Why leave a ransom note but not take ...

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#170 Dec 16, 2013
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I'm pleased to see you recognize the existence of that circle of contradictions around which so many have been revolving for too many years now. But my intention is to break that circle, to break through to the truth. Because someone actually DID kill JonBenet, it's not a game of Clue. And the strategy I decided to use was, first, to ignore everything that was not an established fact and then work from there using logical inference. It's a fact that Patsy called 911. It is NOT a fact that John told her to make the call. It is NOT a fact that he wanted her to make it. As you recognize yourself, it is illogical to assume they would both agree to make that call if both were involved in the coverup. Thus, if there WAS a coverup and the kidnapping WAS staged, then we have no choice but to conclude that one of them wanted the call made and the other did not. That's the line of reasoning I've chosen to take. And if you read my blog you'll see that by following that line you are lead inexorably to the guilty party, which has to be John.
And if you read further in my blog you'll see very clearly that John lied, which just reinforces what has already been inferred, but should also make it crystal clear even to you that there was no intruder. It's not only that no intruder theory makes sense but that John's lies make it clear that he staged a breakin at the basement window and if he staged a breakin then obviously the "intruder" was part of the coverup. I invite you to go to the blog, read and comment with any doubts or questions you might have. Many have already done so and I've never had a problem answering their questions.
We can also say, it is not a fact that Mr Ramsey told Mrs Ramsey to not make the call; it is not a fact that Mr Ramsey didn’t want that call made. We can say a lot of things are not facts.

We can say that it is a fact Mrs Ramsey made the call.

It is also a fact that Mr Ramsey did not prevent that call from being made.

It may be a fact that there are different versions regarding how that call came to be made, but it is also a fact that there are NO versions in which the Ramseys engaged in any disagreement, discussion or debate regarding that call being made. It is as if Mr and Mrs Ramsey were in agreement on the matter and it is a fact that all the versions show this.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#171 Dec 16, 2013
docG wrote:
One more point, anti-K, before I respond to this next post. You ask: what if John actually did tell Patsy to make that call, wouldn't that mean you are wrong? And that might sound very reasonable. But there is in fact nothing to be gained by worrying over "what ifs". You might as well ask, "what if John didn't kill JonBenet and didn't write the ransom note, wouldn't that mean you are wrong"? The bottom line is that we have to work on the basis of what we know to be the facts, NOT on the basis of what might possibly have happened or possibly not happened.
<quoted text>
Yes, and they were clearly mistaken.
<quoted text>
The note expresses this with crystal clarity. The call is to come "tomorrow" and if "tomorrow" actually meant "today" then how could John possibly have raised the ransom prior to 8AM? And how could he have been rested? And how could they "monitor" him getting the money early? The assumption that the call was to be expected THAT morning is a perfect example of how people see what they expect to see. And the same has gone for the case as a whole. People fail to see the obvious because it's not what they expect, so they just don't look there.
<quoted text>
Good point. It's possible it WAS in the trunk initially and that he moved it into the windowless room out of fear the police would search the car and find it there. Or it's possible he was planning on getting Patsy and Burke out of the house to stay with friends, for their own safety while he dealt with the "kidnappers." Or it's possible he was just hoping he could sneak it into the car trunk when Patsy was distracted. There would have been lots of possibilities.
.
<quoted text>
Exactly. But you have to realize that my theories about the note are very frankly speculation. I admit it. It's not the note that leads us to the killer. But once we understand who the killer is, THEN we can use that knowledge to help us understand the note. And since as you say, the person who wrote it would not want it falling into the hands of the police, then it's not difficult to conclude that John would have figured out a way to destroy it before they could get their hands on it.
Think about this a bit. Because whoever wrote that note would have been handing potentially devastating evidence over to the authorities. That's just as true of an intruder as one of the Ramseys. However, it was John and only John who would have had an excuse to destroy it before they could get their hands on it. My theory explains how he could have planned it.
Are you saying that Mr Ramsey may have moved the body from the car and into the basement AFTER the police arrived because he was afraid that they might find it there? I hope not.

If Mr Ramsey planned to get rid of the body then there is no reason for it to be in the basement and every reason for it being in the trunk of the car. However, it is a fact that the body was not in the trunk of the car and it is a fact that the body was in the basement.

The fact that Mr Ramsey did not prevent the 911 call and the fact that the body was in the basement disprove your theory.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#172 Dec 16, 2013
docG wrote:
One more point, anti-K, before I respond to this next post. You ask: what if John actually did tell Patsy to make that call, wouldn't that mean you are wrong? And that might sound very reasonable. But there is in fact nothing to be gained by worrying over "what ifs". You might as well ask, "what if John didn't kill JonBenet and didn't write the ransom note, wouldn't that mean you are wrong"? The bottom line is that we have to work on the basis of what we know to be the facts, NOT on the basis of what might possibly have happened or possibly not happened.
<quoted text>
Yes, and they were clearly mistaken.
<quoted text>
The note expresses this with crystal clarity. The call is to come "tomorrow" and if "tomorrow" actually meant "today" then how could John possibly have raised the ransom prior to 8AM? And how could he have been rested? And how could they "monitor" him getting the money early? The assumption that the call was to be expected THAT morning is a perfect example of how people see what they expect to see. And the same has gone for the case as a whole. People fail to see the obvious because it's not what they expect, so they just don't look there.
<quoted text>
Good point. It's possible it WAS in the trunk initially and that he moved it into the windowless room out of fear the police would search the car and find it there. Or it's possible he was planning on getting Patsy and Burke out of the house to stay with friends, for their own safety while he dealt with the "kidnappers." Or it's possible he was just hoping he could sneak it into the car trunk when Patsy was distracted. There would have been lots of possibilities.
.
<quoted text>
Exactly. But you have to realize that my theories about the note are very frankly speculation. I admit it. It's not the note that leads us to the killer. But once we understand who the killer is, THEN we can use that knowledge to help us understand the note. And since as you say, the person who wrote it would not want it falling into the hands of the police, then it's not difficult to conclude that John would have figured out a way to destroy it before they could get their hands on it.
Think about this a bit. Because whoever wrote that note would have been handing potentially devastating evidence over to the authorities. That's just as true of an intruder as one of the Ramseys. However, it was John and only John who would have had an excuse to destroy it before they could get their hands on it. My theory explains how he could have planned it.
The risk for a Ramsey would have been incredible,“potentially devastating” indeed! The risk for someone else, someone who considered himself to be outside of any reasonably constructed suspect circle would have been negligible.

It is a fact – I know you like facts - that criminals, killers, blackmailers, bombers, etc, etc have intentionally created self-incriminating evidence of this exact type (handwriting/linguistic), and have done so knowing that investigators would be examining and analyzing it. For the most part these were people who believed that they would never be suspected, and hence never investigated.

It is not reasonable to believe that a Ramsey would do such a thing. It is reasonable to believe that someone would if they believed themselves to be beyond suspicion/investigation.
...

AK
Steve Eller

Bronx, NY

#173 Dec 16, 2013
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
All they'd really have needed to do would be to make a phone call saying something had come up and they can't discuss it right now. I don't see why that would have rained friends and neighbors down on them. Your manufacturing a problem where none exists. In any case I think John would have wanted some friends there anyhow, so he could show them the note and also so they could pick up Patsy and Burke and take them to "safety" while he dealt w/ the kidnappers.
As for transporting a dead body there is a time honored method for that: the trunk of your car. The garage was attached to the house so no one would have seen him move it. And it wouldn't matter if his car was detected because he was "delivering the ransom."
Sorry Doc G but I think you're discarding large parts of reality in order to manufacture a theory whole. A family doesn't just cancel a planned second Christmas because "something came up" without raising a bunch of red flags. John Andrew and Melinda Ramsey were also flying to Michigan for the celebration. Half of Boulder probably knew about the Ramseys planned trip. If they cancelled the trip and spent the next day in Boulder someone would have asked about JonBenet's whereabouts. DNA evidence would have been in trunk of car, what if someone saw John Ramsey driving at night. Time line would have been difficult to falsify. Time of death might have been established. Remember that many of the incriminating and suspicious pieces of evidence give the Ramseys some benefit of the doubt because the Ramseys were in the House. The intruder theory has basically been ripped to shreds because of its implausibility, imagine how unlikely for even a political hack like Hunter it would have been to accept that a intruder broke into the house leaving no evidence all while dragging out a dead body in the middle of the night. I think the Ramseys were plotting together early on.
docG

Pittsburgh, PA

#174 Dec 16, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The risk for a Ramsey would have been incredible,“potentially devastating” indeed! The risk for someone else, someone who considered himself to be outside of any reasonably constructed suspect circle would have been negligible.
It is a fact – I know you like facts - that criminals, killers, blackmailers, bombers, etc, etc have intentionally created self-incriminating evidence of this exact type (handwriting/linguistic), and have done so knowing that investigators would be examining and analyzing it. For the most part these were people who believed that they would never be suspected, and hence never investigated.
It is not reasonable to believe that a Ramsey would do such a thing. It is reasonable to believe that someone would if they believed themselves to be beyond suspicion/investigation.
...
AK
We're talking about someone who could only have entered with a key. We're talking about someone who knew about John's $118,000 bonus amount. We're talking about someone who taunted John, expressing extreme personal resentment. We're talking about someone who knew that Patsy liked to use the phrase "good southern common sense." We're talking about someone who knew that Patsy descended that particular staircase first thing in the morning. We're talking about someone who knew where the obscure windowless room was located, and where the latch was.

How could such a person consider himself beyond suspicion? If kidnapping was his intention he would have prepared his note in advance, using a printer or magazine lettering cutouts. He would NOT have waited until he was inside the house to hand print a 2 1/2 page note. The intruder theory is a fairy tale, it's not just a red herring, it's the mother of all red herrings.
docG

Pittsburgh, PA

#175 Dec 16, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the Ramseys were plotting together early on.
Plotting what? A sexual assault? A kidnapping? An attempt to frame John for the murder of his daughter? Which is it? Or were they staging all three, just in case one wasn't enough? And what sort of motive do you have in mind? Rage over bedwetting? Please.

You're unwilling to accept that the Ramseys could have canceled a trip, but you ARE willing to accept that Patsy killed her daughter by "accident"? And shoved a paintbrush handle into her vagina to stage an assault? Followed by ligature strangulation to stage - what??? Or that nine year old Burke was sexually abusing his six year old sister and then decided to bludgeon and strangle her? And her parents were willing to risk the electric chair to "protect" him?

I suggest you work a bit on your skepticism, because it could use some fine tuning.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#176 Dec 17, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not easy to cancel a plane trip without anyone noticing. Moreover, all the other relatives were gathering in Charlevoix. It is likely that friends neighbors would be stopping by the Ramseys enquiring about whoever it is that was supposed to be sick. 24 hours passing with JonBenet missing and no one having seen her would have sent off many red flags. We also need to consider the difficulties in transporting a dead body without being seen or otherwise detected, not to mention the possibility of leaving behind more incriminating evidence during the process.
Hi Steve,

I agree with you about canceling the trip and all the other extras that would be involved in trying to pull this off; inclusive of hiding the body, going to the bank, etc., etc. and pretending they were involved in a kidnapping for all that time before the police were called and then finding a dead body later on.

Imagine what THEY would have to be doing for all the time it would need before the police were called. IF one does not consider Burke as a suspect, there is also that little issue of explaining to HIM why they aren't leaving for their trip and WHERE IS JBR??????????

Lots of things are feasible on paper and in theory, but we have to remember that we are not dealing with trained and experienced hit men or gangsters. The Ramseys were in crisis and we are talking about John, who hid in his house while Patsy lied to his lady friend years back. It's hardly the type of man who would be a mastermind in pulling something like this off and especially since HE and not Patsy would have to be in charge of all of it in this theory.

JOHN would have to not only go to the bank with a dead child in his trunk or at the very least, in his car and then also, so we don't forget the important part, has to find a spot to hide the body UNSEEN by anyone. Would he have just dumped her along the highway? Would he have brought a shovel and buried her? Would EITHER parent dump her where the animals would get to her?

I don't believe that any of that could happen or was even a plan in anyone's mind
Steve Eller

Bronx, NY

#177 Dec 17, 2013
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
Plotting what? A sexual assault? A kidnapping? An attempt to frame John for the murder of his daughter? Which is it? Or were they staging all three, just in case one wasn't enough? And what sort of motive do you have in mind? Rage over bedwetting? Please.
You're unwilling to accept that the Ramseys could have canceled a trip, but you ARE willing to accept that Patsy killed her daughter by "accident"? And shoved a paintbrush handle into her vagina to stage an assault? Followed by ligature strangulation to stage - what??? Or that nine year old Burke was sexually abusing his six year old sister and then decided to bludgeon and strangle her? And her parents were willing to risk the electric chair to "protect" him?
I suggest you work a bit on your skepticism, because it could use some fine tuning.
As horrific as the possible motives and actions of the Ramseys may have been they are not nearly as implausible as cancelling a trip on about an hours notice minus one child to explain, a decomposing body and assuming no one asks about the missing child having to move the body without being noticed by anyone and not leaving any incriminating traces of evidence in the car.
Steve Eller

Bronx, NY

#178 Dec 17, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Steve,
I agree with you about canceling the trip and all the other extras that would be involved in trying to pull this off; inclusive of hiding the body, going to the bank, etc., etc. and pretending they were involved in a kidnapping for all that time before the police were called and then finding a dead body later on.
Imagine what THEY would have to be doing for all the time it would need before the police were called. IF one does not consider Burke as a suspect, there is also that little issue of explaining to HIM why they aren't leaving for their trip and WHERE IS JBR??????????
Lots of things are feasible on paper and in theory, but we have to remember that we are not dealing with trained and experienced hit men or gangsters. The Ramseys were in crisis and we are talking about John, who hid in his house while Patsy lied to his lady friend years back. It's hardly the type of man who would be a mastermind in pulling something like this off and especially since HE and not Patsy would have to be in charge of all of it in this theory.
JOHN would have to not only go to the bank with a dead child in his trunk or at the very least, in his car and then also, so we don't forget the important part, has to find a spot to hide the body UNSEEN by anyone. Would he have just dumped her along the highway? Would he have brought a shovel and buried her? Would EITHER parent dump her where the animals would get to her?
I don't believe that any of that could happen or was even a plan in anyone's mind
Thanks Capricorn. Exactly.
docG

Pittsburgh, PA

#179 Dec 17, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
As horrific as the possible motives and actions of the Ramseys may have been they are not nearly as implausible as cancelling a trip on about an hours notice minus one child to explain, a decomposing body and assuming no one asks about the missing child having to move the body without being noticed by anyone and not leaving any incriminating traces of evidence in the car.
OK one more time and then I'm outa here. You don't write a phoney ransom note to explain the presence of a dead body in your basement. You write such a note to explain why your child is missing from the home. The Ramsey "ransom" note is obviously part of a plan. It was carefully crafted, not just thrown together. Note the consistent spacing between words and the strict adherence to the left margin. Note also that the note is so carefully laid out that it contains not one single hyphenated word. It has a clear beginning, middle and ending. It contains very specific warnings and instructions. In other words, it was written with a clear purpose in mind, not just thrown together to confuse the police.

If Patsy wrote it, as I assume you believe, then there is no way she'd have wanted to call 911 at that time. With the body still in the house, the note no longer explains anything and in fact looks like what it is: staging. Nor is there any reason she'd have wanted to give the police a patently phoney note written in her own hand.

Under such circumstances, we have no choice but to conclude that the note was part of a plan that involved getting rid of the body PRIOR to calling the police.(A plan that might have worked is outlined in some detail on my blog, but that's mainly speculation -- the actual plan may have been somewhat different, who knows?) And while it might be true that there would be some serious hurdles to overcome in carrying out such a plan (though to my mind the hurdles you mention are grossly exaggerated), the note makes no sense at all unless that was indeed the plan. My theory not only respects the facts and the logic behind those facts, but it also explains the note. You can pick as much as you like over certain details that bother you, but there is nothing in any of those details that contradicts the fundamental logic of the case.

Given the above, there is no way Patsy would have made that call unless she were completely innocent. You can argue all you like about cancelling travel plans, or John preventing Patsy from making the call, etc., but that doesn't change either the facts or the logic.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#180 Dec 17, 2013
Only in your world does it not make sense.

Then again, in your world there is this which is holding you back from seeing everything clearly. I mean no disrespect because I like reading what you have to say and getting your take on things, but in my world, tunnel vision never wins in the end.

"“How can that be? DocG popular? No one in the whole wide world buys his theory. No one anywhere thinks he's solved this case. Everyone on all the forums gets really irritated by him. He is insulted regularly everywhere he goes. And can't even post on certain fora anymore. Banned! Jameson is the only one soft hearted and generous enough to tolerate this obnoxious and obviously lame brained character. And even SHE, from time to time, loses patience with him, lovable though he may be.:-) There is only one problem with this depressing and disheartening picture: there is NO ONE whom more people following this case agree with than docG. In fact, far more people on all the fora agree with docG than ANYONE else. That would make him (me) by far the most popular person now posting ANYWHERE in Ramseyland.”
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not alone in your conviction that John didn't write the note. If he didn't, however, then the case makes no sense at all and we might just as well send it to the Twilight Zone.
The Truth Hurts

Southfield, MI

#181 Dec 17, 2013
Delta88 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure about that?
http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/m...
Yes.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#183 Dec 17, 2013
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
We're talking about someone who could only have entered with a key. We're talking about someone who knew about John's $118,000 bonus amount. We're talking about someone who taunted John, expressing extreme personal resentment. We're talking about someone who knew that Patsy liked to use the phrase "good southern common sense." We're talking about someone who knew that Patsy descended that particular staircase first thing in the morning. We're talking about someone who knew where the obscure windowless room was located, and where the latch was.
How could such a person consider himself beyond suspicion? If kidnapping was his intention he would have prepared his note in advance, using a printer or magazine lettering cutouts. He would NOT have waited until he was inside the house to hand print a 2 1/2 page note. The intruder theory is a fairy tale, it's not just a red herring, it's the mother of all red herrings.
You are assuming that all the doors were locked.

This has not been established. It is NOT a fact. There are differing accounts, and even if we have Mr Ramsey saying that all the doors were locked it remains that he could have been wrong. Did the police go around and check all the doors and did they find them all locked? I don’t know, but supposedly, there is a police report saying that 7 doors/windows were found unlocked that morning.

From all accounts, it seems that the door joining house and garage was routinely left unlocked. Was it left unlocked that night? If so, then all an intruder needed to do was make his way into the garage, and then exit via the garage.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#184 Dec 17, 2013
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
We're talking about someone who could only have entered with a key. We're talking about someone who knew about John's $118,000 bonus amount. We're talking about someone who taunted John, expressing extreme personal resentment. We're talking about someone who knew that Patsy liked to use the phrase "good southern common sense." We're talking about someone who knew that Patsy descended that particular staircase first thing in the morning. We're talking about someone who knew where the obscure windowless room was located, and where the latch was.
How could such a person consider himself beyond suspicion? If kidnapping was his intention he would have prepared his note in advance, using a printer or magazine lettering cutouts. He would NOT have waited until he was inside the house to hand print a 2 1/2 page note. The intruder theory is a fairy tale, it's not just a red herring, it's the mother of all red herrings.
You are assuming that 118 is a reference to Mr Ramsey’s bonus amount. This is not a fact.

You’re assuming that the author the phrase "good southern common sense" was uniquely used by Mrs Ramsey and that the author was aware that Mrs Ramsey liked to use the phrase.

You’re assuming that resentment, etc towards Mr Ramsey means that Mr Ramsey knew the author (and/or vice versa).

You’re assuming that he left the note on the stairs because he knew that Mrs Ramsey routinely used those stairs first thing in the morning. You’re assuming that he knew that there was a second set of stairs.

You’re assuming that he knew about the room and latch.

You should stop with all the assumptions and stick with the facts: it is a fact Mrs Ramsey made the call. It is a fact that Mr Ramsey did not prevent that call from being made. It is also a fact that there are NO versions of how the call came to be made in which the Ramseys engaged in any disagreement, discussion or debate regarding that call being made. It is as if Mr and Mrs Ramsey were in agreement on the matter and it is a fact that all the versions show this. Therefore, since no one who fakes a kidnapping would ever call the police before disposing of the body, the Ramseys must be eliminated.
...

AK

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#185 Dec 18, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
You are assuming that 118 is a reference to Mr Ramsey’s bonus amount. This is not a fact.
You’re assuming that the author the phrase "good southern common sense" was uniquely used by Mrs Ramsey and that the author was aware that Mrs Ramsey liked to use the phrase.
You’re assuming that resentment, etc towards Mr Ramsey means that Mr Ramsey knew the author (and/or vice versa).
You’re assuming that he left the note on the stairs because he knew that Mrs Ramsey routinely used those stairs first thing in the morning. You’re assuming that he knew that there was a second set of stairs.
You’re assuming that he knew about the room and latch.
You should stop with all the assumptions and stick with the facts: it is a fact Mrs Ramsey made the call. It is a fact that Mr Ramsey did not prevent that call from being made. It is also a fact that there are NO versions of how the call came to be made in which the Ramseys engaged in any disagreement, discussion or debate regarding that call being made. It is as if Mr and Mrs Ramsey were in agreement on the matter and it is a fact that all the versions show this. Therefore, since no one who fakes a kidnapping would ever call the police before disposing of the body, the Ramseys must be eliminated.
...
AK
There is no logic used in the composition of your last paragraph. I have to get to work, but I will be back later to comment on this post. You are totally making assumptions in this post and yet asking others to refrain from doing so. Double standard AK.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#186 Dec 18, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no logic used in the composition of your last paragraph. I have to get to work, but I will be back later to comment on this post. You are totally making assumptions in this post and yet asking others to refrain from doing so. Double standard AK.
Then you haven’t been following the conversation!
This was specifically addressed to Docg, the logic is his (it is sound); but Docg claims to only use the facts and continually accuses others of making assumptions.
...

AK

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#187 Dec 18, 2013
Hey AK,

I numbered the paragraphs in the post I am quoting so it would be easier for me to address the different issues.(There was no intent/action taken by me to change the content/context of anything in your quote).

1~We have no way of knowing if that is a fact or not a fact. We weren’t there to hear/see/be a part of any conversations.

2~Do we know for sure John didn’t dial the phone and thrust the receiver into Patsy’s hands?

3~Then by this same token, is it also a fact that (a)Mr Ramsey didn’t make an attempt to prevent the call from being made? Or did he make the attempt and fail?(b) Mr Ramsey encouraged or didn’t encourage Mrs Ramsey to make the call?

4~How can you source this alleged “fact”? Did you hear or witness the conversations in person?

5~Your opinion, not a fact.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
(1)We can also say, it is not a fact that Mr Ramsey told Mrs Ramsey to not make the call; it is not a fact that Mr Ramsey didn’t want that call made. We can say a lot of things are not facts.
(2)We can say that it is a fact Mrs Ramsey made the call.
(3)It is also a fact that Mr Ramsey did not prevent that call from being made.
(4)It may be a fact that there are different versions regarding how that call came to be made, but it is also a fact that there are NO versions in which the Ramseys engaged in any disagreement, discussion or debate regarding that call being made.
(5) It is as if Mr and Mrs Ramsey were in agreement on the matter and it is a fact that all the versions show this.
...
AK

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#188 Dec 18, 2013
Unless your answer was written in code, then the “point” needn’t be specific to one person. I have read every word of this thread, even when I watched some of you floundering and almost drowning, I persevered, grabbed hold of a rope so I wouldn’t get on the slippery slide, and made it to the end, LOL.

You and docG are both making assumptions left and right and you are both calling the results ‘fact’, each to make your own point and to support your own theory.

Saying something 20 times in a row doesn’t make it a fact (reminiscent of Jams) and saying the ‘same’ thing in 10 different ways doesn’t make it one either.

Neither one of you use logic without assumption, ergo it cannot be called fact.

A theory is any body of ideas in science. It does not mean a guess or hypothesis. If you believe a "theory" is unproven, don't drive across any bridges. The engineers used Stress Theory to design the bridge.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you haven’t been following the conversation!
This was specifically addressed to Docg, the logic is his (it is sound); but Docg claims to only use the facts and continually accuses others of making assumptions.
...
AK
Taylur

Jefferson City, MO

#189 Dec 18, 2013
Oh my oh my. Intruder theorists have yet to debunk why the note was left in the first place. In retort to the question why the Ramsey's didn't dispose of the body, why wouldn't the kidnappers? I find it incredibly difficult to believe that someone would go to the trouble of breaking into the Ramsey home, taking JB from her bed, molesting her, causing the skull fracture and strangling her, only to leave the body within the home? That doesn't make sense to me. Why write a ransom note for someone who is already killed? Furthermore why write a ransom note before kidnapping inside the victims home? Why would the intruder kill her within the home? Why did they keep her in the home at all? The intruder theory has more questions than answers.

As to why the Ramsey's didn't dispose of the body, I believe that in their state of mind, IF they had in fact killed their daughter, they would not have been thinking clearly. What does a child do when they spill grape juice on the carpet? They cover it up.

Oh and by the way, Anti-K, your earlier statements about the pineapple were incorrect. Burke and Patsy's fingerprints were found on the bowl of pineapple. If the family was innocent, why lie? I understand that they were under scrutiny by the media coverage, but lying is no way to prove your innocence.

I'm not saying I have definitive proof of the killer, I'm just giving the input I have developed with my own profile of the killer and the evidence surrounding the case. There are open ends on both sides of field here.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#190 Dec 18, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Hey AK,
I numbered the paragraphs in the post I am quoting so it would be easier for me to address the different issues.(There was no intent/action taken by me to change the content/context of anything in your quote).
1~We have no way of knowing if that is a fact or not a fact. We weren’t there to hear/see/be a part of any conversations.
2~Do we know for sure John didn’t dial the phone and thrust the receiver into Patsy’s hands?
3~Then by this same token, is it also a fact that (a)Mr Ramsey didn’t make an attempt to prevent the call from being made? Or did he make the attempt and fail?(b) Mr Ramsey encouraged or didn’t encourage Mrs Ramsey to make the call?
4~How can you source this alleged “fact”? Did you hear or witness the conversations in person?
5~Your opinion, not a fact.
<quoted text>
1) A fact is something that is known to be true. If I say that something is NOT a fact, than I am saying that something is NOT known to be true. It is NOT known to be true Mr Ramsey told Mrs Ramsey to not make the call. So, I think you and I are saying more or less the same thing.

2) It is a fact - known to be true - that Mrs Ramsey called 911. Someone else could have dialed the phone for her or forced her to make the call but this does not change the fact that we know that she made the call.

3) I t is also a fact that Mr Ramsey did not prevent that call from being made. He may have tried to prevent it, but if he did try, he failed. The call was made.

4) Of course, I am referring to known/public versions. That should go without saying! So, that’s the source. Good grief. Do you know of a version that has the Ramseys engaged in any disagreement, discussion or debate regarding that call being made? If you do, than you can prove me wrong on this point.

5) It is a fact that all version describe how the call came to be made as if Mr and Mrs Ramsey were in agreement on the matter. If you know of a version that shows that they disagreed on making the call, than you can prove me wrong.
...

AK

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
Anyone believe the ramseys didn't do the crime?? 1 hr Sheriff Wydell 195
Burke Ramsey- INNOCENT victim of BORG 2 hr Stoned luck aka l... 50
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 2 hr Stoned luck aka l... 536
20th anniversary: JonBenet Ramsey case 2 hr candy 36
Burke Ramsey's 1998 interview on Ramsey case 3 hr Stoned luck aka l... 6
Dr Phils credibility 4 hr Stoned luck aka l... 15
Long List of Red Herrings in the JBR case (Jan '16) 4 hr Stoned luck aka l... 104
Burke to speak on Dr. Phil show 7 hr Stoned luck aka l... 92
More from around the web