who is on the top of your suspect list???

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 21
Next Last
mee

Epsom, UK

#1 Mar 8, 2013
im very intrested to know who is the top of your suspect list ?? for various reasons including lacys dna i firmly belive patsy or john had nothing to do with it..but i feel it was someone with knowledge of the house ..someone very close to the ramseys..my top suspect is lhp ..along with mhp ,,and one other person alongside..

“Hey”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#2 Mar 9, 2013
What interest would the housekeeper and her husband have in any of this? That theory is ridiculous.

The case is as solved as it's gonna be unless Burke runs his mouth after his dad dies. He wouldn't want to sell himself out though. Nobody "Murdered" her, it just had to appear that someone did. Burke is only guilty of an accident and an inappropriate sexual relationship with his sister. The parents did everything else. It was all about protecting the reputation of the family. Why is this still being discussed? The case is dead. Kolar was as close as anybody is gonna get unless Burke talks in the future. Arndt was right, Thomas was right and Kolar is right about familial involvment. Smit had a good heart but I think him resigning had something to do with him changing his stance, much like Kolar did. But he didn't wanna out the Ramsey's at that point, he was friends with them by then. It was just an accident that spiraled out of control, time to move on.
spayneuter

Ellensburg, WA

#4 Mar 9, 2013
I still go back and forth. I do not believe John, Patsy or Burke killed JonBenet. Why would they leave a ransom note when they would know she was dead in the basement? Doesn't make sense. I believe it was a friend or relative. Someone close to the family. They intended to kidnap her, so they wrote the ransom note, but wound up killing her. JMHO and one I can live with.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#6 Mar 9, 2013
Quote: "Why is this still being discussed?"

Because no one has been held accountable for this crime, that's why. Why shouldn't the perp or perps be in PRISON, like in every other murder? Hunter understood that, no matter, what, people DEMAND justice in this case and WANT it to be solved, and aren't going to go away, or settle for anything less:

He said he doubts the case will ever be shelved the way other cases are.

"I think there is too much of a commitment, too much of an investment, too much of a desire to solve the case."

He said that in 2000, and in 2013 it's just as true.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/...
Steve Eller

United States

#7 Mar 9, 2013
JimmyWells wrote:
What interest would the housekeeper and her husband have in any of this? That theory is ridiculous.
The case is as solved as it's gonna be unless Burke runs his mouth after his dad dies. He wouldn't want to sell himself out though. Nobody "Murdered" her, it just had to appear that someone did. Burke is only guilty of an accident and an inappropriate sexual relationship with his sister. The parents did everything else. It was all about protecting the reputation of the family. Why is this still being discussed? The case is dead. Kolar was as close as anybody is gonna get unless Burke talks in the future. Arndt was right, Thomas was right and Kolar is right about familial involvment. Smit had a good heart but I think him resigning had something to do with him changing his stance, much like Kolar did. But he didn't wanna out the Ramsey's at that point, he was friends with them by then. It was just an accident that spiraled out of control, time to move on.
Well said. This case has been solved save for some details on how exactly JonBenet was killed.

“Hey”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#11 Mar 10, 2013
A child can not be held accountable nor was it a murder. The only crimes committed were evidence tampering, obstruction, and perjury. And you probably shouldn't quote DA Hunter. He's the reason why the case wasn't cleared.
candy wrote:
Quote: "Why is this still being discussed?"
Because no one has been held accountable for this crime, that's why. Why shouldn't the perp or perps be in PRISON, like in every other murder? Hunter understood that, no matter, what, people DEMAND justice in this case and WANT it to be solved, and aren't going to go away, or settle for anything less:
He said he doubts the case will ever be shelved the way other cases are.
"I think there is too much of a commitment, too much of an investment, too much of a desire to solve the case."
He said that in 2000, and in 2013 it's just as true.
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/...

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#12 Mar 10, 2013
If Burke accidentally or intentionally caused the massive brain trauma he can’t be held legally accountable. But he can be asked to verify the truth and take morally responsibility for what happened. It’s unlikely this will happen voluntarily. He won’t walk into a Colorado Law Enforcement Agency and talk but he can be officially interviewed and required to testify in court. It was criminal for the Ramsey family to accuse and malign innocent people in the course of covering their tracks. Burke is and was knowledgeable of what happened in this regard. Burke won’t talk voluntarily, he is a victim of dysfunction, a damaged person. These kids were leaving bowel movements as a screaming message and cry for help.

Whoever tightened the rope around Jonbenet's neck didn’t have the ability to verify she was dead before that occurred. That was what ultimately caused that little human being’s life to end and that was murder. Only a trial will close the case. John can be convicted and held legally responsible for the death and that can only occur when the DA is ready and willing.

John and Burke need to interviewed together and separate and every which way, polygraphed by machine and hypnotized by a doctor. They need to be confronted with all the evidence as it stands.

The truth does exist and will eventually reveal itself.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#13 Mar 10, 2013
The Ramsey family has a cesspool of secrets.

The Ramsey children were so emotionally sick their medical records were hidden and given an island of privacy. Lou Smit was blind as a bat and dumb as a duck to repeat again and again there was no history of abuse.

E N C O P R E S I S

It's not a normal behavior in childhood. It's a reflection something heinous and dastardly happened to the children before Jonbenet died.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#15 Mar 10, 2013
If you believe the grand jury indictment, then Burke had nothing to do with this crime. It was John and Patsy not Burke that were indicted for child abuse leading to death. The grand jury also heard from Burke.

I believe everyone in that house has culpability at some level, that's why the secret of whatever was the trigger that led to JonBenet's death has lasted so long. 2 of the 3 people left alive in that house are alive today, no reason to quit on this case, when much older cases are solved every day.

“Hey”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#17 Mar 10, 2013
John and Burke don't have to do anything but laugh at all of us idiots trying to solve this one. They are very far out of the woods. Aside from a confession the case is done. And no one is going to confess.
moonjack wrote:
If Burke accidentally or intentionally caused the massive brain trauma he can’t be held legally accountable. But he can be asked to verify the truth and take morally responsibility for what happened. It’s unlikely this will happen voluntarily. He won’t walk into a Colorado Law Enforcement Agency and talk but he can be officially interviewed and required to testify in court. It was criminal for the Ramsey family to accuse and malign innocent people in the course of covering their tracks. Burke is and was knowledgeable of what happened in this regard. Burke won’t talk voluntarily, he is a victim of dysfunction, a damaged person. These kids were leaving bowel movements as a screaming message and cry for help.
Whoever tightened the rope around Jonbenet's neck didn’t have the ability to verify she was dead before that occurred. That was what ultimately caused that little human being’s life to end and that was murder. Only a trial will close the case. John can be convicted and held legally responsible for the death and that can only occur when the DA is ready and willing.
John and Burke need to interviewed together and separate and every which way, polygraphed by machine and hypnotized by a doctor. They need to be confronted with all the evidence as it stands.
The truth does exist and will eventually reveal itself.

Since: Feb 12

Pearl City, HI

#18 Mar 10, 2013
spayneuter wrote:
I still go back and forth. I do not believe John, Patsy or Burke killed JonBenet. Why would they leave a ransom note when they would know she was dead in the basement? Doesn't make sense. I believe it was a friend or relative. Someone close to the family. They intended to kidnap her, so they wrote the ransom note, but wound up killing her. JMHO and one I can live with.
The Ransom note is a key piece of evidence that points directly toward Patsy. Why leave it? To deter attention away from the Ramsey family, and toward the phantom intruder. What purpose would an intruder have to leave a phony ransom note? No purpose whatsoever.
CC

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#19 Mar 10, 2013
No purpose whatsoever? Nonsense. Ridiculous. Absurd. Here are a few possible reasons for an intruder leaving a ransom note and the body hidden in the house:

1. a kidnapper could have intended on murdering and hiding his victim in the house right from the get-go, possibly believing that the Ramseys would not call the police and that he could collect his money before the parents discovered the body (why would they look for it?). Murdering and hiding the body in the house relieves him of the risk of having to handle, transport, hide and return/dispose of his victim and reduces the risk of forensic evidence accruing.

2. a molester who happened to kill (as opposed to a killer who happened to molest) could have created the note as a means of hiding from himself and/or others his perverse desires and true motivation. Wiping, redressing, covering body and elements of a kidnapping (cord, tape, note) all could have been done as a means to misdirect.

3. a killer wishing to direct suspicion towards the occupants of the house (thus, away from him)

4. a killer wishing to create an enduring mystery

5. a killer hoping to create for the parents a sense of false hope mingled with hours of angst and pain reaching its peak when the body is discovered

6. I can do this all day. So, can anyone. The possibilities are endless and it is a blatant error of reason to say otherwise. The claim that there was “no purpose whatsoever” for an intruder to leave a phony (or real) ransom note is false.


AK
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#20 Mar 10, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
No purpose whatsoever? Nonsense. Ridiculous. Absurd. Here are a few possible reasons for an intruder leaving a ransom note and the body hidden in the house:
1. a kidnapper could have intended on murdering and hiding his victim in the house right from the get-go, possibly believing that the Ramseys would not call the police and that he could collect his money before the parents discovered the body (why would they look for it?). Murdering and hiding the body in the house relieves him of the risk of having to handle, transport, hide and return/dispose of his victim and reduces the risk of forensic evidence accruing.
2. a molester who happened to kill (as opposed to a killer who happened to molest) could have created the note as a means of hiding from himself and/or others his perverse desires and true motivation. Wiping, redressing, covering body and elements of a kidnapping (cord, tape, note) all could have been done as a means to misdirect.
3. a killer wishing to direct suspicion towards the occupants of the house (thus, away from him)
4. a killer wishing to create an enduring mystery
5. a killer hoping to create for the parents a sense of false hope mingled with hours of angst and pain reaching its peak when the body is discovered
6. I can do this all day. So, can anyone. The possibilities are endless and it is a blatant error of reason to say otherwise. The claim that there was “no purpose whatsoever” for an intruder to leave a phony (or real) ransom note is false.

AK
Some interesting potential motives--yes. Reasonable to believe that an 'intruder' would have had the time, indifference toward being caught in the house, and utter stupidity to write that long note? Absolutely not reasonable, and therein lies the disadvantage of believing that the Ramseys were involved because we are held to a higher standard. The possibility of an intruder writing that note does not fall within reasonable criminal behavior. And let's for argument say that he/she/they were not reasonable, they would have been careful enough to avoid leaving practically any evidence behind yet pen the 'war and peace' of ransom notes that could potentially match their handwriting, and leaving fingerprints or DNA. Almost every explanation defending the Ramseys requires completely irrational and unreasonable behavior on the part of the perpetrator.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#21 Mar 10, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
Some interesting potential motives--yes. Reasonable to believe that an 'intruder' would have had the time, indifference toward being caught in the house, and utter stupidity to write that long note? Absolutely not reasonable, and therein lies the disadvantage of believing that the Ramseys were involved because we are held to a higher standard. The possibility of an intruder writing that note does not fall within reasonable criminal behavior. And let's for argument say that he/she/they were not reasonable, they would have been careful enough to avoid leaving practically any evidence behind yet pen the 'war and peace' of ransom notes that could potentially match their handwriting, and leaving fingerprints or DNA. Almost every explanation defending the Ramseys requires completely irrational and unreasonable behavior on the part of the perpetrator.
I find your objections to be naïve. Regardless of one’s sense of credulity it remains that there are as many possible motives for an intruder doing the things that were done as there are people; and more, many more motives than that.

For some: the greater the risk, the greater the high and there is nothing unique about an intruder coming into a home and committing an offence (theft, assault, rape, murder, etc) while occupants are asleep. The ransom note and the victim dead in the house are what make this case (virtually?) unique.

We can believe what we believe but the naked truth of it is that the ransom note writer has never been identified. If it was written by an intruder, then his “decision” to write it in the house (if it was written in the house) and his decision to use materials from the house seem to have served him well. This assertion of “utter stupidity” is proved false.

Use of Ramsey materials, specifically the Sharpie pen and printing (as opposed to handwriting) is consistent with a premise of someone trying to mitigate risk of identification. Additionally, if one believes oneself to be completely outside of any reasonably constructed suspect circle (and is!), then the risk of being identified via handwriting becomes exceedingly small.


AK
mee

Epsom, UK

#22 Mar 11, 2013
All the ransom note proves is that someone wrote it inside the house,with a pen from inside the house.There was loads of people in and out of the house and LHP would of had ample time to write it when everyone was out.I dont belive she did this alone but with her husbund and maybe another.The motive would be of course Greed and money..lets face it Patsy and John were rolling in money and if anybody professional had done this they would of asked for alot more money..
mee

Epsom, UK

#23 Mar 11, 2013
JimmyWells wrote:
What interest would the housekeeper and her husband have in any of this? That theory is ridiculous.
The case is as solved as it's gonna be unless Burke runs his mouth after his dad dies. He wouldn't want to sell himself out though. Nobody "Murdered" her, it just had to appear that someone did. Burke is only guilty of an accident and an inappropriate sexual relationship with his sister. The parents did everything else. It was all about protecting the reputation of the family. Why is this still being discussed? The case is dead. Kolar was as close as anybody is gonna get unless Burke talks in the future. Arndt was right, Thomas was right and Kolar is right about familial involvment. Smit had a good heart but I think him resigning had something to do with him changing his stance, much like Kolar did. But he didn't wanna out the Ramsey's at that point, he was friends with them by then. It was just an accident that spiraled out of control, time to move on.
The motive would be money and not even a huge amount considering what the Ramseys had..this was not a professional kidnapper.AND LHP had asked for a loan a couple of days before..money was on her mind.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#24 Mar 11, 2013
And maybe another? LOL

So you have three people inside the house now, two of whom the police have cleared? This other person wouldn't be someone JBR would have recognized, would it?
mee wrote:
All the ransom note proves is that someone wrote it inside the house,with a pen from inside the house.There was loads of people in and out of the house and LHP would of had ample time to write it when everyone was out.I dont belive she did this alone but with her husbund and maybe another.The motive would be of course Greed and money..lets face it Patsy and John were rolling in money and if anybody professional had done this they would of asked for alot more money..
mee

Epsom, UK

#25 Mar 11, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
And maybe another? LOL
So you have three people inside the house now, two of whom the police have cleared? This other person wouldn't be someone JBR would have recognized, would it?
<quoted text>
No i have two people inside the house .. MHP and another..i dont belive LHP was there that night..she gave the keys and wrote the ransom note at an earlier time...my theories on LHP are not deadset i do have other theories.. but i dont think she was looked into enough..the way she was so quick to point the finger at patsy is worrying ...saying no one else knew where the penknife was ....SHE knew where the penknife was ...and her fingerprints would of been everywhere considering she was the housekeeper...

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#26 Mar 11, 2013
The evidence, as we know it, doesn't back up your version.
mee wrote:
<quoted text>No i have two people inside the house .. MHP and another..i dont belive LHP was there that night..she gave the keys and wrote the ransom note at an earlier time...my theories on LHP are not deadset i do have other theories.. but i dont think she was looked into enough..the way she was so quick to point the finger at patsy is worrying ...saying no one else knew where the penknife was ....SHE knew where the penknife was ...and her fingerprints would of been everywhere considering she was the housekeeper...
mee

Epsom, UK

#27 Mar 11, 2013
tell me the evidence you have......

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 21
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Forgotten Suspect 6 hr Capricorn 110
Haapy Thanksgiving 6 hr Mama2JML 8
Martha Moxley 7 hr Mama2JML 52
Note-odd detail? Tue Note 2,258
"Note-Free Case Discussion" Tue paulflynn12 28
Chief James Kolar on the JonBenet Ramsey case, ... (Aug '13) Tue Capricorn 316
John Ramsey and Child Pornography Nov 24 Legal__Eagle 37

JonBenet Ramsey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE