The "Touch DNA" is worthless.
Spice Pond

Mobile, AL

#451 Aug 19, 2013
Nobodyudno, I thought you might be interested in this, too. It was reported that the Ramseys included John Mark Karr's name on a list of people in the Atlanta area who the knew and suggested that LE investigate them. However, upon learning this, Lin Wood stated the report was incorrect and LE had agreed to remove Karr's name from that list.

However, I have this to dispute Lin Wood's claim:

"Karr was a teacher who once lived in Conyers, Ga., according to Wood. The attorney said the Ramseys gave police information about Karr before he was identified as a suspect.

"Wood would not say how the Ramseys knew Karr. But JonBenet was born in Atlanta in 1990, and the Ramseys lived in the Atlanta suburb of Dunwoody, about 30 miles northeast of Conyers, for several years before moving to Colorado in 1991."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

I have to wonder how Lin Wood now explains this contradiction.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#452 Aug 20, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming RDI, itís easy to think of reasons why the Ramseys would not want to dispose of the body.
But, a ransom note and a kidnapping ONLY explains a body disposed of. Body in the house = no kidnapping. If the Ramseys could not dispose of the body, then they needed to explain the body IN THE HOUSE.
Call an ambulance or take the body to the hospital, say I dunno what happened, we found her on the floor, bottom of the stairs. Call your lawyers, refuse to cooperate with BPD and get out of town. No police (initially, anyway), no crime scene, no self-incriminating evidence needlessly created, etcÖ
People donít seem to have any problem recognizing that a ransom note and a body in the house as being absurd. Positing parental involvement or cover-up does not alter this observation. Positing parental involvement or cover-up only makes it even more absurd.
..
AK
What you fail (or refuse) to realize that there would be many reasons, already described ad nauseum for the parents writing a ransom note with a body in the house

In your case, and I mean it as a compliment, you are bright enough to realize and understand all the explanations given over the years but your feelings and opinions on the case will not allow you to realize those explanations as viable in this case; absurd or not

The Ramseys had no choice but to stage this. They could not risk leaving the house with a body and in order to protect the culprit, did all the covering up and while absurd, the choices were limited at best and they made the choice that made the most sense to them at the time.

It worked very well for them
Steve Eller

Bronx, NY

#453 Aug 20, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
What you fail (or refuse) to realize that there would be many reasons, already described ad nauseum for the parents writing a ransom note with a body in the house
In your case, and I mean it as a compliment, you are bright enough to realize and understand all the explanations given over the years but your feelings and opinions on the case will not allow you to realize those explanations as viable in this case; absurd or not
The Ramseys had no choice but to stage this. They could not risk leaving the house with a body and in order to protect the culprit, did all the covering up and while absurd, the choices were limited at best and they made the choice that made the most sense to them at the time.
It worked very well for them
I am sorry Capricorn but AK is a contrarian hack posing as someone who is open to fairly assessing evidence pointing to the Ramsey's involvement in this heinous crime. In truth all he cares about is continuing his obnoxious defense of the Ramsey's the overwhelming amount of the evidence against them not withstanding.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#454 Aug 20, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
What you fail (or refuse) to realize that there would be many reasons, already described ad nauseum for the parents writing a ransom note with a body in the house
In your case, and I mean it as a compliment, you are bright enough to realize and understand all the explanations given over the years but your feelings and opinions on the case will not allow you to realize those explanations as viable in this case; absurd or not
The Ramseys had no choice but to stage this. They could not risk leaving the house with a body and in order to protect the culprit, did all the covering up and while absurd, the choices were limited at best and they made the choice that made the most sense to them at the time.
It worked very well for them
Hi Capricorn,
Yes, I have read and even debated some of these reasons proposed by some RDI. However, I donít think that I have ever understood them. I canít even imagine how anyone in such a position could arrive at such a decision. If there were no body, fine, I can understand that. Theyíd have to explain no body, and a ransom note/kidnapping explains that. This makes perfect sense and itís very easy to imagine how anyone in such a position could arrive at this decision.

But, there was a body in the house and that is what they would have needed to explain. It just does not make sense that they would even consider faking a kidnapping unless they also considered disposing of the body. This is the part that I cannot understand. A kidnapping does NOT explain a body in the house and they needed to explain a body in the house.

And, to say that they had no choice but to fake a kidnapping is not an explanation because it is not true.
Ö

AK

BrotherMoon

“Sandy Stranger killed JonBenet”

Since: Jan 08

Not Boulder, Co.

#455 Aug 20, 2013
There was no "they".
John had nothing to do with any of it.
Patsy didn't reason out the consequences of the body being found.
She played a game with herself and that is all that mattered.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#456 Aug 21, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Capricorn,
Yes, I have read and even debated some of these reasons proposed by some RDI. However, I donít think that I have ever understood them. I canít even imagine how anyone in such a position could arrive at such a decision. If there were no body, fine, I can understand that. Theyíd have to explain no body, and a ransom note/kidnapping explains that. This makes perfect sense and itís very easy to imagine how anyone in such a position could arrive at this decision.
But, there was a body in the house and that is what they would have needed to explain. It just does not make sense that they would even consider faking a kidnapping unless they also considered disposing of the body. This is the part that I cannot understand. A kidnapping does NOT explain a body in the house and they needed to explain a body in the house.
And, to say that they had no choice but to fake a kidnapping is not an explanation because it is not true.
Ö
AK
Hi AK,

I do say that they had no choice because they couldn't risk leaving the house with a body. The reasons have been stated many times but suffice it to say that anyone could have seen them, their car, etc. What if they got into an accident? There are a myriad of reasons why they wouldn't risk it.

That said, I can understand why those who defend the Ramseys cannot wrap their head around this but desperate times call for desperate measures.

They either would have had to tell the truth about whatever it was that happened or remove the body. Without removing the body, the only explanation would have been to try and explain the circumstances around a dead child. They weren't prepared to do that IMO in order to protect the person responsible, so they chose instead to do their best and hide the body in a remote area of the house and pretend it was a kidnapping.

We can just agree to disagree on this, along with most other things in this case :)
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#457 Aug 21, 2013
There also would have been far less contamination of the crime scene and the investigative protocols for a victim found murdered in her home would have been far less favorable to the Ramsey's.
Heloise

London, UK

#458 Aug 21, 2013
Some super stuff on this thread. Am busy so can't respond properly but I thought you may be interested in this new book which has been drawn to my attention. It covers the JBR case from a forensics point of view and appears, from the Amazon search content facility, to be highly doubtful about the untruder theory, casting doubt on the DNA evidence and being highly critical of Mary Lacy:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Criminalistics-Pearso...
Sorry if I have missed an existing discussion. Just call me dopey if so.
Heloise

London, UK

#459 Aug 21, 2013
Lol at my typo: 'untruder' - how very apt.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#460 Aug 21, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
There also would have been far less contamination of the crime scene and the investigative protocols for a victim found murdered in her home would have been far less favorable to the Ramsey's.
Exactly Steve

Once there is a body in the house, nobody would have been allowed in and the questioning would have begun and the sympathy factor would have been.....quite different

Yes, far less favorable to the Ramseys

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#461 Aug 21, 2013
Heloise wrote:
Some super stuff on this thread. Am busy so can't respond properly but I thought you may be interested in this new book which has been drawn to my attention. It covers the JBR case from a forensics point of view and appears, from the Amazon search content facility, to be highly doubtful about the untruder theory, casting doubt on the DNA evidence and being highly critical of Mary Lacy:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Criminalistics-Pearso...
Sorry if I have missed an existing discussion. Just call me dopey if so.
Hi Heloise,

Good to see you and thanks for the info on this book. I'm not surprised at the doubts and I absolutely love the "untruder" theory LOL

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#462 Aug 21, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AK,
I do say that they had no choice because they couldn't risk leaving the house with a body. The reasons have been stated many times but suffice it to say that anyone could have seen them, their car, etc. What if they got into an accident? There are a myriad of reasons why they wouldn't risk it.
That said, I can understand why those who defend the Ramseys cannot wrap their head around this but desperate times call for desperate measures.
They either would have had to tell the truth about whatever it was that happened or remove the body. Without removing the body, the only explanation would have been to try and explain the circumstances around a dead child. They weren't prepared to do that IMO in order to protect the person responsible, so they chose instead to do their best and hide the body in a remote area of the house and pretend it was a kidnapping.
We can just agree to disagree on this, along with most other things in this case :)
Like I said, itís very easy to imagine why they would (or could) not get rid of the body. We donít need to argue about that and it doesnít need to be explained. Not disposing of the body isnít the problem.

Explaining the body is the problem, and faking a kidnapping cannot Ė and, did not - explain that. It is not reasonable to believe that they would even consider such a thing, because it does not explain what they needed to explain.

I suppose some of this depends on what one thinks happened, and I donít know all the twists and turns of the various RDI theories, but I think most of them start with the head blow Ė I think i[Ďve seen it referred to as some sort of explosive encounter. So, thatís where I start. Head Blow! Bam! The kids down. They think sheís dead. Now what?

I can think of several things that they could have done that would not have involved the police, or the creation of self-incriminating evidence or even a crime scene.

It seems that everyone, both sides of the fence and in between understands that the body in the house and the ransom note are contradictory. These two things do not go together. We all know this. And, you can bet that the Ramseys would have known this, too. They may have been trying to cover up what really happened, but they still needed a cover up that would explain a body in the house.
Ö

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#463 Aug 21, 2013
Letís say your kid is dead, and you donít want anyone to know what happened, so maybe you decide to pretend that someone came into the house and killed her. Fine. The first thing that comes to mind, possibly the first thing that you do, is make it look like someone entered your home. Thatís the most important part, thatís the crucial thing. How can you expect anyone to believe that someone came into your home if thereís no evidence of a break-in?

The last thing you consider and even after considering still would not do is write a ransom note. Because a ransom note and a body in the house are contradictory! If the Ramseys wanted to blame this on an intruder then they needed to create intruder evidence and LIE.

So, thatís one option that doesnít involve a fake kidnapping. Of course, the more reasonable, defensible, easier managed and less risky option would have been to simply report or fake an accident. And, thereís always the truth (whatever RDI believe that that is), or a white lie truth (dad takes blame for son, etc). Options are one thing that they would have had plenty of, but faking a kidnapping was not one of them, because it is contradictory to what they would have needed to explain.
Ö

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#464 Aug 21, 2013
Heloise wrote:
Some super stuff on this thread. Am busy so can't respond properly but I thought you may be interested in this new book which has been drawn to my attention. It covers the JBR case from a forensics point of view and appears, from the Amazon search content facility, to be highly doubtful about the untruder theory, casting doubt on the DNA evidence and being highly critical of Mary Lacy:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Criminalistics-Pearso...
Sorry if I have missed an existing discussion. Just call me dopey if so.
Ouch. Thatís a pricey one! Not available at amazon.ca. Crap, this sounds interesting.
Ö

AK

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#465 Aug 21, 2013
It wasn't a dead body that needed to be 'explained'. Dead bodies are quite natural.

It was the dead body of a 6 year old that had a repeated history of being sexually abused and assaulted.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#466 Aug 22, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Letís say your kid is dead, and you donít want anyone to know what happened, so maybe you decide to pretend that someone came into the house and killed her. Fine. The first thing that comes to mind, possibly the first thing that you do, is make it look like someone entered your home. Thatís the most important part, thatís the crucial thing. How can you expect anyone to believe that someone came into your home if thereís no evidence of a break-in?
The last thing you consider and even after considering still would not do is write a ransom note. Because a ransom note and a body in the house are contradictory! If the Ramseys wanted to blame this on an intruder then they needed to create intruder evidence and LIE.
So, thatís one option that doesnít involve a fake kidnapping. Of course, the more reasonable, defensible, easier managed and less risky option would have been to simply report or fake an accident. And, thereís always the truth (whatever RDI believe that that is), or a white lie truth (dad takes blame for son, etc). Options are one thing that they would have had plenty of, but faking a kidnapping was not one of them, because it is contradictory to what they would have needed to explain.
Ö
AK
Nobody said, myself included, that they did it right if they wanted to cover up the "incident". Nobody, including myself said that it was well thought out at the time. We, as the public have the time to consider all the consequences of their actions and choices IF they were covering up for whatever reason (that isn't important for this issue)

By the time they would need to explain anything at all, the crime scene would have been trashed anyway, just like it was. Had they made it look like a break in by staging a broken lock, etc., you can bet your bottom dollar that not only would the Ramsey friends and neighbors not have been allowed in, but the Ramseys also would have been removed from the house.

There are many explanations and no, there is no need to argue, but wanted to mention again the many reasons that it could have happened just as it did with the Ramseys involved in this crime

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#467 Aug 22, 2013
nerma wrote:
It wasn't a dead body that needed to be 'explained'. Dead bodies are quite natural.
It was the dead body of a 6 year old that had a repeated history of being sexually abused and assaulted.
Excellent point

Explaining what may have happened telling the truth about her death, also would reveal the prior sexual abuse during autopsy and that would have required some explaining; something the Ramseys were not prepared to do
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#468 Aug 22, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Letís say your kid is dead, and you donít want anyone to know what happened, so maybe you decide to pretend that someone came into the house and killed her. Fine. The first thing that comes to mind, possibly the first thing that you do, is make it look like someone entered your home. Thatís the most important part, thatís the crucial thing. How can you expect anyone to believe that someone came into your home if thereís no evidence of a break-in?
The last thing you consider and even after considering still would not do is write a ransom note. Because a ransom note and a body in the house are contradictory! If the Ramseys wanted to blame this on an intruder then they needed to create intruder evidence and LIE.
So, thatís one option that doesnít involve a fake kidnapping. Of course, the more reasonable, defensible, easier managed and less risky option would have been to simply report or fake an accident. And, thereís always the truth (whatever RDI believe that that is), or a white lie truth (dad takes blame for son, etc). Options are one thing that they would have had plenty of, but faking a kidnapping was not one of them, because it is contradictory to what they would have needed to explain.
Ö
AK
Could it be that John was not originally involved in the cover up? Perhaps he was thinking to himself when he said aloud, "This was an inside job then." I think he wanted to believe there was no family involvement, but something just wasn't right. And if Burke did have a history of abuse toward his sister, and if Patsy had informed John, then I imagine it did not take long for him to connect the dots. But he would not to admit this to himself because it would shatter his life and sanity.

No one said that Patsy was the type of personality that would cover all the bases. In fact, it would appear that she tended toward the artistic/dramatic personality more than the pragmatic type. Besides, sometimes in a stressful situation, it is the simplest things that we tend to overlook when trying to deceive.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#469 Aug 22, 2013
Like the bugaboo pineapple.
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides, sometimes in a stressful situation, it is the simplest things that we tend to overlook when trying to deceive.
Spice Pond

Mobile, AL

#470 Aug 22, 2013
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Could it be that John was not originally involved in the cover up? Perhaps he was thinking to himself when he said aloud, "This was an inside job then." I think he wanted to believe there was no family involvement, but something just wasn't right. And if Burke did have a history of abuse toward his sister, and if Patsy had informed John, then I imagine it did not take long for him to connect the dots. But he would not to admit this to himself because it would shatter his life and sanity.
No one said that Patsy was the type of personality that would cover all the bases. In fact, it would appear that she tended toward the artistic/dramatic personality more than the pragmatic type. Besides, sometimes in a stressful situation, it is the simplest things that we tend to overlook when trying to deceive.
It seems untenable to me that there was an attempt at any sort of staging by anyone. Just looking at the crime scene as it is/was, can tell the story of what took place and I believe it was why John Ramsey exclaimed, "This was an inside job, then". But ever since someone uttered the word, "staging", that seems to be the only scenario considered.

However, there CAN be other considerations. From his article on cold cases in The Denver Post, Crime Reporter Kirk Mithell says this, in reference to Lou Smit:

"He examined the facts of the case, which seemed to suggest something other than a domestic violence incident.

"He said in his career he rarely came across a murder scene in which there was staging.

ď'I saw maybe two cases in my career,' he said."

http://blogs.denverpost.com/coldcases/2012/06...

Regardless of one's opinion of Lou Smit, one should believe that in this case since we know of his extensive background in the investigation of over 200 murder cases throughout his career, he knows what he's talking about.

What I believe is that this entire case is being blown up to make it appear more than what it is. And IMO the "staging" is an invention to make the scene fit the supposition that the parents were covering up for Burke.

But what if there WAS no "staging"? In looking at the crime for what it really is, it was committed by a brutal, evil madman who had no qualms when it came to torturing and killing a child. In his crazed efforts to seek his gratification, everything he did that was later construed as staging in order to cover up Burke's alleged involvement was evidence of the sheer brutality of his actions. And the complete lack of civility and normalcy can only be attributed to someone whose brain is/was warped and twisted, creating a mind that was set upon only one thing: his selfish desire for his evil gratification.

So when you stated, "I think he wanted to believe there was no family involvement, but something just wasn't right. And if Burke did have a history of abuse toward his sister, and if Patsy had informed John, then I imagine it did not take long for him to connect the dots. But he would not to admit this to himself because it would shatter his life and sanity", I believe you are on the right track. Except that JR was not, IMO, relating his thought to Burke.

Perhaps things he had learned about OTHER family CONNECTIONS made him realize that matters had culminated in the horrible event that would shatter his existence and his own sanity.

So there will be no misunderstanding, I want to emphasize that this is my opinion and only my opinion.

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
News Patsy Ramsey Dies After Battle With Ovarian Cancer (Jun '06) 8 min Texxy 21
Vasectomy 18 min detectress 9
Jameson's Windfall (May '07) 3 hr robert 791
Music for the soul 4 hr Steve Eller 252
GSLDPD99178617 - the DNA that matters! 4 hr Right44 149
Jameson's latest stunt... 4 hr Jolamom 53
Head Blow and Strangulation (Feb '15) 5 hr Texxy 80
Censorship re: Ramsey Case? 6 hr Steve Eller 46
More from around the web