leaves behind a trail leading back to the killer.

If it's say, an unknown serial killer traveling the highways picking up random hitchhikers, it may take some time to identify this killer as he can be selecting victims from locations far apart and during times that are seemingly without a pattern.
There doesn't need to be a pattern to his behaviours in order to catch him.

Something that he does, some place that he visits or works, his place of residence or where he stops for fuel what have you- is the link between him and his victims.

Identifying that little tidbit is all it takes to catch him.

You have to look in the past in order to see the future..

The "unsolved" part is simply the presently "unknown" element that links him to his crimes.

Does this make sense to you?

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

[The Real Suspect Zero]

Good day, ANGRYWOLF.

You are quite right in your statement that;
"I doubt suspects account of things from his own personal travails is pristine...He certainly wasn't, by his own account, able to convince LE of his innocence in his most notable conviction. That's not a knock on him. He claims innocence in that and yet LE and the prosecutor believed he was guilty and he was convicted. So it's not that easy to satisfy everybody...."

I, more than most, would understand quite well how it feels to be falsely accused.
I am in no way falsely accusing the Ramsey's.
I am merely setting out to prove a point.
The point being that although the evidence in this case is quite ambiguous and therefore open to various interpretations, that I believe the possibility in their being involved is just as viable as their not.

That's my claim.
Not that I can better prove my gut instincts in their having been involved in this crime, but that the possibility remains with or without the recent statement of exoneration by the district attorney.
What she has to say is of little relevance and is most probably due to political/legal reasons rather than a true understanding of what constitutes culpability.

I recall the recent John Mark Karr Fiasco and the DA's quick move to judgement and the embarrassment it brought the DA's office and this is why I am taking such a position.
She's simply saving face as she desires to continue being highly regarded in the community and probably has aspirations that go beyond the level of county district attorney.
She/they realize they can never bring a prosecution in this case and therefore life goes on...
This of course is only my personal opinion, and not based on fact.
Therefore I have not attempted to convict her without due process!!

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