Justice Watch Discussion Board "Intruders on Christmas Day?" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Intruders on Christmas Day?, Ryder, 21:42:32, 7/02/2000 No way!!, Sylvia, 05:23:02, 7/03/2000, (#1) Ryder, v_p, 05:56:00, 7/03/2000, (#2) forcing a square peg into a round hole, Greenleaf, 07:13:12, 7/03/2000, (#3) On target again, Ryder!, Ginja, 07:14:31, 7/03/2000, (#4) comparisons.., Dianne E., 07:48:54, 7/03/2000, (#5) semantics..., Nandee, 09:57:00, 7/03/2000, (#6) Insane theories, frankg, 10:01:47, 7/03/2000, (#7) Where do you get your info????, Sylvia, 10:49:47, 7/03/2000, (#10) Sylvia, frankg, 11:17:08, 7/03/2000, (#12) familiar sound, Sylvia, 11:39:00, 7/03/2000, (#13) Psychopathy of a Killer, Paralegal, 10:22:46, 7/03/2000, (#9) frankg, Ryder, 10:21:38, 7/03/2000, (#8) Ryder, Paralegal, frankg, 10:59:11, 7/03/2000, (#11) Huh?, Ribaldone, 12:00:29, 7/03/2000, (#14) Probabilities and Liklihoods, Ginja, 14:19:36, 7/03/2000, (#17) Excellent rebuttal, Ginja, Ribaldone, 14:29:07, 7/03/2000, (#18) Confusion Abounds, Paralegal, 13:05:56, 7/03/2000, (#15) Just to clarify, PL, Ginja, 15:35:38, 7/03/2000, (#21) Paralegal , Sylvia, 13:43:49, 7/03/2000, (#16) So True Indeed, Paralegal, 14:44:45, 7/03/2000, (#19) Paralegal, Ribaldone, 15:11:53, 7/03/2000, (#20) I Say, You Say, Ginja, 16:09:54, 7/03/2000, (#22) Ginja, Seeker, 16:40:54, 7/03/2000, (#24) Ryder, Greenleaf, 16:14:32, 7/03/2000, (#23) ................................................................... "Intruders on Christmas Day?" Posted by Ryder on 21:42:32 7/02/2000 There is an aspect of this case about which I have not read much and which intrigues me. I would be interested in knowing from law and enforcement agencies exactly how many break-ins tend to occur on December 25th. One of the most absurd (read implausible) decisions made by any hypothetical intruder, was the choice of day and place to carry out any kidnapping or any other crime to a child. John Douglas' comments regarding Christmas as a time for much family tension seems worthy of attention but even more than that, it seems to me that no "intruder" in their right mind would pick Christmas Day to break into someone's house (particularly someone they don't know.) If there is one day during which you stand the greatest chance of having everyone present in the home, it is surely Christmas Day. Now that the Ramseys appeared convinced that the intruder broke into their home while they were out for dinner, they have in fact thrown out an even less likely theory insofar as they are suggesting that someone would be so bold as to break into their home smack in the middle of Christmas Day. Anyone wishing to kidnap or harm a child not only would have worked out a plan which would not have entailed being in the parents' home while the latter are at home, but the very last day they would have picked for such a deed would be Christmas Day. This is a day when most people are not working AND when their schedule is irregular. On the other hand, Douglas is no doubt right that Christmas is a time when family tension runs high, no doubt because it can frequently be a disappointing time for many who may have high expectations of how such a day is supposed to unfold with their family and friends. As I attempt to re-construct any possibly plausible intruder scenario, I immediately have to stop on my tracks when considering the date in question. While I'm sure that this alone, would not necessarily disprove the intruder option, I do believe that in the very long list of unnecessary and unrealistic risks this "intruder" would have taken - the choice of day (and place) is the first strike against the plausibility of any intruder being responsible for JonBenet's death. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "No way!!" Posted by Sylvia on 05:23:02 7/03/2000 To me the intruder theory is the most stupid thing I've heart so far. It just all doesn't make any sense. The date doesn't make sense. The type of predator doesn't make any sense. The ransom "letter" doesn't make any sense. The body being found inside the house doesn't make any sense, in fact nothing makes sense. Why would an intruder take a night as Christmas night to begin with? That only would make the risk of being caught by someone very high, as lots of people are at home during that period of time. Even if you would want to believe the intruder theory, which would mean you support the theory of a planned scheme, it is just simply not possible. There were chronic signs of abuse, so did the intruder come in every few days? Highly unlikely!! The fact of a kidnapper, suddenly turning into an abuser, doesn't fit. These are two different kind of predators and just don't go together. Even a kidnapper is mostly not inclined to enter the house of his/her victim. And this kidnapper came in several times before the actual murder during the night of the 26th of December, in order to abuse??? Also would a kidnapper leave the body in the house, write a note (actually more a kind of letter) knowing the child would be found soon? Why would an abuser need the cover up scheme of a kidnapper? This would only fit if the abuser is known to the family and the abuse had become a threat to the abuser. As said before it's highly unlikely that an unknown abuser entered the house, every so and so days, in order to abuse JonBenét. So it must have been someone very close, with constant access to JonBenét and therefor someone she knew. No sign's of forced entry, just a window below a metal grate that was broken, now how on earth would an intruder know where the open window was and how to get from that entrance to JonBenét's room on the first floor, being unknown with the house and even without making any noise at all? Then feed her pineapple, her favorite fruit (he just happened to guess that), keep her alive for at least for five hours, which are needed to digest the food in the way is was digested. Then write a letter with so much knowledge of the family as seen in the ransom note. I my mind there is no room for an intruder theory. To much circumstantial evidence is pointing in a different direction. Leaves one thing, an inside job!! Sylvia http://www.lepassagenouveau.com/jonbenet/index.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Ryder" Posted by v_p on 05:56:00 7/03/2000 My brother is a police officer, and according to him, the incidence of home break-ins increase dramatically during the Christmas season. These break-ins are to steal presents. On Christmas day the thieves are at home with their families enjoying their cache. There is also a higher incidence of suicides during the holiday season. Violent crimes increase significantly but are usually associated with theft during the holiday season, (robberies at shopping malls, etc.). Domestic violence is about the same as the rest of the year. He is in a major city, so, clearly, the statistics would be different for different areas of the country. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "forcing a square peg into a round hole" Posted by Greenleaf on 07:13:12 7/03/2000 The intruder theory is insane, and I agree with Ryder when he points out the absurdity of the timing. Intelligent sleuths give all options consideration; However, when a particular theory emerges as a square peg, and the solution must fit into a round hole, it is ludicrous to expend time and energy struggling to make the peg fit. The problem is that the rams painted themselves, early on, into a corner. They are stuck with trying mighty to chisel that square peg down to circular dimensions. It is against the laws of physics; it's against the laws of common sense and it's against the most basic laws of sleuthing. The most famous mystery writer in the history of the world couldn't make the intruder theory work. That's why those who expound the merits of the intruder theory look so stupid. My God! They continue to wallow in their own ignorance. Ah, yes, they have fooled some people into thinking the square is a circle, but my seven month old granddaughter has already figured that one out. Thanks, Ryder, for starting this thread. Your posts are always enlighting. Hello Sylvia and v_p. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "On target again, Ryder!" Posted by Ginja on 07:21:08 7/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:21:08, 7/03/2000 There's no pulling the wool over YOUR eyes, my friend! V-P points out that B&Es and robberies increase during the holiday season, even domestic crimes (which is significant here!) -- but as Sylvia points out, kidnappers/pedophiles/serial killers aren't the kinds of perps who are going to 'slip in through a grated window' in the hopes of finding their prey. Besides, that perp would have had to have been slipping through that grate (or otherwise get in) on a somewhat regular basis to work his prey over before coming back for the final kill. It's preposterous! Bottom line is, the perp(s) lived in the house, ergo no forced entry! Also accounts for how he/she was able to regularly abuse the child prior to that night. Ryder, I'm as interested as you in getting real statistics for Christmas Day intruders who kill. More importantly, who 'choose' one victim in the household, while leaving the rest of the residents alone and unharmed. You brought out some excellent points as to what this perp would have been facing in pulling off his deed. If he went into enough preplanning detail to pick a house, pick a victim, pick a day...then how did he manage to screw it all up, as Sylvia points out, by being this mixed-breed criminal who didn't know his ass from his elbow. (Am I a kidnapper? a pedophile? a killer? should I feed her first? leave a note? hide the body?) And let's not forgot how well this intruder knows the family, the house layout, personal details and familial 'inside-jokes', etc. Sylvia, in the case of digestion, the amount of pineapple found, and its placement in the digestive tract, indicates that far less than 5 hours of digestion was needed. That it was a small amount of pineapple indicates that she really didn't have a full snack (e.g., a bowl of the fruit), but more likely just a piece or two. Total digestion of a full meal would make it through the tract completely in about those five hours. The fecal matter found in the lower tract could very well have been what she ate at the Whites. But the pineapple 'snack' hadn't even made it to the intestines, taking less than two hours...probably less seeing how it was only a couple of pieces. Also, I just recently did some work on something similar, and learned that the same could have been the case with JBR. Previous, we've talked about how the digestion would have stopped at the time of death. We've also talked about the body releasing its wastes at time of death, for example, the residual urination release. What I learned was that's the "rule of thumb" for natural causes. In the case of violent deaths, as JonBenet's was, different bodily functions will shut down during the attack to tend to other areas of the body being attacked. IOW, it's quite possible, maybe even more than likely, that when JBR was either struck or strangled (or both), her body's normal functions shut down completely, e.g., digestion and waste release, due to the shock and trauma and to allow the body to try to defend itself, pulling together its resources, so to speak, to work harder in getting oxygen to the brain for example, or air through her passageways. With that in mind, it's quite possible some bodily functions shut down completely during the attack, rather than at the time of death. Edited to add that in addition to the body shutting down during an attack to tend to areas being attacked, there's one other factor attributable to the mid-attack shutdown: fear. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "comparisons.." Posted by Dianne E. on 07:48:54 7/03/2000 ..so far the Ratseys use the odd combination of comparisons to JonBenet's murder. First it was Susan Smith and OJ and in the book DOI they reference the Lindbergh kidnapping case, hmmmm. I can't find the quote but it is at the end of DOI where JohnBoy lists all the people who have crawled thru that window, investigators, etc. Say WHAT, could anyone outside a midget get in and out? First he says the "killer" considered shoving JonBenet thru the window, with all those open doors imagine trying to stand on a shaky suitcase and push a body thru a small window and then follow yourself? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dianne E. ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "semantics..." Posted by Nandee on 09:57:00 7/03/2000 If we are speaking about an "intruder", v_p is right. Christmas is a high stress, high crime time of the year. Robberies occur all through the holiday season. If we are talking about a "kidnapper", well the other statistics are worthless. If were were to believe someone other than the family committed this crime, we would have to consider the time frame this person had to work with. If they were close enough to know the family's comings and goings, then his only window of opportunity would have been after they returned home from the festivities of the day and before the departed early on the 26th. Kidnappers usually stalk their prey........ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Insane theories" Posted by frankg on 10:01:47 7/03/2000 The only thing preposterous or insane here is to suggest there was no intruder because of the day. Even after V points out that the day actually increases the likelihood of criminal activity, there are people here who will now try to define the "type" of intruder and suggest that type of intruder would not strike on this day. Anyone "insane" enough to murder a six year old child is not thinking logically to begin with. To assume you can narrow the field because of the timing is not logical, IMO. Silvia, who decided there were chronic signs of "abuse"? The nature of the chronic injury that JonBenet had has been widely debated, with several experts directly involved in the investigation who are not willing to conclude she was previously sexually abused. Further, given the reports of Burke and JonBenet "sexual play", it can not be ruled out that this was the source of the injury. And lastly, many of the other classic signs of abuse were not noted. Many here point out the unlikeliness of an intruder doing this or that, and often I agree. But no one is pointing out the unlikeliness of a parent doing many of the things that were done. You believe one scenario and so you can accept that things were done, regardless of how unlikely. Yet you simply can't accept that other things happened because it is the scenario you don't believe in. How about how insane it is for a parent to write by hand a 2.5 page kidnapping note when they had to know their handwriting would be intensely scrutinized. How unlikely is it that a parent, after committing such a murder, could write the note in the first place. How insane it is to write such a note and then totally ignore it and call the cops at 6am. How insane it is to think a parents with no history of violence to suddenly bludgeon, strangle and sexually abuse their 6 year old daughter? How insane it is to just accept that John, after being so emotionally devastated by Beth's death, could participate in such a heinous crime against his own baby. None of this makes sense either, but since it's all part of a parent done it scenario it just get's accepted here. People get very creative in explaining it. But an intruder breaking in on Christmas, a statistically high probability, is nearly impossible to accept because... well, because it involves an intruder. Me personally... I find many things about an intruder scenario unlikely but I also find many things about any parent done it scenario unlikely as well. And that's why I remain atop a fence. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Where do you get your info????" Posted by Sylvia on 10:49:47 7/03/2000 >Anyone "insane" enough to murder a six year old child is not thinking logically to begin with.< So where did you get the information that someone who murders a six-year-old child is automaticly insane???????? >Silvia,(correction Sylvia) who decided there were chronic signs of "abuse"?< Well let's see expect Dr. Cyril Wecht (former president of the American Academy of Forencis Sciences)and Dr. Robert M. Brissie (Profesor of Pathology and director of the Devision of Forensic Pathology at the UAB Medical Center) do know what they are talking about. And as Ryder already stated the only one who disputes that is a certain Dr. Beuff. The same Beuff, who has been publicly critized by one of his own nurses who said there several complaints from patients about him doing unnecessary vaginal exams on young girls!! Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Sylvia" Posted by frankg on 11:17:08 7/03/2000 Sorry about the name... It's MY definition that anyone who murders a six year old is insane. Are you arguing that there is sometimes logic in the murder of a child? How did I know Wecht's name would come up. Yup, the guy who assumed semen on her thigh. The guy who was not present at the autopsy and who did not examine the autopsy slides. The guy who has written a book on the case and who can in no way backpedal now and say he was wrong. That Wecht? Yeah, I respect his talents but in this case I believe he's as useful as John Douglas. Both came to conclusions w/o taking the time and having all the right information. Beuf (only one "f".. see, I'm not the only one getting names wrong :-> )is hardly the only one who isn't convinced of prior sexual abuse. I've never heard anyone from the BPD or the DA's office suggest it and Thomas's comments would tend to support that. And trying to trash anyone who doesn't go along with the story is hardly the way to solve a crime. I'm looking for provable evidence. If it was so obvious then no one would dispute it and it would be the centerpiece of the investigation. It isn't and hasn't been. ...but now we are off thread topic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "familiar sound" Posted by Sylvia on 11:39:00 7/03/2000 >>It's MY definition that anyone who murders >a six year old is insane Are you arguing that there is sometimes logic in the murder of a child?<< YOUR definition is not a definition of REALITY. Also NO ONE is implying that it is LOGIC to murder a child, as there is no LOGIC to murder itself. >How did I know Wecht's name would come up. Yup, the guy who assumed semen on her thigh. The guy who was not present at the autopsy and who did not examine the autopsy slides. The guy who has written a book on the case and who can in no way backpedal now and say he was wrong. That Wecht?< Yes that same Wecht who is highly qualified to read an autopsy report. Same as Dr. Brissie is. Upto now you didn't come up with anyone who is qualified to prove them wrong. >Yeah, I respect his talents but in this case I believe he's as useful as John Douglas. Both came to conclusions w/o taking the time and having all the right information.< Who is talking about Douglas no one, didn't see any here. >Beuf (only one "f".. see, I'm not the only one getting names wrong :-> )is hardly the only one who isn't convinced of prior sexual abuse. I've never heard anyone from the BPD or the DA's office suggest it and Thomas's comments would tend to support that. And trying to trash anyone who doesn't go along with the story is hardly the way to solve a crime.< The report came out, complaints were made out so no trashing. Am leaving that to others >I'm looking for provable evidence. If it was so obvious then no one would dispute it and it would be the centerpiece of the investigation. It isn't and hasn't been.< Well if solving murders was that simple, with fingerprints and a criminal holding a card saying "Hello it's me" we wouldn't need police. To much circumstantial evidence can also lead the police to follow a certain trail. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Psychopathy of a Killer" Posted by Paralegal on 10:26:56 7/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:26:56, 7/03/2000 Very interesting posts here. Thanks Ryder for starting this thread! The Ramseys, as always, ride two fences on this issue. When the flow of evidence and questioning goes with a stranger-intruder, they take us down that path with wild and bizarre logic. When the flow follows an insider-intruder theory, they take us there and start pointing fingers and naming friendly suspects like LHP and the McReynolds. When we are left to analyse one or the other of these theories, logic seems to dictate that an insider-intruder is much more likely. But then frankg argues an insanity angle to the entire crime and our minds start doing cartwheels again. While this kind of case is, to us "normal" thinking people, a totally insane act, whether committed by parent or unknown, if you were to read up on profiling doctrines, you'd find that there are "organized" killers and "unorganized" killers. The psychopathy of a personality prone to violent crimes bears a sanity all it's own. While in the realm of normal society it is insane, in a perp's own mind, there is a definitive and amazing logic to the perpetration of a crime. Was this an organized or unorganized crime? Are there signs of chaos, disorganization, hysterics to the actual crime scene? Or was it an organized crime, that is, thought out, planned out, meticulously carried out to the last detail? I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions to this question. The mind of an organized killer is probably the most frightening. It requires malice aforethought, premeditation, and creates a "jumping off" place where the perp will imitate his first crime repeatedly, attempting to perfect it as he goes. Getting away with the first crime, the notoriety it brings publicly, are all inducements in the perp's mind to continuing the pattern. And this type of killer doesn't just snap one day and go off on his victim. This psychopathy is a gradual, progressive development to higher and higher forms of behavior that culminate in killing, and a killing spree if left free. There ARE such things as homicidal pedophiles, intruder murderers, child molesting kidnappers and maternal incest perps. Sociopathy and psychosis are usually best friends and can manifest in many different combinations and forms, all the while looking "innocent" and "sane" to all of us on the outside. Just thought I'd add this to the equation of this thread... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "frankg" Posted by Ryder on 10:21:38 7/03/2000 1] Who, besides the Ramseys and their friend Dr. Beuf, has gone on the record as countering expert medical opinion that there had been previous vaginal trauma? Are there any other names to add to those 3? 2] I'm with you on one thing: I do think that there are signs here of someone having had a fragile link to sanity, at least on that night. However, that does not lead me to sit on the fence. I ask myself, could someone have somehow slipped into the Ramsey home that night? Not likely but perhaps "possible". Could they have then decided to stand around and write a 3 (or 2.5) letter on the spot, in someone else's home either before or after killing their daughter? NO. That thought, for me, brings the intruder theory to a screeching halt. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Ryder, Paralegal" Posted by frankg on 10:59:11 7/03/2000 Ryder, the names escape me at the moment (I'm terrible with names and don't have notes with me) but Lacey and others have posted them on a few occasions. I think Spitzer (or something like that) was one though. But let me turn the table on ya... who involved with the investigation has stated they are convinced it did occur? Thomas certainly hasn't supported this theory, although I guess Arndt did (I hate when I answer myself!). And how can one rule out the possibility that Burke inflicted the injury accidentally during their play? (and no, I'm not convinced of their play either... I'm not sure it's made it past rumor status yet). Writing of the ransom note... how do you know it was written in the house? And if it was, how do you know an intruder didn't enter the house shortly after the Ramsey's left for the White's and then write it? Don't get me wrong, I don't find any of these scenarios highly likely at all. But I also don't find it likely that a Ramsey hand wrote such a long note, put the content they did into it, and did so after committing such a terrible murder against their own baby. And that's my point. I am not accepting one scenario as more likely because the alternative makes no sense. I'm only saying neither makes sense. Paralegal.... I am probably further off in "thinking" I understand this crime than I have ever been. Mental cartwheels is right. There are so many twists and turns that don't appear to have happened out of chance or panic. For example, the wiped down flashlight. What the hell is that all about? What was a panicked parent thinking about? A cop left it and was afraid to say so?... geez, I doubt that. What cop leaves no prints inside or out? I am not and never have argued Ramsey innocence. I'm arguing case confusion and I never felt more confused than I do now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Huh?" Posted by Ribaldone on 12:00:29 7/03/2000 "But let me turn the table on ya... who involved with the investigation has stated they are convinced it did occur? Thomas certainly hasn't supported this theory, although I guess Arndt did (I hate when I answer myself!). And how can one rule out the possibility that Burke inflicted the injury accidentally during their play? (and no, I'm not convinced of their play either... I'm not sure it's made it past rumor status yet)." I beg to differ about Thomas' opinion of prior sexual abuse. I don't have his book in front of me cuz I'm at work so I can't give you the page number, but I can tell you it starts on the first page of Chapter 24. Thomas states that a "panel of pediactric EXPERTS from around the country" agree that there was prior vaginal abuse. There was NO dissention among these experts. Additionally, Thomas repeated this on LKL with the Ramseys (which you can view tonight). Thomas believes that JonBenet suffered prior vaginal abuse inflicted by Patsy as some type of "corporal punishment." The only people who seem to question the prior abuse issue is Beuf and the Ramseys. In fact, the Ramseys don't question it at all -- they just flat don't want to talk about it. Nice way to support justice for your murdered daughter -- ignore anything unpleasant and refuse to talk to the police. I guess the murder itself was unpleasant enough because the Scamseys have no problem blabbing on TV about it every chance they get with nary a drop of moisture in their dry eyes. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Probabilities and Liklihoods" Posted by Ginja on 14:19:36 7/03/2000 Maybe one of the reasons you're confused Frank is because you're looking at a part rather than a whole? When I read your posts and see all your examples are just parts, even I get confused. Without getting mired down in legal lingo, all the circumstances and elements have to be looked at as a whole as to their probabilities and liklihoods to make sense (or attempt to, anyway) of this crime. Even in the courtroom, you're asked to convict (or not) based on the standard beyond a reasonable doubt. Key word here, of course, is reasonable. Looking at the whole picture, you have to determine what's reasonable? What's probable? What's likely? If you ask those same questions looking at the parts, you're going to come up with different answers. I took notes rather than pasting your post, so the wordings may not be yours exactly...but, rather, in the spirit thereof. :-) 1. You thought we were being dismissive of an intruder simply because it was Christmas Day. Not at all. On the whole, considering the type of crime committed, what we were saying is that most crimes during the holiday season consist of B&E robberies. We also noted that the rate of domestic crimes increased drastically during this same period. Myself and others queried what kinds of stats were out there for something as complex as a bungled kidnap/molestation/brutal slaying within homes on the most sacred of all days of the year. When you consider how many elements of this crime indicate domestic, then that high rate of domestic violence becomes significant. So looking at this as a whole, we find that stats support a domestic crime and so does the evidence! 2. You question the validity of chronic abuse. You can't ignore the fact that forensic pathologists, whether you like them or not, are reading the autopsy report and coming up with findings of chronic abuse. There were witnesses who watched the autopsy and saw the evidence. There were slides taken of mucosa and I can't see how you could screw up the results. And then you have the coroner's findings. Szundi has posted, as a doctor, that med students have to learn how to read these reports. Why are you questioning experts in the field? They don't need to be at the crime scene. They don't need to see the body. They don't need to look at pictures. Although all that helps, it's still not a determining factor as to whether or not a pathologist can understand the written report. And what happens in these cases where the performing coroner or pathologist dies before trial? Do we kick out the autopsy report because the doctor's dead and no one else could understand the report? Frank, any pathologist can read the report and know exactly what shape that body was in, without having been present for the actual exam. How many of us here on the forum have taken that report to our own doctors for a pro bono reading? ;-) Even Szundi's read the report and she's brought it to, I think it was either a pediatrician or gynecologist, and after reading it, all she could say was "the poor child." As far as there being doctors who disagreed. Like anything else in this world, you're always going to find someone with an opposing opinion or comment. But the only one I've heard to oppose the finding is Beuf and Ramsey himself. Far from scientific, but I think we've learned enough in almost four years to realize that whatever Ramsey says, the opposite is most probably true! The only other 'opposition' I've heard was presented to be Krugman. Personally, I couldn't believe someone of his stature could bluntly announce no chronic abuse...so I researched it and found that he hadn't. He had been taken out of context. Yes...he saw the chronic abuse. What he stated was that he didn't believe that proved this was a sex crime. IOW, he's disputing Wecht's theory of sex gone awry. It doesn't dismiss the possibility or probability the child was molested first, and then murdered after, the two having no 'relationship', i.e., not a "sex crime". 3. You mentioned the possibilty that this chronic abuse could have been caused by Burke. Of course that's possible. But we're looking at the whole picture to get to a point of reasonability...and probability. Burke's action after the crime are not consistent with a child who could very well believe that his actions caused the death of his beloved sister. Of course his parents could have him terrified to speak of it, explaining why he didn't talk to the Whites (and do we know that for sure?) or police or social workers or his psychologist. But if he were forced to hold this in, for whatever reasons, we're going to find we have a psychologically screwed up kid. He's under unbearable guilt, probably terrified fearing his actions would bring the wrath of his parents, and probably being sent away for life (who knows what his parents would tell him to ensure his silence?). He may not talk, but his psychological problems would manifest in other forms. That doesn't seem likely, as he's in school with others (vice home schooling) and being mixed into society on a whole (vacationing with parents, etc.) Not to mention constant scrutiny by the press. 4. You said we were being dismissive of the fact that for such a brutal crime, the parents had no history of violence. There's always a first time, Frank. Besides, check out Paralegal's 'profile' of a criminal. Perps of this ilk work up to their heinous crimes. They start out probably killing their pets, then moving on to humans. They usually have a few under their belt before getting cocky enough to actually enter someone's home a snuff out a life under everyone's noses. They do it for the thrill, the adrenaline rush. Once they achieve something as 'spectacular' as a crime such as this, they're on a high. Hell, in this case they're getting all kinds of notoriety, not only on the home front, but internationally! It's not long before they need another fix and go out and kill again. So when we talk about prior history, we need to consider this perp. What's his history before JonBenet? And what's he been doing since? I said up front with Ramsey that there's always a first time. That's domestic violence, a parent killing a child or spouse. Susan Smith didn't kill anyone before her boys. The Eisenbergs didn't kill either of their kids before Sabrina. Diane Downs didn't kill any kids before the night she pulled a gun on her three kids. It's an entirely different matter of prior history with the man off the street. He doesn't just enter a home one night and commit heinous crimes. He works up to it, escalates, and continues...until he's caught. So what's reasonable here? That the Ramseys didn't do it because they have no prior history of violence? Or that this intruder did, even though he has no prior history? And then consider the whole picture. What other evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, surrounds or supports the crime scene? For example, is it probable and reasonable to believe that a first time intruder would not only commit such a crime the first time out, but would go to great strides to see that the body is cleansed and redressed and laid out with a blanket and her favorite things? 5. You question the validity of the parents leaving a 2 1/2 page written note. Arrogance, shock, who knows? It's not beyond their scope and can't be verily dismissed. The writing was deliberatly disguised...this is a fact confirmed by the FBI and CBI. It had too many familial references for an intruder...it reeks of personality (Ramsey personality) and it was written in the home with pens and paper that were there. The fact that it's so long goes to the fact that the perp felt they had to go into great explanations and detail. It also goes to the great possibility that this was an unconcious release of guilt. OTOH, you've got your intruder. Why would he write such a missive? How would he know so many familial details. It's one thing to stalk, but you stalk from afar (out of earshot). Much of what was included in that note would have brought him out from behind the bushes to eavedrop on numerous conversation of not only the Ramseys, but of friends and family members. You'd think someone would have seen him, eh? ;-) The intruder would have been more organized...he'd have prepared the note before going to the crime scene and he would have made the note short and sweet. Time was on his side and he could be more organized. It would make more sense (i.e., reasonable and probable) that rather than attempt to disguise his writing, he cut and paste letters from newsprint or magazines...just like in the movies, especially considering this perp watched a lot of those ransom/kidnap action thrillers. Last, but certainly not least, he'd have taken it with him to the house, so there would have been creases and/or folds, and maybe even other debris, like a drop of glue. 6. You questioned why the the Rams would write a note and then ignore the contents and call the cops. Looking at the whole picture, they weren't "the writers"...they were the victims. Both told the cops they only read a few lines. The note was simply an excuse to get the cops to the house to show them she's not just 'missing', she's been taken away. To simply call the cops without some kind of diversion like a note would have meant the cops would come in and searched the house thoroughly for a child who probably had walked in her sleep into a closet or something. The Rams didn't want the cops scrutinizing the house. They had to account for JBR's absence while at the same time keeping the cops off track and out of the basement. 7. You question John's reactions to Beth's death and then ask how could he then turn around and kill JonBenet. This is my own opinion, Frank. I can't say whether or not he had any kind of 'carnal' relationship with Beth. But he loved her. And he had no control over her loss. He was devastated over her loss. Could it have been total and sincere grief over the loss of a child? Or was he realizing more than the loss of a daughter? Loss of a certain consortium? I don't know. She engaged and died with her fiance in the crash. Yet John never referred to her fiance as such, or as a future son-in-law...I forget his exact words but it seemed strange, considering the circumstances. He simply referred to him as a friend or acquaintance of Beth's. See whatever you want, or don't want. But she spent Christmas with him, and this year, she flew off to Chicago to spend the holidays with her fiance's family. So I think John knew what was what. Maybe he just didn't want to accept it. Whatever. But I think his reaction to her death has a great deal to do with the fact that she was gone forever...whatever the reasons...and he had no control over that situation. JonBenet is another matter. He was there. He had control. It's not so evident up front, but when you compare his reaction to her death and Beth's, you realize something's wrong with this picture. Beth's death was accidental; JonBenet's was a brutal slaying right under his nose. He loses it over an accident; he's 'cordial' and not visably shaken over a brutal, intentional act. Beth was an adult; JonBenet was his baby. The list goes on. However, there is one similarity between the two deaths. John kept souvenirs: Beth's wings, and JonBenet's pageant medal. Now there's something to think about! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Excellent rebuttal, Ginja" Posted by Ribaldone on 14:29:07 7/03/2000 Thorough, precise and to the point! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Confusion Abounds" Posted by Paralegal on 13:16:35 7/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:16:35, 7/03/2000 That's for sure! You're right, frankg, there are many, many twists and turns in this case to the point of mindboggling even the brilliant such as yourself. I agree with you, there is nothing to suggest that the War & Peace of ransom notes wasn't written somewhere other than the home, except that if that's the case, the author would have had to swipe the PR pad and pen PRIOR to its writing, then carry those items back into the home to redeposit them where they were normally kept. Seems a little extreme for a kidnapper, n'est-ce pas? Despite the outcry by some JW posters for PROOF, this isn't a DNA case, a witness case, a proof case or even an evidence case. This is a case dependent on logic and nothing more, at least the public version of the case. Who else has spoken in validation of chronic vaginal abuse? Cyril Wecht was the first I believe to analyze the autopsy report and come up with that conclusion. I think what's more telling is WHO has spoken in contradiction to it-the Rams and their drug-pushing bud, Dr. Where's-the-Beef. To the best of my recollection, these are the ONLY two who have said hogwash to this evidence. And let me go on the record about ST. I have posted consistently on this board that I believe ST lacked the experience to handle this case, to say nothing of the initial detectives like Arndt at the crime scene. However, I don't think ST has ANY ulterior motives in anything he has said or done thus far. ST comes across as an intelligent, caring cop who did his job to the best of his ability and because of inexperience, just falls short of a full perspective on the case. My admiration for the man comes from his willingness and balls to stand up to a corrupt system in Boulder CO, and that integrity can ONLY be validated through the loss of not only his job but a career he loves and believes in and the risk of Ramsey revenge. Dragging his marriage and family through that hell just to pound nails and satisfy accusations of capitalizing on his book is just plain ludicrous and malicious, and anyone IMHO who has the blind gall to attack his role in this case should go down with the system that has turned it into the friggin nightmare it is today! Any time ST wants to come to AZ and work for the country's toughest sheriff I'll roll out the red carpet...What this case and country needs is alot MORE people like ST who have integrity that can't be bought, voted or otherwise compromised. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Just to clarify, PL" Posted by Ginja on 15:35:38 7/03/2000 And all of this is meant as simple discourse -- back and forth discussion -- on the topic at hand. I'm not picking on your or anyone else. That I'm posting to your post is only because you set out best what many others are saying. Besides, I don't want to be cutting and pasting usp several posts when I can work from one! :-) Okay, maybe I take that back for just a second because one of your points borders on demeaning, and naturally I'm going to rebut. >Despite the outcry by some JW posters >for PROOF, this isn't a DNA >case, a witness case, a proof >case or even an evidence case. I think I'm the only one who's "asked for proof" (your words and probably everyone else who's spun it out of context), so I'm rebutting to say you're not paying attention. I've referenced and explained my meaning at least three times now, and if you don't get it, then maybe you've got this block or something, I don't know. Many posters seem to think that all they have to do is make empty allegations and we're then supposed to work off that "foundation". That's crap! I've said it over and over again now...let's simplify even more. Draw me a picture of how you get from point a to point b. Support that line...and show how the allegation of obstruction or malfeasance or whatever has impacted the case. I'm not asking for cites...I'm not asking for proof. I guess what I'm asking for is to set forth your argument. Making blanket statements that Hunter sucks or he's a wussy or whatever and obstructed the investigation and that's why the case is closed is again, crap! Damn! If I made a statement like that, half the board would be throwing poison darts! I think it's a criminal waste of time to revolve a discussion around a faulty, and in this case an apparently non-existent, foundation. It's not proof...it's simply supporting the accusations. Okay, now back to our pleasant discourse. :-) Which still goes back to your paragraph above. I disagree with everything you said after "PROOF". (Wait til I explain before throwing those poison darts!) True, this isn't a DNA case; that it's not a witness case is questionable. Yes, they have no eyewitness; but they do have some important witnesses from whom several strong circumstantial references and/or inferences can be made. Fleet's a perfect example, seeing JBR before the crime, and after. Burke's another, being in the house. They've got the cop's testimony as to character and mood of the Rams that morning, and how they acted and reacted throughout the day; a witness to John's attempt at fleeing Boulder. The list goes on. It's an important list because this is a circumstantial case. If you were talking eyewitness to the crime, then you're right...but there are plenty of other witnesses to fill in the gaps. I guess one of the reasons why cases are circumstantial is that there are no eyewitnesses. As regards a proof case or even an evidence case, you can't rule this out completely. There is material evidence here, starting with the body, and moving into the crime scene. People are convicted daily on far less evidence. Hell, you've got murder convictions where there's no body! Anyway, I'm not going to go into detail, suffice it to say, I just wanted to clarify that there is material and/or physical evidence here. So don't strike it off your list completely. Likewise, circumstantial evidence exists and since most cases that wind up in the courtroom are circumstantial, you can't strike that off the 'evidence' list. Sometimes its the absence of evidence, strenthening the circumstantial, that makes the case. For example, in this case, the lack of dna, or any kind of debris, casts a heavy shadow over the Ramseys. >This is a case dependent on >logic and nothing more, at least >the public version of the case. I agree the case is dependent on logic, but that logic must agree with the available known evidence. You can't ignore such things like the body, the elements of the crime, the condition of the crime scene, and other factors. The case is dependent on logic and that logic is dependent on the known facts. This has been my major premise since god knows when! I've used Thomas as an example. His logic isn't taking into consideration all the known facts. He KNOWS this child was molested, yet there's no link to it in his hypothetical. Argue prior abuse all you want but the fact remains she was definitely sexually assaulted before she died. To leave that element out out of the formula leaves you with a faulty solution, i.e., illogical. >However, I don't >think ST has ANY ulterior motives >in anything he has said or >done thus far. I think we were posting at the same time? Since I'm pretty sure I'm the only poster who understands the legal implications of Steve's actions, let me at least note again here that I have never accused him of having his own agenda or working toward any ulterior motives. I think my latest description of him here in this thread was altruistic. I can go back and forth with you or any other poster on the topic of Steve Thomas, but to what value? I've already noted, you've all made up your minds. >My admiration for the man comes from >his willingness and balls to stand >up to a corrupt system in >Boulder CO, and that integrity can >ONLY be validated through the loss >of not only his job but >a career he loves and believes >in and the risk of Ramsey >revenge. Dragging his marriage and family >through that hell just to pound >nails and satisfy accusations of capitalizing >on his book is just plain >ludicrous and malicious, and anyone IMHO >who has the blind gall to >attack his role in this case >should go down with the system >that has turned it into the >friggin nightmare it is today! ha! Maybe I should have pushed this up with what I thought was the only demeaning statement you made. :-) First his job and dragging his family through hell. He was a cop in a couple of different venues before he came to Boulder -- there's no reason why he couldn't be a cop again in another city or town. Hell, if Koby and Eller could do, then he sure as hell could! More importantly, though, is the statement that he had the balls to face down a corrupt system. Could you sort of show me evidence of this face down? He wrote a book publicly humiliating the BPD and DA. Where's his followup? His battle isn't against Boulder corruption. At least I see no evidence of it. Otherwise, he'd be taking on Koby, or Beckner or Hunter on LKL, not the Ramseys. The Ramseys agree with him the system's corrupt! If he's battling the corruption, where are his suits against the department or the DA or the city? Arndt had no problem filing suit for what was done to her; neither did Mason. With all due respect, his actions contradict his purpose, if that purpose was to expose the corruption. As there is no evidence that he's fighting a battle, his intentions backfire and make him look like a disgruntled cop who had a beef with his department chief and the DA and is looking for revenge via public humiliation. And while he's at it, he'll make a buck, at that. Listen, I'm not saying that's what he's doing, or that that's even what I think he's doing. That's the perception. Actions speak louder than words. His words are that he's exposing corruption. But the actions just don't support that. Again, this is meant simply for discussion purposes. Even though I worked off PL's post, it was only because that post pulled together what many others were saying. My comments are directed to the issue, not any one poster. And it's only meant to open the discussions into further analysis. I think it's no more fair to simply state Thomas is a hero as it is to pronounce the Ramseys murderers. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Paralegal " Posted by Sylvia on 13:43:49 7/03/2000 That is absolute correct about Dr. Wecht, also Dr. Brissie confirmes his findings after having read the autopsy report. As for ST I agree with you also most points and sure maybe he was somewhat inexperienced, but at least he really cares. And I have to add, he didn't get much of change to move the case forward with a DA's office who was more in the Rams camp, instead of being of assistance to the Boulder Police Department. And you are more than right as were it comes to his motives. Mistakes were made, however with the right help maybe, it should have been made possible to solve the case, however the DA's office decided to block that in every way they could. Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "So True Indeed" Posted by Paralegal on 14:44:45 7/03/2000 And it's even more telling that ST and other detectives found full cooperation with the higher up authorities in Georgia and Michigan than they found in Boulder Colorado. This case could have been solved by now even with inexperienced detectives but for Alex Hunter and his gloryhunters. Let's hope that his replacement is someone with extreme integrity and if not, that the FBI has enough sense to step in and take control of this mockery. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Paralegal" Posted by Ribaldone on 15:11:53 7/03/2000 You're so right. Mark Fuhrman was on The Leeza Show recently and when asked about the case he said, "It's already been solved. The BDP can't make an arrest because the DAs office won't file the charges." (paraphrased) Fuhrman was in Boulder at the time of the interview and said he'd been there for a while. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "I Say, You Say" Posted by Ginja on 16:21:07 7/03/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:21:07, 7/03/2000 Again, I'm only opening up the discussion. For example, PL said: ST and other detectives found full cooperation with the higher up authorities in Georgia and Michigan than they found in Boulder Colorado. I say: Georgia and Michigan laws are different from Colorado. For example, GA cops don't need to go through DA's for warrants; CO does. Is this the DA's fault? Or the state's statutes? Is the beef with the DA? Or the Colorado legislature? PL also said: Let's hope that that the FBI has enough sense to step in and take control of this mockery. I say: the FBI has been involved with this case, consistently, since December 26, 1996. They didn't have jurisdiction to take control of the case in 1996, and they won't have jurisdiction to take control in 2000. Let me also add that -- and this is just my opinion -- but if there was any "mockery" they could see or find, does it make sense they'd sit on it? What the hell are they waiting for? Do you really think Hunter's keeping the FBI at bay? That the FBI is afraid of him? That the FBI is biding its time until the elections? Where's the logic in that? Ribaldone said: (see PL, it's not you! I'm working to issues, not posters. You're just hitting the jackpot of pulling out some interesting issues! :-) Back to Ribaldone who said: Mark Fuhrman was on The Leeza Show recently and when asked about the case he said, "It's already been solved. The BDP can't make an arrest because the DAs office won't file the charges." I say, let's ask ourselves what those charges are and why the DA isn't filing them? Of course the case has already been solved...the Ramseys did it! Duh! But how? Who did what? If Furman's talking of a solution that mirrors Thomas', then no way can the DA file charges. From everything I've seen or heard, the BPD is running with the bedwetting theory. Again, you probably think I'm picking on y'all. I'm truly not. But we can't just sit here and curse the DA for not filing charges when we don't know what the hell the charges are! Does the BPD really have a solution? Or are they hoping, like Thomas did, that all they need to do is bring Patsy in and she'll confess? If I thought for a NY minute the BPD had a solid case and the DA was still holding back, then I'd be pissed and chomping at the bit. But we're going to know chit if we don't open the discussion and look closely at the allegations. I'd feel like a freakin' nut, not to mention the humiliation, if I went running to the Attorney General screaming the DA was obstructing the case and refusing to file charges, only to find out the cops really didn't have anything, it was just a scare tactic...or...their "solution" was as illogical as Thomas' hypothesis. And I have to wonder. Say the cops DID have a logical solution. Say Furmann knew what the charges were. Then why are they all sitting on their asses not doing anything? The cops, Furmann, they could go to the AG, they could file suit, they could ask Reno to move in! It doesn't make sense. If there's truly an obstructive problem in the DA's office, the cops have recourse and other ways to go over Hunter's head to remove the obstruction and get the arrest warrants. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Ginja" Posted by Seeker on 16:40:54 7/03/2000 Well here I go offering up "my opinion" of what you wrote. Not flaming you, just sharing, OK? "I say: the FBI has been involved with this case, consistently, since December 26, 1996. They didn't have jurisdiction to take control of the case in 1996, and they won't have jurisdiction to take control in 2000." I have to disagree. They do have jurisdiction. The FBI actually is suppose to oversee local and state judiciaries (I may be wording this incorrectly) and are suppose to make them adhere to federal regulations governing the laws and bylaws. OK I know this isn't worded correctly, but it's late for me and I'm exhausted. I've called them in the past and they've said something along those lines. They investigate sheriff's offices and police departments when they get complaints (they took over 3 years to investigate Madera, CA. Sheriff's Dept, you can check it out if you like). This investigation was extremely hush, hush until they "dropped the bomb" on them. A lot of the sheriffs lost their jobs, pensions, and were prosecuted in due course. "Let me also add that -- and this is just my opinion -- but if there was any "mockery" they could see or find, does it make sense they'd sit on it? What the hell are they waiting for? Do you really think Hunter's keeping the FBI at bay? That the FBI is afraid of him? That the FBI is biding its time until the elections?" I don't believe so. Ever worked for the government? They take years and years to investigate, and then render a decision, then finally institute action. Hunter, DeMuth and others could still be prosecuted for crimes/obstruction/tampering long after they leave office, because they did it while "in" office. Shadow doesn't believe there is an investigation into the DA's office. I disagree with him. Not only is the DA's office being investigated, the BPD is also. Don't think the FBI is going to "leak" any info to the media either. They don't work like the BPD or DA's offices, they are extremely stealthy in their approach. They don't announce they are FBI conducting an investigation, they're more like undercover narcotics agents who pose as the same type of people to get the dirt on them. I was relieved when Madera sheriffs got busted. You have no idea how much corruption is in law enforcement until you look at Madera and LA. That is just the tip of the iceburg, it's everywhere. Paralegal, I agree Steve Thomas' heart is in the write place, but he's so unexperienced in these types of crimes it's no wonder he cracked. And yes, he did. He gave in and quit because he couldn't prove his theory was the correct and only one. Sorry folks, but that's the way I see it. I think we can all agree on one thing. The Ramsey's either killed their daughter (accident or not), or they know who did. Plain and simple. The sad fact are: a beautiful 6 year old child was killed. In a method that has never been duplicated (that I can find). Her body was found in the home (check the stats, no murdered child's body found in the home has ever been by an intruder. It has ALWAYS been one of the family.) Her killer, or killers, are still out there. Living amongst us and there isn't any damn thing WE can actually do about it. I've gotten to a point where I don't care WHY it happened, or HOW it happened. I only want the person, or persons responsible caught, convicted, and punished. You know what happens to child molesters/killers in prison don't you. They get REAL punishment! Many prisoners (both men and women) are parents. I'll leave it to your imaginations what happens to some of them... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Ryder" Posted by Greenleaf on 16:14:32 7/03/2000 Why is it that you respond to everyone's posts but mine? Did I say something that made you angry, or do you just not like me posting on your threads? Please let me know. Thank you. GL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE