- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WTF happened to JonBenet?
Posted on 10/7/16 at 12:50 pm to BamaChick
Posted on 10/7/16 at 12:50 pm to BamaChick
quote:
The producers of that garbage are in the Ramsey back pocket and this is their 4th "documentary" on the case.
Well we called it correctly then. You can definitely tell while watching it.
0
Posted on 10/7/16 at 1:01 pm to fatboydave
It was aliens
Posted on 10/7/16 at 1:06 pm to HaveMercy
quote:
I was pretty much sure he did it until I watched the A & E documentary the other night.
How do you explain the room in the basement being latched from the outside of that room. They even froze the picture of that door in the basement and you can see it was latched at the top from the basement side, not the room side. If their theory is that someone killed her and left through the window that was open in the room that she was found, how is the door locked from the outside of that room? It makes no sense.
Posted on 10/7/16 at 1:10 pm to Epic Cajun
When I get off work, I'm drive over to their house and ask. I live just a couple miles away.
Posted on 10/7/16 at 1:15 pm to Salamander_Wilson
quote:
It just takes way more logical leaps to think a mother or father garrotted their child than to think an intruder did.
It doesn't take any logical leaps at all, just emotional ones. In fact, if he killed her after the son hit her and brain damaged her, he actually did THE logical thing. The girl is brain-dead and convulsing on the floor, he knows she's doomed to life as a vegetable and thinks - not knowing the law because he isn't a lawyer - that his son will go to jail either for assault or murder and have his life ruined, so rather than watch her suffer for however long it takes her to die as a vegetable, rather than doom his son to prison, he takes her out himself right then and he and his wife stage a kidnapping. That takes some hardcore fortitude and emotional control bordering on being a sociopath (which from his subsequent interviews and appearances, which were all emotionally cold, seems in character), but it is logical.
What isn't logical is breaking into someone's house to kidnap a little girl, then killing her (which defeats the purpose of kidnapping her).
What isn't logical hanging around, either before or after, to write a 3 page long rambling ransom note, when ransom notes are never that long and every second in the house increases your chances of being discovered. Kidnappers never leave notes that long and we know it was done on the home stationary, and that there were rough drafts. What kind of kidnapper does rough drafts?
What isn't logical is that a kidnapper would ask for $118,000. Kidnappers typically ask for more than that and it doesn't make sense to ask for $118,000 instead of $100,000 or $120,000, or $150,000. (It's also hugely damning that $118K was the exact amount of John's Christmas bonus - which means that figure narrows down the list of potential suspects to the family, close friends and relatives, and people in the company payroll department - this is something ALL of the documentaries failed to emphasize).
What isn't logical is that the kidnapper would leave the ransom note on the back spiral stairs that Patsy uses off in the bowels of the house instead of a more visible spot like the front staircase, or the kitchen counter.
Posted on 10/7/16 at 1:17 pm to CCTider
quote:
When I get off work, I'm drive over to their house and ask. I live just a couple miles away.
Didn't they move back to Georgia?
Posted on 10/7/16 at 1:27 pm to Cooter Davenport
quote:
not knowing the law because he isn't a lawyer
It's interesting you so that, because just prior in the same sentence you say
quote:
The girl is brain-dead and convulsing on the floor, he knows she's doomed to life as a vegetable
So, he's a doctor though?
I know 1000% that if my daughter was breathing, I would have called 911 or driven her to the hospital. My instinct to save my child's life would infinitely trump my instinct to save the other's skin. We'd deal with him later. That's why it's hard--if not impossible--for those of us to think a father could have garroted his still-alive child, no matter how bad she looked. Hell, the worse she looked, the more panicked I'd be to get her to the hospital immediately. If John actually did this, he's a fricking monster. He may have, but if he did, he should burn in hell.
Now, I still think the most likely scenario is Burke killed her and they did the garrote after she expired and the following cover up. Still terrible, but not nearly as damning as "finishing her off."
And if you couldn't tell that CBS special had a bias as well, then you can't see the forrest for the trees. All documentaries have a bias, even if it's just to tell the best story. Have to take them all with levels of grains of salt.
Posted on 10/7/16 at 1:30 pm to Cooter Davenport
quote:
that $118K was the exact amount of John's Christmas bonus
I'm pretty sure even the CBS doc never said it was "exact." They said "very close" or something like that. I wonder how close.
Posted on 10/7/16 at 2:13 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
And if you couldn't tell that CBS special had a bias as well, then you can't see the forrest for the trees.
The CBS one definitely had a bias as well. I agree. There are degrees of bias though. The CBS one at least attempted to proceed though a logical process. The A&E one just came off as a straight-up commercial. While watching the A&E one, I was expecting John Ramsey to turn to the camera and say "I'm John Ramsey, and I support this message".
This post was edited on 10/7/16 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 10/7/16 at 2:16 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
If John actually did this, he's a fricking monster.
The dude never showed any emotion at all. Still doesn't. Even his "shame on you, Joe Public" segments in the A&E documentary seemed contrived and he had a weird little smile during them instead of the genuine anger you'd expect. He and Burke share the same "off" emotional aspect.
Posted on 10/7/16 at 2:32 pm to Epic Cajun
quote:
How do you explain the room in the basement being latched from the outside of that room.
I can't explain it - not trying to explain it or to make any assumption that I know what happened in that house, Christmas night 1996. I am saying that there is enough evidence to shed quite a bit of plausible doubt on the Ramsey's did it theory.
But, I will play along: how do you explain the DNA under her nails, the touch DNA present on two separate garments, and the evidence that shows she could have been strangled before she was struck on the head.
Someone made an educated guess, not a fact, a guess, that she was struck first then strangled and it has become the gospel truth. People, including myself, thought it was a 100% fact and no one can say for sure if she was strangled or struck first. It fit the Boulder police theory so they ran with she was finished off by the garrote.
This post was edited on 10/7/16 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 10/7/16 at 2:42 pm to Cooter Davenport
quote:
The dude never showed any emotion at all. Still doesn't. Even his "shame on you, Joe Public" segments in the A&E documentary seemed contrived and he had a weird little smile during them instead of the genuine anger you'd expect. He and Burke share the same "off" emotional aspect.
Just because he doesn't react the way you think he should, doesn't mean he's guilty. He's former military and comes from a generation where men were supposed to hide their feelings. My Dad was like that. Never saw the man shed a tear, ever.
Ramsey had already raised three children; I'm just guessing here, but I think if he were a child molesting killer monster, someone would have picked up on it.
PS - saw an ad for a Lifetime movie coming out about all this. Pres. Garrison from House of Cards is playing John Ramsey.
Posted on 10/7/16 at 3:35 pm to HaveMercy
quote:
Just because he doesn't react the way you think he should, doesn't mean he's guilty.
No. It doesn't. But that wasn't my point in mentioning it. I was responding to the position that 'he's innocent because it's very unlikely a father could choke his daughter out with a garrote' by saying 'well, this guy's emotional makeup appears to be a little different than normal.' I'd never convict someone just because their emotional reactions weren't right. In this case he's a guy whose responses or lack thereof reinforce the mountain of other indications that nobody broke into that house that night.
Posted on 10/7/16 at 3:40 pm to Epic Cajun
quote:
How do you explain the room in the basement being latched from the outside of that room.
The room where she was found has no windows. The room it is connected to is the room you are thinking of with the windows. Still would be difficult to believe an intruder placed her in that room and took the time to latch it before he left. It's not exactly in a usual spot and is pretty high up so unlikely a child did it either.
Posted on 10/7/16 at 3:48 pm to HaveMercy
quote:
how do you explain the DNA under her nails, the touch DNA present on two separate garments, and the evidence that shows she could have been strangled before she was struck on the head.
1. She could have picked that up anywhere. It's not like she had hunks of bloody meat under her nails. They found *cells* under there. Could have come from anyone she interacted with at the Christmas party.
2. Same with the garments. We're talking dead *cells* not a bunch of blood or semen. She wears them out somwhere and they brush up against someone and then she takes them off and mom folds them and they stay on there and then she puts them on week later and they're still there. Or the housekeeper has her husband's cells on her clothes and they rub off of her onto JonBenet's clothes while the housekeeper folds them.
I mean, the whole point I am making is that touch DNA is not ***exculpatory***. You can't really use it to get a defendant OFF because we all have a ton of "touch DNA" all over us. Where touch DNA is useful is for ***convicting*** someone. Because if you have two people who don't know eachother, who shouldn't have ever interacted, but the touch DNA of your suspect is on the victim, then you can prove that they were there and did physically contact the victim. In this JonBenet scenario, the parents and their legal and public relations army have tried to use it in that first, logically erroneous exculpatory manner. That's not how it works though. That's not the point of touch DNA.
3. What evidence shows this. The amount of brain swelling noted in the autopsy requires that she was struck first. It wouldn't have swolen the way it did if she was strangled first. The pictures of so-called scratch marks don't look like desperate fingernail scratches to me. Those look like abrasions from the rope and petechiae from the pressure.
This post was edited on 10/7/16 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 10/7/16 at 3:49 pm to Cooter Davenport
quote:
No. It doesn't. But that wasn't my point in mentioning it. I was responding to the position that 'he's innocent because it's very unlikely a father could choke his daughter out with a garrote' by saying 'well, this guy's emotional makeup appears to be a little different than normal.' I'd never convict someone just because their emotional reactions weren't right. In this case he's a guy whose responses or lack thereof reinforce the mountain of other indications that nobody broke into that house that night.
Ah, ok. I think I let your comment bleed into another post. My apologies!
Posted on 10/7/16 at 3:54 pm to HaveMercy
No worries. I'm not actually pissed or anything. I just find this all interesting.
Posted on 10/7/16 at 4:00 pm to Cooter Davenport
There is just way too much contradicting evidence to prove the Ransey's guilt or their innocence. I just think it's wise to err on the side of caution and not drag a family through a public lynching without more definitive proof.
I don't k ow much for sure about this case, but what I do know is that the Boulder PD f'ed this investigation up from the get go, then tried to cover their asses by convicting the Ramsey's in the court of public opinion - and Initially I had no doubt that Patsy did it and then I blamed Burke.
As a mother, I cannot imagine anything worse than having your daughter murdered and then being accused of bashing her in the head because she wet the bed. Or having people think I pimped her out in some pedo sex ring or that me or my husband sexually abused her. Some of those headlines that were circulating around back then had to be unbearable for that family.
I don't k ow much for sure about this case, but what I do know is that the Boulder PD f'ed this investigation up from the get go, then tried to cover their asses by convicting the Ramsey's in the court of public opinion - and Initially I had no doubt that Patsy did it and then I blamed Burke.
As a mother, I cannot imagine anything worse than having your daughter murdered and then being accused of bashing her in the head because she wet the bed. Or having people think I pimped her out in some pedo sex ring or that me or my husband sexually abused her. Some of those headlines that were circulating around back then had to be unbearable for that family.
Posted on 10/7/16 at 4:06 pm to WestSideTiger
quote:
The room where she was found has no windows. The room it is connected to is the room you are thinking of with the windows. Still would be difficult to believe an intruder placed her in that room and took the time to latch it before he left. It's not exactly in a usual spot and is pretty high up so unlikely a child did it either.
I was going to make this point too. I've seen it a few times here and it's wrong. The room they found her in was latched with that thing at the top. But, that room is windowless. It's described as a wine cellar but it's more like a root cellar. It's not fully finished and lacks entries or exits aside from the single door. The room with the broken window and suitcase is also in the basement, but further back out, in the open area at the base of the stairs.
It would be totally damning if the room they found her in was the same as the broken window room the killer would have supposedly come and gone from, because it would have been impossible for the killer to latch from outside, then leave from inside. But that's not the way it's really laid out.
As it is, it is possible for a killer to put her in that root cellar sub basement, latch the door, then use the suitcase to boost himself up and out the window.
That said, if you are a kidnapper-turned-killer why on earth would you feel compelled to latch the door. Why would that even occur to you in that situation. Plus, the latch is weird - it's at the top. Who would think to look there or be looking for it anyway? Wouldn't you try to get away as fast as possible?
Posted on 10/7/16 at 4:13 pm to HaveMercy
quote:
I don't k ow much for sure about this case, but what I do know is that the Boulder PD f'ed this investigation up from the get go
From the VERY beginning. They should have kicked all the friends out, confined the Ramseys to one room, and searched the house themselves. Not because they should have suspected the Ramsey's at that point, but because regardless they're disturbing potential evidence of the then assumed kidnapper! All those friends were contaminating a crime scene! And then when John "finds" the body, carries it up, and puts it in the middle of the hallway that dozens of people have been walking through all day? Holy moly. At that point so much evidence is ruined that guilty or innocent he's getting off due to contaminated evidence.
Page 34 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News