It has been reported that JonBenet was killed by a garrote made from items in the house. It may have been a kidnapping gone bad, but it was not an accident.
Who killed JonBenet Ramsey?
- Thread starter let`s talk
- Start date
It has been reported that JonBenet was killed by a garrote made from items in the house. It may have been a kidnapping gone bad, but it was not an accident.
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
She had a severe skull fracture, which would have killed her, but she was strangled. One theory is that she could have fallen against the bath tub when struck by the mother...an accident, which then somehow escalated.
ARubberChickenWithAPulley
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,150
I tend to agree, though an alternative could be that the perpetrator was trying to subdue her via a blow to the head or strangulation (perhaps he'd seen too many movies, where that kind of thing works) and ended up killing her.
Well then, my mistake. I was going with the reports listing the garrote as the cause of death which suggests more than just a botched taping job.
Ok, so it's "relatively" rare.I don't think I have ever used it in spoken language. Here is the actual reference from the link I posted.
Oh, by the way, "therefore" gets 410,000,000 on the Google.
I'm wondering if hence and therefore are like soda and pop. I grew in Maryland where we called a coke soda. Out here in Phoenix the natives call it pop. It looks like therefore is used 4x as much as hence, but I don't think that's enough to make me think twice about the usage.
I do recall a couple of years ago catching a Usent sock puppet because he misspelled Lynyrd Skynyrd in an unusual way. Turns out that during the last 8 years on Usenet only two people had written those two words like that: the guy who stormed off saying "I'm never coming back!" and the guy who showed up two weeks later that we suspected was the same person.
Where did that theory come from? It doesn't explain the abrasions on other parts of her body or the abrasions and blood around her "wiped clean" vagina. It also doesn't explain the urine on her clothes.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Scrutiny...
We are a group of individuals...
And hence...
What an odd and rambling note...in addition to what uncayimmy already mentioned.
You can't spell "business" or "possession", but you spell some difficult words correctly and you use the word "scrutiny"?
Who says "and hence"...
We are a group of individuals...
And hence...
What an odd and rambling note...in addition to what uncayimmy already mentioned.
You can't spell "business" or "possession", but you spell some difficult words correctly and you use the word "scrutiny"?
Who says "and hence"...
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
"Delivery of your daughter" also became "pick-up of your daughter", with delivery crossed out.
Most of the note is "we", "our", "us" but then it's "any deviation from my instructions"...
Odd note. But then, criminals have mental problems anyway...
Most of the note is "we", "our", "us" but then it's "any deviation from my instructions"...
Odd note. But then, criminals have mental problems anyway...
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
I recall that being discussed a lot. That the garotte was to cover up the fact she was killed via the head trauma.
Which leads to the idea that she was killed by someone in the family, either accidentally, or through rage, and the whole kidnap and garotte deal was to cover up her true manner of death.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Then why write the note? Shouldn't you bail on this disaster of a kidnapping?
Do you think they intended to take Jon Benet's body with them, so they could still try to get the ransom money, but for some reason were not able to remove JB through the basement window? Maybe something disturbed them and they dropped her? Heard a noise or whatever and abandoned her as they were getting ready to get her out?
Perhaps they never intended to kill JB, but she saw them and maybe even recognized the kidnapper? I mean they may have intended to kidnap her without her ever getting a look at them, but something went wrong and JB got a look at them and knew who they were and then they had to kill her?
Last edited:
ARubberChickenWithAPulley
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,150
John Douglas mentions a similar "theory" in his book: JonBenet was a bed wetter, so the theory goes that Patsy Ramsey got angry with her for messing her bed, and in a fit of rage, accidentally smacked her head on something. The vaginal wounds were caused by her wiping violently on her daughter's vagina.
Then they stage the strangulation, ransom note, etc.
There isn't any evidence to support it, as far as I know, other than that it kind of fits the injuries, but it was one theory put out there, I guess.
Of course, none of this explains the evidence on which they were ultimately exonerated: that the DNA found in her underwear also matched "touch" DNA on her leggings (e.g. the same unidentified person who put his hand in her underwear also touched her leggings, which discounts the original explanation put forth by police that the DNA in the underwear could have come from the manufacturer, and points to an unidentified male having been there).
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, there is good DNA evidence in the case, so if someone shows up as a good suspect, we will know.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
There seems to be another bit of movie similarity in the ransom note, in addition to the "Ruthless People" and "Speed" similarities, imo.
In the movie "Dirty Harry" the kidnapper has Harry run all over town to various locations with the ransom money. Similar to the ransom note's reference to be well rested and that the delivery will be exhausting.
The kidnapper in the movie also references not talking to even a dog:
Also in the movie, IIRC, the girl is in fact, already dead....
In the movie "Dirty Harry" the kidnapper has Harry run all over town to various locations with the ransom money. Similar to the ransom note's reference to be well rested and that the delivery will be exhausting.
The kidnapper in the movie also references not talking to even a dog:
Also in the movie, IIRC, the girl is in fact, already dead....
The head trauma didn't kill her, that much is clear in the autopsy report. Whether she might have died from it is another thing altogether. I have no idea.
We couldn't have done any worse than the cops did that first 12 hours.
The note also repeatedly said, "if you do <whatever>, she dies." Your quote uses "she dies" as well.
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,528
>>>Wow -- this is getting borderline silly.
Yes but its normal when discussing it with armchair commentators who think they know how things they have never done work. Its part of the fun of the net.
>>>I cited a fact about the case that contradicted your "suspicion."
Thats why we look at the total body of evidence.
>>>What "emotion" does that appeal to, other than perhaps your emotion of being unable to admit you're wrong?
I was referring to your emotions. You dont have a clue or field experience but you are right and you keep repeating it in hopes that one day it will become so.
>>>The rest of your post is nonsensical -- again. This seems to be a theme when you have nothing of relevance to say.
You still never address the question about your experience on the scene of a crime
>>>Oh, you mean circular logic is only part of your analysis? Phew. That's much better
not circular- staying on point- but you wouldnt understand that would you?
Longtabber, you should read this site:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/
It seems that the police did search the house early on as did Ramsey and a family friend. It turns out none bothered to open the door to wine cellar.
And according to what I've read, Patsy Ramsey changed into the clothes she was wearing the night before and put on make-up while John Ramsey was taking a shower (all before the ransom note was found). They were supposed to take a plane trip that day. It's yet another strange thing in a very strange case.
From what I have read, the DNA evidence does not match the family members. There was DNA under JBR's fingernails and some more DNA comingled in the fluids on her panties (not semen). The new "touch DNA" evidence from her clothing where the person pulled down her pants matches these two other sources. The three sources are consistent.
To me that just makes the whole case even more strange.
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/
It seems that the police did search the house early on as did Ramsey and a family friend. It turns out none bothered to open the door to wine cellar.
And according to what I've read, Patsy Ramsey changed into the clothes she was wearing the night before and put on make-up while John Ramsey was taking a shower (all before the ransom note was found). They were supposed to take a plane trip that day. It's yet another strange thing in a very strange case.
From what I have read, the DNA evidence does not match the family members. There was DNA under JBR's fingernails and some more DNA comingled in the fluids on her panties (not semen). The new "touch DNA" evidence from her clothing where the person pulled down her pants matches these two other sources. The three sources are consistent.
To me that just makes the whole case even more strange.
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,528
I agree- "strange" is the best way to describe this particular case.
>>>It seems that the police did search the house early on as did Ramsey and a family friend. It turns out none bothered to open the door to wine cellar.
Yeah, the way I read that is they did a cursory walk thru- again, theres simply no excuse on the part of LE for not doing a complete and thorough search immediately upon the scene.
>>>From what I have read, the DNA evidence does not match the family members. There was DNA under JBR's fingernails and some more DNA comingled in the fluids on her panties (not semen). The new "touch DNA" evidence from her clothing where the person pulled down her pants matches these two other sources. The three sources are consistent.
Heres where you have to take it with a grain of salt from an objective viewpoint and I'll illustrate from a case i had personal involvement in- the Lax case)
The DNA under the fingernails- according to the ME report, the nails were clipped and then sent for SANE exam. Theres really no way to know if the referenced DNA came from UNDER the nails (implicating a violent struggle) or was deposited there. ( they used the same argument with Crystal saying she scratched her attacker with her fake nails) It does make a difference.
Also, we dont have the full report to analyze so we dont know just how much of a match it was with the other sample. ( remember the press jumping up and down saying Dave Evan's DNA was on her nails- under factual examination it was in a group where he couldnt be excluded- hardly the same thing and could have come from cross contamination in a waste basket)
I also find it hard to accept that they identified every possible person who may have been in contact with the body and tested/eliminated them. ( just the fact they say they did tells you they themselves felt it was necessary due to the possibility)
We also dont know specifically what cells this DNA came from.
Also, the police were called early in the morning, the body was found in the afternoon and the ME didnt get there until around 2000 hours. Thats a lot of opportunity for cross contamination.
The problem with the "touch DNA" is that nobody knows when it was deposited there on the clothes or by whom. Thats not to say the current theory isnt correct but presence of DNA does not default to thats from the perp. Nobody will know the answer to that until a suspect is matched to the DNA and see where he was during the event window.
In any case, it doesnt ( in and of itself) exclude any family member from being a part of the crime. All it says is that it wasnt their DNA on the clothes.
I have often wondered how much of the DA's statement stating their innocence was a result of watching what happened as a result of another DA and Keystone Kop department botching an investigation in Durham.