JonBenet Ramsey Murder Case SuspectFR Thread Roundup

Of course you'd cooperate. What I think is good in this particular case is that although the media has talked to some, it looks like anyone who really knows anything is talking to the authorities and being very discreet.

1,061 posted on 08/23/2006 11:59:08 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)

"I can't believe a parent could garott their own child, then smash her head in and leave her in such a state, even if they only tried to "cover up" an accidental death of some kind......"

That seems to be a sentiment of many on this forum. I have no idea if the Ramseys were or were not responsible. But the reasoning quoted above, used as an argument for why the Ramsesy COULDN'T have killed their child, is what I can't understand. Parents kill their children all the time...it's in the news frequently. Murderers, by their very nature, don't think like I do, so I don't project my reasoning onto them.

I think it's easy to get caught up in the wagon axle on this ligature thing. We don't even know for sure if that was the precipitating cause of death.

I can understand why someone wouldn't WANT to believe it, but it's hard to see why someone would logically deny it's possibility when there are numerous case histories of parents killing their children in multitudes of ways.

Using this logic, I could come up with all sorts of reasons why various crimes, being 'unimaginable', could not have occured. Something about that reasoning doesn't ring true to me.

Just a thought or two.

1,062 posted on 08/23/2006 12:02:30 PM PDT by ableLight

IMO the family has been living in denial regarding John Mark for a long time.....Poor little John, his mother tried to kill him. We'll buy him a sports car to make him feel better.

He quit high school
Dropped out of college instead of facing a disciplinary board.
Chose flight instead of misdemeanor charges.*

He's never had to accept any kind of responsibility for his actions...and if true to form those actions became worse after each.

IMO A spoiled child raised with NO parenting.

* Not to mention the proported drug use and relationships with minor girls that he was never held accountable on.

1,063 posted on 08/23/2006 12:04:51 PM PDT by hoosiermama

someone on another forum said they thought it meant...

Six At Death (Daxis = Sixad)

1,064 posted on 08/23/2006 12:11:54 PM PDT by stlnative

To: stlnative; Sacajaweau

RE: DAXIS See where you got the six (backward)
But was then thinking A.D. as in the calandar.
(Doesn't it translate to "after death"?

1,065 posted on 08/23/2006 12:19:37 PM PDT by hoosiermama

what about the party the family went to on christmas day, before the murder took place? did they interview attendees, to ask them if any kind if a family incident amongst the Ramsey's occurred there - am argument of some kind, an incident of some kind that could have triggered something.

if the thinking is that the Ramsey's were involved in this - what was the motive? this is the part of the accusations against the parent's (either/or) that never squared with me - what would have been the motive, what happened to trigger it on the night of christmas day?

1,066 posted on 08/23/2006 12:23:50 PM PDT by oceanview

We seem to be. I bet the Boulder police and DA's office are doing some scrambling to catch up with the news.

1,067 posted on 08/23/2006 12:23:58 PM PDT by twigs

An interesting summary. Sadly, it reminds me a bit of Scott Peterson.

1,068 posted on 08/23/2006 12:26:01 PM PDT by twigs

To: stlnative; hoosiermama

He's from the South... I am thinking "D axis' baby --- the center of the universe.

Just kidding.

1,069 posted on 08/23/2006 12:28:06 PM PDT by onyx (1 Billion Muslims -- "if" only 10% are radical, that's 100 Million who want to kill us.)

Publish Date: 8/23/2006

Ramsey expense: $1.87M
Records review shows local taxpayers paid that much for 10-year probe

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=9466

1,070 posted on 08/23/2006 12:29:34 PM PDT by stlnative

I've wondered about that party, too.

FWI understand, possibly JB was hit in the head accidently, maybe by her brother who was only 9 at the time. Then everything that happened afterwards was a cover-up. Personally, I think that's the best explanation, except that I still can't imagine a parent garrotting a child, even if they thought she was dead. I've always thought they seemed to be protecting someone. Apparently, it was the strangulation that killed her, but the head injury may have made it appear she was dead. One thing I read said that she would probably have died from that even if she had not been strangled.

1,071 posted on 08/23/2006 12:30:30 PM PDT by twigs

This ALL bears repeating. It seems that far too many FReepers are falling for the snow job being done by CNN and MSNBC...and sorry to say, FOX also.

The party should be easy, as it's a complete fabrication. Just about everything else is the entire intruder theory espoused by Lou Smit.

Karr took every little item that couldn't be directly attributed to someone specific and made himself that person. For example, Joe Barnhill across the street had said at one time he saw someone walking across the Ramseys' front yard that late afternoon, but he thought it was John Andrew.

Karr then says he "parked" (parked what?) down the street and that the person Barnhill saw was he.

Then he makes up the story about sitting on the butler pantry stoop with JonBenet and talking to her alone during the party.

He got that from a report (former Det.) Steve Thomas told about JonBenet the night of the 12/23/96 party sitting by herself on the step of the butler pantry (behind the kitchen) and telling one of her mother's friends, who was unnamed in Thomas's account of it, that she "didn't feel pretty."

So, Karr places himself on that stoop, sitting and talking with JonBenet.

Then there's the advance planning of going down to the basement (yeah, right) and undoing the latch of the window. As everyone knows, one pane was broken out - the one where you reach in and unlock the window.

If he had done this, he would've seen there was no need to unlatch the window from the inside. That window was another Smit favorite.

So was the "disturbed" dust ruffle on the guest room bed. Smit believed the perp hid under that bed and messed up the ruffle. He totally ignored the fact that Patsy had been standing right over that bed, packing. Obviously, her feet were brushing the dust ruffle while she did that.

Karr puts himself under that bed, waiting for the Ramseys to come home from the Whites and then go to bed.

And obviously, one or the other of his brothers did not work for John Ramsey "for years" and was not invited to the small get-together. No one from the company was.

There has been much debate about the "pay check stub" and whether there was one in the house which had John's 1995 bonus from February printed on it, as each one through the year did. I've never seen it, but then there hasn't been a trial, so we haven't actually seen any evidence or potential evidence in the public domain except the stuff from Smit's PowerPoint presentation of reasonable doubt to exonerate the Ramseys.

The defense has been able to play the media, but the real meat of the case has only been gleaned indirectly through documents, partial leaks, books written - but nothing more than depositions in civil trials for just hints at the overall picture.

As lopsided as it has been for direct public consumption, seeing only the defense's case, the perception persists that the family never came clean with law enforcement, because they didn't.

John Ramsey spent beaucoup money to hire people simply to come up with anything that would've swayed just one jury member to a "not guilty" vote - and apparently, it worked. Keenan quotes him as some ethics guru in her own presser.

At least one of his investigators quit in disgust because the Ramseys didn't give a rat's azz about leads or tips (non-working website, non-working phone number, non-working JBR Foundation) or actually solving the case - the directive was simply to keep them out of jail. Now it has trickled down to Karr, from Lou Smit to Michael Tracey to John Mark Karr.

1,001 posted on 08/23/2006 8:12:14 AM EDT by Rte66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 997 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

1,072 posted on 08/23/2006 12:31:00 PM PDT by Palladin (Ceasefire? What ceasefire??--IDF)

And the south isn't? :)

1,073 posted on 08/23/2006 12:31:16 PM PDT by twigs

yeah... The first thing that came to mind with me on the SBTC thing was Southwestern Bell Telephone Company

1,074 posted on 08/23/2006 12:31:35 PM PDT by stlnative

I think you're right about a lot of this. however, I still don't want to excuse Karr until we have the evidence to do so.

1,075 posted on 08/23/2006 12:32:35 PM PDT by twigs

from everything I have read - the blow to the head was post-mortem.

she died from being strangled, she was alive as could be determined by the scratch marks around her neck as she was clawing at the rope.

1,076 posted on 08/23/2006 12:35:04 PM PDT by oceanview

1,077 posted on 08/23/2006 12:35:17 PM PDT by onyx (1 Billion Muslims -- "if" only 10% are radical, that's 100 Million who want to kill us.)

1,078 posted on 08/23/2006 12:36:02 PM PDT by onyx (1 Billion Muslims -- "if" only 10% are radical, that's 100 Million who want to kill us.)

That is different from what I read. But I really haven't followed it as closely as others have here, so you may well be right. It does make sense to me that this could be a cover-up of an initial injury. But it just seems to be too gruesome to have the parents doing it. I just don't know...

1,079 posted on 08/23/2006 12:42:03 PM PDT by twigs

1,080 posted on 08/23/2006 12:48:38 PM PDT by varina davis

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794