Discussion: Has anyone followed JonBenet Ramsey's Case? - Page 2

getback

Quote:

Originally posted by Staryu

omg why is he so smiley

because he killed her, duh?

DerpGa

her brother is creepy

Koons

Wasn't it confirmed it was all a coverup and she didn't actually die and is now a famous singer?

Katy something?

jeonha

Quote:

Originally posted by Koons

Wasn't it confirmed it was all a coverup and she didn't actually die and is now a famous singer?

Katy something?

Katy Perry.

On the topic, the police cleared her parents as they didn't find enough evidence. The murder scene was well played. It's either one of the 3 of them killed the kid and the 2 are covering for the other; it's a total family participation. Mess. I've read somewhere the ransom note was likely written by the mom because of penmanship similarities and the paper comes from the pad found in the mother's bedroom.

The intruder theory is a diff theory tho, but still with holes, like the family theory.

Frogger17

This blog provides a convincing solution to the entire affair, sans the media circus surrounding the case:

http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/...se-solved.html

Quote:

Just The Facts, Ma'am

The JonBenet Ramsey case is both intriguing and extremely deceptive. On the surface it seems incredibly convoluted and complex. And in fact, if our intention is to recreate exactly what happened on that fateful night, we will indeed be faced with an almost intractable dilemma. On the other hand, if our intention is simply to solve it, i.e. point our finger at the murderer, the case is remarkably simple. All that's necessary is to pay attention to what we know, i.e., the facts -- and, for the moment at least, not let ourselves get distracted by all the rest, i.e., what the various principals in the case may or may not have reported; what the various "experts" and profilers have asserted; the many opinions offered by all and sundry regarding the personalities, quirks and foibles of Patsy, John, Burke and any number of the many others who have, to their misfortune, gotten caught up in the Ramsey web.

Fact: early on the morning of Dec. 26, 1996, a 911 call was placed by Patsy Ramsey, reporting that her daughter, JonBenet, was missing and that a ransom note had been found.

Fact: when the police arrived at the Ramsey home, they were informed, by John, that he had checked all the doors affording entry to the house and all were locked. A policeman checked to be sure and confirmed that indeed all the doors were locked. Upon checking the rest of the house, including a suspicious looking basement window, they concluded that "there were no signs of forced entry." Indeed, while the window contained a broken pane, none of the considerable dust and grime on the window frame showed any sign of a disturbance. Moreover, there was an undisturbed spider web on the grate leading into the window well, and police found no sign of footprints in the light coating of snow in the adjoining yard.

Fact: the ransom note, addressed to John, warned him that his daughter would be beheaded if the police were called. The note also instructed him to withdraw $118,000 from his bank account and to expect a call "tomorrow" between 8 and 10 am.

Fact: a few hours after the police arrived, John Ramsey suddenly shouted and appeared carrying the body of his daughter. He claimed he had found her in a small basement room, near the suspiciously broken window. Earlier that morning, however, his friend Fleet White, had looked into that room and claimed to have seen nothing unusual.

Fact: upon close examination, it was determined that the ransom note had been written on paper from one of Patsy's own notepads. The ink was consistent with ink from one of Patsy's Sharpie pens. It was further determined that there was no sign of an intruder having been present inside the home, nothing from outside could be found, nor was there anything missing.

We can stop right here. We already have enough information to tell us who committed the crime. In the following post, for the benefit of those unable to add 2 plus 2, I'll solve it. But, of course, that won't be nearly enough. Because, as I know from bitter experience as a regular participant in many of the old JonBenet Internet forums, hardly anyone following the case is willing to accept a conclusion based solely on the most obvious and indisputable facts. In my view, they've been distracted or even, very possibly, deliberately misled, by a whole range of smoke and mirrors tossed up in this case, partly by the culprit, but also due to the very odd and in fact bizarre nature of the investigation itself. So solving the case will only be the beginning. During the course of this blog, I'll be laying out more of the details and explaining some of my theories regarding what happened and why.

Quote:

Case Solved

Before proceeding it's important that I ask my readers to temporarily put everything they've ever read or even thought about this case out of their minds. As I see it, it's the case as a whole, as it developed over months and years, that's confusing, while the identity of the murderer was, or should have been, clear from the start. I'm not asking anyone to agree. In fact I'd be surprised if many did, because admittedly my take on this case is very different from that of just about anyone else. But I am asking you to open your minds and make a sincere attempt, at least for now, to see with fresh eyes.

Taking all the facts together, as presented in the previous post, we can safely conclude there was no intruder. Kolar's new book will, as I understand it, present new evidence debunking certain aspects of the so-called "intruder theory," and as much as I welcome the book and look forward to reading it, as I see it there was never any basis whatsoever for such a theory. It should have been clear from day one that no intruder could have been present in that home on the night of the murder.

First, there was no means for an intruder to enter or leave. As reported by John and confirmed by the police, all the outside doors were locked. All the windows were either locked or barred, with one exception, the notorious broken basement window we've read so much about. I have my own ideas about that window and what it might mean, but for now neither my theory nor anyone else's is relevant. As reported by the police, and clearly evident from examining photos taken the morning after the murder (supplemented by the new video released in association with Kolar's book), there is no sign of disturbance anywhere on the window frame or in fact anywhere in the well or even the grate over the well. Clearly no one had entered or left via that window.

Second, there was no sign of an intruder anywhere on the premises. Attempts have been made to identify such signs, but in literally every case they can be, and have been, explained as innocent artifacts already in the home prior to the crime.

Third, there was no sign that anything had either been introduced into the house or taken from it. Literally everything associated with the crime, from the stick used for the "garotte" to the ransom note itself was identified very early on as originating in the Ramsey household.

Fourth, there was no reason for any intruder, either a kidnapper, a child molester, someone "out to get" John or to frame John, etc., etc., to leave a note behind in his own handwriting, providing investigators with evidence that could be used against him. Such a note could easily have been prepared in advance, printed on a typewriter or computer printer, but that isn't what was found. Nor, if this was a "kidnapping gone wrong," as prosecutor Lacy seems to have believed, would a possibly incriminating note have been left on the premises for no reason, since the victim's body was still in the house. Nor would an intruder have wanted, or had any need, to go to the trouble to hide the body in a remote basement room, latching the door as he left.

It seems obvious, therefore, that there could have been no intruder. Which makes it wonderful indeed that the Ramseys were not arrested or at the very least taken into custody for questioning shortly after the body was discovered.

Which leaves us with two possible suspects: Patsy Ramsey or John Ramsey. (Though Burke has many "fans" among followers of this case, one look at the ransom note tells us it was not written by a 9 year old; nor is it likely a child that young and frail could have delivered such a heavy blow to the head; nor is it likely he could have produced the very elegant knot on the so-called "garotte"; nor is it likely his parents would have taken such huge risks to cover for him.)

Now comes the most difficult part, because, thanks to the very strange manner in which the investigation was allowed to proceed, a great many people became fixated on Patsy as writer of the note, to the point that this has become literally an article of faith for probably the great majority of those following the case. Nevertheless, I am convinced, and have been for a very long time, that Patsy could not have written the note. I have many reasons for this conviction, some based on my own analysis of both the handwriting and the content, but for now that is neither here nor there, since I am presently considering only the known facts, not anyone's interpretation of the evidence, including my own.

Once we rule out the possibility of an intruder, then we need to return to the note to understand why it was written. And clearly, since there was no intruder and hence no kidnapping, the note could only have been written by someone inside the house as part of an attempt to stage a phoney kidnapping. While some might consider this an interpretation, I must say I find it impossible to explain the note any other way, so for me staging is clearly a fact and the note was clearly a part of that staging attempt.

In the light of the note and its contents, clearly intended, as I must insist, as staging, the key fact in the case is the fact that Patsy is the one who called the police so early in the morning, while the body was lying the basement waiting to be discovered, not John. This call could not possibly have been made by the person who wrote that note. Calling the police first thing in the morning is exactly what the note says not to do. There is simply no reason why someone would stage a phoney kidnapping, with the clear intention of removing the body from the house prior to calling the police, and then totally blow that staging by calling the police before the body had been removed -- and then handing over an obviously phoney note written in her own hand. Sorry, but that does not compute.

Thus:

Fact: no intruder, telling us this must have been an inside job.

Fact: Patsy Ramsey is the one who called the police, telling us she could have known nothing about the staging clearly implied in the note.

Conclusion: John Ramsey and John Ramsey alone must be the guilty party. Case solved.

Beyonnaise

I'm into most mystery cases but never this one. Like it's sad that the little girl was killed but the whodunit game 20 years later when there's only one or two real suspects is kind of redundant.

feelslikeadream

I thought she's Katy Perry

jeonha

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger17

This blog provides a convincing solution to the entire affair, sans the media circus surrounding the case:

http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/...se-solved.html

You basically closed the thread.

DTF

I believe the John Ramsey and Katy theories