“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#103 Dec 9, 2013
The Ramseys NEVER had consistent answers, so what's new? They even contradicted themselves in their own book. That is part of what continues to make them look guilty to this day!
Delta88 wrote:
It's not crocumentary vs transcript (though I agree it's a crocumentary). It's the Rs, specifically Patsy, telling one story in one setting, another story in another setting.
In the crocumentary she says it was her idea. In the transcript JR claims it was his idea and she does not disagree.
Neither venue is reliable because the "testimony" is from the Ramseys. Yet the story changes. Was it Patsy who decided to make the call (we know it was she who actually did call) or was it John's idea? It could go either way, but it's telling that some prefer to believe John's version - probably because it tends to confirm their theory of the case. In reality we don't know who decided 911 should be called, we just know PR did the calling.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#104 Dec 9, 2013
I wanted to add to my above post that I also have considered that wrapping her up in the blanket may have been not only to show caring but......and this is ONLY MY THEORY AND SPECULATION

They redressed and wrapped the body in the hopes of slowing down the process to make the attempt to muddy the time of death.

The basement was cold, the window was broken and letting cold air in; and without the blanket, and possibly time of death being able to be determined at a time when the family should have still been awake, they tried to keep the body as warm as possible to cloud any time of death accuracy

That may also account for the delay in "finding" her earlier

Just another theory that can be considered

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#106 Dec 9, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AK,
Your logic is extremely flawed IF you are willing to consider (as you claim to do), even for discussion sake, that it was one of the Ramseys
What exactly, IF it were a Ramsey would they have done with the body? At some point, the body has to be found and have a "proper burial" At some point, the body would be found anyway.
They couldn't remove the body during the night for reasons that have been discussed many times and Patsy surely wouldn't have left JBR dead in the elements for the animals to scavenge, alone and cold. They even made sure she was in a blanket in the basement of their own home
What would they have done with the body? The Ramseys had no choice but to call the police and start ActI of the play
SOMEBODY had to find the body, which is why they staged the scene in the first place. Initially it is a kidnapping, the police aren't checking for a body, but a missing child, the Ramseys are initially the victims, their friends and neighbors get to ruin the crime scene, and the questioning in a kidnapping in the beginning is a lot less stressful than the 4 months of practice they got to answer questions about a MURDER
The supposed fact that the Ramseys did not get rid of or plan to get rid of the body supports the intruder theory because people donít fake kidnappings if they donít plan on getting rid of or havenít already gotten rid of the body. Arguments or explanations as to why the Ramseys would not get rid of the body does not address this objection.
...

AK
robert

Yellowknife, Canada

#107 Dec 9, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
I wanted to add to my above post that I also have considered that wrapping her up in the blanket may have been not only to show caring but......and this is ONLY MY THEORY AND SPECULATION
They redressed and wrapped the body in the hopes of slowing down the process to make the attempt to muddy the time of death.
The basement was cold, the window was broken and letting cold air in; and without the blanket, and possibly time of death being able to be determined at a time when the family should have still been awake, they tried to keep the body as warm as possible to cloud any time of death accuracy
That may also account for the delay in "finding" her earlier
Just another theory that can be considered
-- I must say-- that is good detective work-- now to find someone with the mindset to do this and know what they were doing, one would think that they would of had an advanced schooling in crime.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#108 Dec 10, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The supposed fact that the Ramseys did not get rid of or plan to get rid of the body supports the intruder theory because people donít fake kidnappings if they donít plan on getting rid of or havenít already gotten rid of the body. Arguments or explanations as to why the Ramseys would not get rid of the body does not address this objection.
...
AK
It does not support the intruder theory at all. If you establish the fact that the Ramseys removing the body was not an option in their estimation due to all the reasons we have discussed, IF you are willing to address that it is RDI, what else could they have done to keep the investigators looking OUTSIDE the family?

The "fake" kidnapping while hiding the body for awhile, long enough to destroy the crime scene and stall answering any questions, was their only option

They couldn't come up with any other plan that didn't include INSIDE the house suspects ONLY The only way to steer the investigation outside of the family was to do what they did. The only way they could have pulled it off "believably" to some extent would have been to remove the body and they couldn't risk doing something like that

They never planned to get rid of the body. That would have been way too risky, so the next best thing is to hide it long enough to pull off the charade of a kidnapping and keep prying eyes off of the Ramsey family long enough for them to get out of town

That was the plan and much of it worked. They paid for the rest

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#110 Dec 10, 2013
Small foreign factions don't leave long ransom notes explaining that they are a small foreign faction either. They don't leave any ransom notes. They make their hit in whatever form that is, and then take responsibility later on, usually via the media.

Only inexperienced persons would do both as the Ramsey's did. This clearly was not an intruder scenario.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The supposed fact that the Ramseys did not get rid of or plan to get rid of the body supports the intruder theory because people donít fake kidnappings if they donít plan on getting rid of or havenít already gotten rid of the body. Arguments or explanations as to why the Ramseys would not get rid of the body does not address this objection.
...
AK

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#112 Dec 10, 2013
Very interesting thought process.
Capricorn wrote:
I wanted to add to my above post that I also have considered that wrapping her up in the blanket may have been not only to show caring but......and this is ONLY MY THEORY AND SPECULATION
They redressed and wrapped the body in the hopes of slowing down the process to make the attempt to muddy the time of death.
The basement was cold, the window was broken and letting cold air in; and without the blanket, and possibly time of death being able to be determined at a time when the family should have still been awake, they tried to keep the body as warm as possible to cloud any time of death accuracy
That may also account for the delay in "finding" her earlier
Just another theory that can be considered

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#114 Dec 11, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not support the intruder theory at all. If you establish the fact that the Ramseys removing the body was not an option in their estimation due to all the reasons we have discussed, IF you are willing to address that it is RDI, what else could they have done to keep the investigators looking OUTSIDE the family?
The "fake" kidnapping while hiding the body for awhile, long enough to destroy the crime scene and stall answering any questions, was their only option
They couldn't come up with any other plan that didn't include INSIDE the house suspects ONLY The only way to steer the investigation outside of the family was to do what they did. The only way they could have pulled it off "believably" to some extent would have been to remove the body and they couldn't risk doing something like that
They never planned to get rid of the body. That would have been way too risky, so the next best thing is to hide it long enough to pull off the charade of a kidnapping and keep prying eyes off of the Ramsey family long enough for them to get out of town
That was the plan and much of it worked. They paid for the rest
They could have done anything that they wanted to do. And, yes, that includes getting rid of the body Ė this sort of thing is not that uncommon an occurrence in such cases. That includes reporting an accident.

There simply is no evidence and/or reason to show that they had no other choice. You have to start with RDI and work backwards to come up with such nonsense.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#115 Dec 11, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Small foreign factions don't leave long ransom notes explaining that they are a small foreign faction either. They don't leave any ransom notes. They make their hit in whatever form that is, and then take responsibility later on, usually via the media.
Only inexperienced persons would do both as the Ramsey's did. This clearly was not an intruder scenario.
<quoted text>
There was no foreign faction.
...

AK
icedtea4me

Saint Louis, MO

#116 Dec 11, 2013
The way it was written in the note is "factim" (a possible blend of fact+victim), not faction.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#117 Dec 12, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no foreign faction.
...
AK
No "chit", eh?

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#118 Dec 12, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
They could have done anything that they wanted to do. And, yes, that includes getting rid of the body Ė this sort of thing is not that uncommon an occurrence in such cases. That includes reporting an accident.
There simply is no evidence and/or reason to show that they had no other choice. You have to start with RDI and work backwards to come up with such nonsense.
...
AK
Of course they "could have" done just about anything

Please tell us how they might have gotten rid of the body. Do you think they would have risked being out at night (also, would they do this with or without Burke?) in the car driving around to dump a body?

Do you think they would have left Burke alone in the house while they did that?

Would they have woken him to take him for the ride?

Would/Could they be sure nobody would see them?

Please give us a possible scenario for the Ramseys to be out in the middle of the night dumping a body.

As for the accident and reporting that, we've been through that so I for one won't beat that dead horse.

What would they have said when the prior sexual abuse came to light?
docG

Washington, PA

#119 Dec 12, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>

Please give us a possible scenario for the Ramseys to be out in the middle of the night dumping a body.
It never ceases to amaze me how people as familiar with this case as those on this forum can go on and on arguing back and forth between an intruder scenario and a scenario involving both Patsy and John, when clearly both lead to dead ends. No intruder theory makes any sense at all. Believe me I've tried, because I'd much rather see this as a crime committed by some perverted nut case than either of poor JonBenet's parents. But clearly there was no intruder. A kidnapper would have brought his own note, written in advance, and would actually have kidnapped his victim. A sexual pervert would not have bothered writing a ransom note at all. Someone out to frame John or Patsy would not have left a note written in his own hand. Some random nutcase hopped up on drugs would not have been capable of writing a coherent 2 1/2 page note, containing no grammatical errors, with perfectly consistent spacing from word to word and careful adherence to the left margin.

That leaves us with Patsy AND John or Patsy OR John. If both were in it together, that 911 call would not have been made. You don't concoct a long "ransom" note clearly designed to provide an excuse NOT to call the police until the body has been dumped, and then call the police anyhow, knowing that sooner or later the body is going to be found, meaning there was no kidnapping and thus totally negating your carefully crafted note. And what is more, give the police the note you yourself wrote by hand so they can figure out that you're the one who wrote it. C'mon people, get real! On that score I have to agree with Aunty Kay. Only there was no intruder, Aunty, so go back to the drawing board old buddy.

Patsy is the one who made that call. John is the one who didn't. He claimed he told her to call, but in the version she offered on the A&E doc. the call was HER idea. And if he was going upstairs to check on Burke and she was going downstairs to make the call, then obviously there was no way he could have stopped her. I believe Patsy's version, because if John wanted that call made he'd have made it himself. And if John was innocent and Patsy is our perp it's impossible to understand how he could have forced her to make that call against her will. If she'd refused to make it, then there was nothing to prevent him from making it himself.

For a detailed scenario, see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/a...

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#120 Dec 12, 2013
One small problem with your scenario. John wasn't on his way upstairs and Patsy wasn't on her way downstairs...they were about 10-15 feet apart on the same floor. Her in the kitchen and him in his skivs on his knees in the hallway outside the kitchen.

You need to readjust your story to coincide with the facts.
docG wrote:
<quoted text>

Patsy is the one who made that call. John is the one who didn't. He claimed he told her to call, but in the version she offered on the A&E doc. the call was HER idea. And if he was going upstairs to check on Burke and she was going downstairs to make the call, then obviously there was no way he could have stopped her. I believe Patsy's version, because if John wanted that call made he'd have made it himself. And if John was innocent and Patsy is our perp it's impossible to understand how he could have forced her to make that call against her will. If she'd refused to make it, then there was nothing to prevent him from making it himself.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#122 Dec 12, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they "could have" done just about anything
Please tell us how they might have gotten rid of the body. Do you think they would have risked being out at night (also, would they do this with or without Burke?) in the car driving around to dump a body?
Do you think they would have left Burke alone in the house while they did that?
Would they have woken him to take him for the ride?
Would/Could they be sure nobody would see them?
Please give us a possible scenario for the Ramseys to be out in the middle of the night dumping a body.
As for the accident and reporting that, we've been through that so I for one won't beat that dead horse.
What would they have said when the prior sexual abuse came to light?
They wouldnít fake a kidnapping if they planned to keep the body. Who has ever done such a thing?

Killers kill people and sometimes they dispose of the bodies. Rarely are they caught during this act, and I imagine itís a pretty risky affair most of the time but somehow they manage to do it.

If the Ramseys had wanted to get rid of the body then you could say that they would have needed the ransom note. That would make sense. If the Ramseys wanted to get rid of the body then they would have done whatever it took to accomplish that, and, then they would call the police Ė after, NOT before!

What would they have said when the prior sexual abuse came to light? The prior sexual abuse did come to light. You know what they said.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#123 Dec 12, 2013
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
It never ceases to amaze me how people as familiar with this case as those on this forum can go on and on arguing back and forth between an intruder scenario and a scenario involving both Patsy and John, when clearly both lead to dead ends. No intruder theory makes any sense at all. Believe me I've tried, because I'd much rather see this as a crime committed by some perverted nut case than either of poor JonBenet's parents. But clearly there was no intruder. A kidnapper would have brought his own note, written in advance, and would actually have kidnapped his victim. A sexual pervert would not have bothered writing a ransom note at all. Someone out to frame John or Patsy would not have left a note written in his own hand. Some random nutcase hopped up on drugs would not have been capable of writing a coherent 2 1/2 page note, containing no grammatical errors, with perfectly consistent spacing from word to word and careful adherence to the left margin.
That leaves us with Patsy AND John or Patsy OR John. If both were in it together, that 911 call would not have been made. You don't concoct a long "ransom" note clearly designed to provide an excuse NOT to call the police until the body has been dumped, and then call the police anyhow, knowing that sooner or later the body is going to be found, meaning there was no kidnapping and thus totally negating your carefully crafted note. And what is more, give the police the note you yourself wrote by hand so they can figure out that you're the one who wrote it. C'mon people, get real! On that score I have to agree with Aunty Kay. Only there was no intruder, Aunty, so go back to the drawing board old buddy.
Patsy is the one who made that call. John is the one who didn't. He claimed he told her to call, but in the version she offered on the A&E doc. the call was HER idea. And if he was going upstairs to check on Burke and she was going downstairs to make the call, then obviously there was no way he could have stopped her. I believe Patsy's version, because if John wanted that call made he'd have made it himself. And if John was innocent and Patsy is our perp it's impossible to understand how he could have forced her to make that call against her will. If she'd refused to make it, then there was nothing to prevent him from making it himself.
For a detailed scenario, see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/a...
Aunty Kay? Really? Are we going to be juvenile? Really?
...

AK
docG

Washington, PA

#124 Dec 12, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
One small problem with your scenario. John wasn't on his way upstairs and Patsy wasn't on her way downstairs...they were about 10-15 feet apart on the same floor. Her in the kitchen and him in his skivs on his knees in the hallway outside the kitchen.
You need to readjust your story to coincide with the facts.
<quoted text>
That is NOT the facts. That is what the suspects in this case testified to and how the incident was described in their book. We have NO reason to take their word for who was where when the call was made. What we do know for sure, and what IS a fact, is that there are two contradictory versions of the story, one told by Patsy in the documentary, the other told by the two of them for the benefit of the police and the public.
The relevant fact is that Patsy called 911, NOT John. If they were in it together there is no way that call would have been made. And if John wanted the call made and Patsy didn't, then he'd have made the call, not her. Which tells us that Patsy must be innocent and that she was manipulated by John into going along with his version of what happened. Because at the time they went public with that story, John was THE suspect and he badly needed an alibi.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#125 Dec 13, 2013
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
That is NOT the facts. That is what the suspects in this case testified to and how the incident was described in their book. We have NO reason to take their word for who was where when the call was made. What we do know for sure, and what IS a fact, is that there are two contradictory versions of the story, one told by Patsy in the documentary, the other told by the two of them for the benefit of the police and the public.
The relevant fact is that Patsy called 911, NOT John. If they were in it together there is no way that call would have been made. And if John wanted the call made and Patsy didn't, then he'd have made the call, not her. Which tells us that Patsy must be innocent and that she was manipulated by John into going along with his version of what happened. Because at the time they went public with that story, John was THE suspect and he badly needed an alibi.
There was a division of labor if you will with the plan. John did what he was good at which was being calm and collected, dealing with the attorneys and Arndt, etc. and Patsy is the better actress to have called 911 and to put on the theatrics.

Patsy's "frantic" call is much better to listen to than John being calm and collected when investigating a murder

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#126 Dec 13, 2013
And yet you use what the suspects say as YOUR source. You canít have it both ways.
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
Patsy is the one who made that call. John is the one who didn't. He claimed he told her to call, but in the version she offered on the A&E doc. the call was HER idea.
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
That is NOT the facts. That is what the suspects in this case testified to and how the incident was described in their book. We have NO reason to take their word for who was where when the call was made. What we do know for sure, and what IS a fact, is that there are two contradictory versions of the story, one told by Patsy in the documentary, the other told by the two of them for the benefit of the police and the public.
The relevant fact is that Patsy called 911, NOT John. If they were in it together there is no way that call would have been made. And if John wanted the call made and Patsy didn't, then he'd have made the call, not her. Which tells us that Patsy must be innocent and that she was manipulated by John into going along with his version of what happened. Because at the time they went public with that story, John was THE suspect and he badly needed an alibi.
docG

Washington, PA

#128 Dec 13, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
And yet you use what the suspects say as YOUR source. You canít have it both ways.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
The difference is that I don't take anything they say literally and certainly don't treat any of it as a fact. It IS a fact, however, that Patsy has offered two different versions of what happened. And one contradicts the other. Which tells us we can't rely on the "official" version of their story. Which means we have no idea what went on that morning before the police arrived.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
John Ramsey Role 3 hr Blackstone Again 25
SBTC--Victory 5 hr Mary E 12
ICU2 's Child Trafficking 7 hr ICU2 158
Karr's Christmas Message 7 hr Steve Eller 14
The TV Room and the Blanket Sat mud honey 28
Snaps on Patsy's jacket? Sat mud honey 9
James Kolar book: Foreign Faction: Who really... (Jul '12) Sat Just Wondering 1,049
More from around the web