Suspects...

After much reading/lurking/pondering, I've become more puzzled by this case rather than more certain of any one suspect and their MO. I'm honestly unable to rule any known suspect/witness out. So, in your opinion, who must remain on the list of possible suspects? Please explain your reasoning and rank your list according to your level of confidence in respect to their possible involvement... TIA!

Mama2JML wrote:

After much reading/lurking/pondering, I've become more puzzled by this case rather than more certain of any one suspect and their MO. I'm honestly unable to rule any known suspect/witness out. So, in your opinion, who must remain on the list of possible suspects? Please explain your reasoning and rank your list according to your level of confidence in respect to their possible involvement... TIA!

1. Ramseys- Changes in their story.
RN. Motive.
2. Bill McReynolds-Bizarre (possible) coincidental evidence.(Play. Harp. Kidnapping of their daughter. Secret Santa visit. Weird Santa card.) Knowledge of home layout. Urged PR to have Christmas party, but then the intent for said party was withdrawn by Santa w/out PR's prior knowledge.
3. Helgoth/Gigax- The "suicide". Wolf hairs. Hi-tech boots. Strange comments. Prior criminal history.
4. LHP/Merv.- Changes in story. Lied about purpose of the loan. Lied about knowledge of layout of the house. Friendly relationship with JB. Bizarre comments from Merv. Disturbing LHP book. Access to home and insider knowledge of Ramseys' habits.

More to come, possibly, this is just a quick brainstorm...

You may not be able to rule anyone out but the police have, so who it is you want to discuss? Did you have someone specific in mind, or are we headed back to libeling people and bring everyone up again even if the police have cleared them?

But to answer your question - the three people who were in the house that night have to remain on the list.

Mama2JML wrote:

After much reading/lurking/pondering, I've become more puzzled by this case rather than more certain of any one suspect and their MO. I'm honestly unable to rule any known suspect/witness out. So, in your opinion, who must remain on the list of possible suspects? Please explain your reasoning and rank your list according to your level of confidence in respect to their possible involvement... TIA!

2, 3, and 4 have been eliminated by the police.

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Ramseys- Changes in their story.
RN. Motive.
2. Bill McReynolds-Bizarre (possible) coincidental evidence.(Play. Harp. Kidnapping of their daughter. Secret Santa visit. Weird Santa card.) Knowledge of home layout. Urged PR to have Christmas party, but then the intent for said party was withdrawn by Santa w/out PR's prior knowledge.
3. Helgoth/Gigax- The "suicide". Wolf hairs. Hi-tech boots. Strange comments. Prior criminal history.
4. LHP/Merv.- Changes in story. Lied about purpose of the loan. Lied about knowledge of layout of the house. Friendly relationship with JB. Bizarre comments from Merv. Disturbing LHP book. Access to home and insider knowledge of Ramseys' habits.
More to come, possibly, this is just a quick brainstorm...

DrSeussMd wrote:

<quoted text>2, 3, and 4 have been eliminated by the police.

And so were the Ramseys. Then, I believe, an official on the case (not sure who) ruled that no one can technically be ruled out.

How's the weather there in Chicago, Mama2? ;)

The Ramseys were 'cleared' by a sucky DA who was trying to save face after her involvement in the extremely public and ridiculous Karr fiasco. When Garnett took office, Beckner said the Ramseys were not out from under the umbrella of suspicion regardless of what Lacy did. Previously cleared people, by the BPD, were still cleared. All of the articles and sources for this have been posted again and again on other threads that you may want to catch up on.

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
And so were the Ramseys. Then, I believe, an official on the case (not sure who) ruled that no one can technically be ruled out.

DrSeussMd wrote:

You may not be able to rule anyone out but the police have, so who it is you want to discuss? Did you have someone specific in mind, or are we headed back to libeling people and bring everyone up again even if the police have cleared them?
But to answer your question - the three people who were in the house that night have to remain on the list.
<quoted text>

Why is discussing viable suspects on a discussion board "libeling" them? When people behave in a way that draws suspicion to themselves, they cannot complain when others ARE suspicious of them, especially when those people have had ample opportunity to come forward and defend themselves if they so wished, the only exception being Michael Helgoth. It's still not too late. If they would care to come forward and explain their suspicious behaviour in a way that makes sense, we could cross them off the list and never discuss them again, so the choice is theirs.

The three people known to be in the house are innocent by law, remember that. The police investigated them to death, a grand jury failed to indict them and they were never arrested, so why do you think they should remain on the list? Especially Burke, who was just a a little boy and was never regarded as a suspect anyway?

Mama2 is new to the forum, is undecided about which side of the fence she's on and is trying to learn more about the case. This is all new to her and she wasn't around when other suspects were discussed, so if she wants to discuss them now, why is that a problem for you?

You're not forced to read any post or thread if it offends you.

One Born Every Minute wrote:

How's the weather there in Chicago, Mama2? ;)

Cold. Brr.

the real pinker wrote:

You have to lude John Ramsey in any reference to Santa as a suspect. Santa is more than a specific person and tsey family had a Santa costume of their own. In the Police Files John Ramsey can be quoted to say 'JonBenet loved Santa and would do anything for him'. Considering this child was a victim of sexual abuse that's a profund stament for him to have made...

Many of the known interactions between Bill McReynolds and JonBenet were not with John Ramsey present so was his claim she would do anything from personal experience?

It's most likely JonBenet's statement about a second secret special visit from Santa was no more than an explanation for the day after celebration and exchange of gifts in Michigan BUT it could also have been a visit from John Ramsey dressed up as Santa on Christmas night.

Interesting scenario. Has any (possible) physical evidence from JR's Santa suit been tied to the crime scene?(specifically fibers)

Mama2JML wrote:

After much reading/lurking/pondering, I've become more puzzled by this case rather than more certain of any one suspect and their MO. I'm honestly unable to rule any known suspect/witness out. So, in your opinion, who must remain on the list of possible suspects? Please explain your reasoning and rank your list according to your level of confidence in respect to their possible involvement... TIA!

Here is my opinion for what VERY little it is worth.

1. Patsy Ramsey -- ransom note (#1 reason), jacket fibers matched sticky side of duct tape, stressed out, behavior after murder, behavior of Rol to her later.(I truly think Patsy did it.)

2. Unknown Intruder (e.g., John Mark Karr)- pedophile, ransom, unexplained clues/evidence.

2. Burke -- possible sexual abuse but no semen found, his sister sometimes slept with him, he COULD have done it, possible jealousy of his sister, and his "inner self" is not known.(However, I don't really think it did it.)

I don't think John did it because he was too "collected" the morning of December 26th until he found the body.(But I would not be surprised to learn that he was involved in the cover-up.)

I don't think Bill McReynolds did it because he was too frail and old, and the police cleared him.

I don't think LHP did it because she was too stupid, and she willingly submitted to police questioning and blood and hair samples.(Ditto her husband.) However, I would not be surprised to learn that she was in on the planning.

Please remember the above just the opinions of a would-be juror and not anyone with any special insight or knowledge.

Mama2JML wrote:

I'm honestly unable to rule any known suspect/witness out. So, in your opinion, who must remain on the list of possible suspects? Please explain your reasoning and rank your list according to your level of confidence in respect to their possible involvement... TIA!

Without any further explanation, following is a short list of possibilities, all in my opinion:

1. John Mark Karr/JAR -(For all the many reasons I listed before.)

2. Helgoth/Gigax - Apparent murder made to look like suicide. Prior statements attributed to Helgoth, including the expectation of getting approx. amount of money in rn. Also possibility of their connection to the party held second door from Rams the night of the murder when it was reported several attendees at the party could have been responsible for the burglaries in that same general area -- burglaries that seem to have stopped after the murder.

3. Burke - With possibility of cover-up.

4. Bill/Janet McReynolds and/or Jesse - Insisting on party because Kuralt would be there while knowing he would not; saving place on harp for JB's name; constantly referring to "cheapness" of Ramseys as evidenced by their gift to him of $2 "sparkles"; prior kidnapping charge on Jesse; Jesse claiming he didn't know the Rams when evidence showed he did; suspicious circumstances of rape of their daughter in 1976 and her silence since, especially when focus was on Santa Bill as a suspect as well as all the files on that case disappearing.

Santa cannot come forward either Lynette. Why should a private citizen “have” to come forward to defend themselves?“Suspects” and “Persons of interest” are not determined by message board posters, they are determined by the police. Just like you cannot question these people as a private citizen, you cannot effectively call them suspects. That is where libel comes in.

Lynette 22 wrote:

<quoted text> Why is discussing viable suspects on a discussion board "libeling" them? When people behave in a way that draws suspicion to themselves, they cannot complain when others ARE suspicious of them, especially when those people have had ample opportunity to come forward and defend themselves if they so wished, the only exception being Michael Helgoth. It's still not too late. If they would care to come forward and explain their suspicious behaviour in a way that makes sense, we could cross them off the list and never discuss them again, so the choice is theirs.

They are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, I agree. I think they should remain on the list because the police think they should remain on the list. I tend to thing the police hold more weight than an internet poster.

Burke was too young to be charged in this crime. That doesn’t mean he was never a suspect, or that he was innocent. Extreme gap in logic there.

Lynette 22 wrote:

<quoted text> The three people known to be in the house are innocent by law, remember that. The police investigated them to death, a grand jury failed to indict them and they were never arrested, so why do you think they should remain on the list? Especially Burke, who was just a a little boy and was never regarded as a suspect anyway?

I understand that and I am trying to help her. The fact that she wasn’t around lends only to the effort she wants to put into learning. It is all here on the board, and all she needs to do is settle in with a good cup of coffee or tea, and read until her little heart is content. That would be the quickest way for her to learn as opposed to the rest of us having to start from square one to educate her, list all of our sources pertaining to the conversation again, and go through the same motions we have gone through for 15 years. I am trying to give her the tools to gain what she says she wants.

Lynette 22 wrote:

<quoted text> Mama2 is new to the forum, is undecided about which side of the fence she's on and is trying to learn more about the case. This is all new to her and she wasn't around when other suspects were discussed, so if she wants to discuss them now, why is that a problem for you?
You're not forced to read any post or thread if it offends you.

Mama2JML wrote:

After much reading/lurking/pondering, I've become more puzzled by this case rather than more certain of any one suspect and their MO. I'm honestly unable to rule any known suspect/witness out. So, in your opinion, who must remain on the list of possible suspects? Please explain your reasoning and rank your list according to your level of confidence in respect to their possible involvement... TIA!

What matters is the larger world beyond your limited, newbie one. For the Boulder LE there is only one living suspect; John. The only other suspect is dead and ostensibly Boulder LE is still determining who did what between the two.

Hi, everyone.

As a newbie, I appreciate Brother Moon's honesty about how to learn about the case, and so I am going to leave this forum for a while and read the JonBenet Case Encyclopedia file on the Net.

However, before I go, I would like to know if anyone would like to comment about John Kenady.

I just discovered Helgath/Gigax thanks to Ole South's post about them, and as I had never heard of them, I went to another thread in which Detroit discussed them in length. I then went to the aforecmentioned encyclopedia and found that although there was evidence clearing Helgath/Gigax, there was also a lot of reason to suspect the person who gave evidence in the documentary, John Kenady (!) and there was no reason listed to clear HIM.

After that, I did a general search for John Kenady and found NOTHING.

So would anyone LIKE to comment on John Kenady?

whocares811 wrote:

Hi, everyone.
As a newbie, I appreciate Brother Moon's honesty about how to learn about the case, and so I am going to leave this forum for a while and read the JonBenet Case Encyclopedia file on the Net.
However, before I go, I would like to know if anyone would like to comment about John Kenady.
I just discovered Helgath/Gigax thanks to Ole South's post about them, and as I had never heard of them, I went to another thread in which Detroit discussed them in length. I then went to the aforecmentioned encyclopedia and found that although there was evidence clearing Helgath/Gigax, there was also a lot of reason to suspect the person who gave evidence in the documentary, John Kenady (!) and there was no reason listed to clear HIM.
After that, I did a general search for John Kenady and found NOTHING.
So would anyone LIKE to comment on John Kenady?

Hopefully, Biz will see this and respond. She has done a lot of research on Helgoth/Gigax/Kenady and can fill you in on a lot of info concerning these three.

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
Cold. Brr.

You can tell that all the way from Missouri, can you?

the real pinker wrote:

<quoted text>
If you read the interviews in the Police Files Book John was asked multiple questions about wigs; did Patsy own any and did Santa wear one.
Lou Smit claimed to have lots of hair evidence that was never released. Seems kind of like an odd thing to keep quiet about as hair can usually be traced back to the human head it came from, unless he is saying wig hair was found at the scene...

I'm sure it could be tracked back, and since it was Smit that had it, and it never went anywhere, you can bet your sweet bippy it was Ramsey hair!

the real pinker wrote:

<quoted text>If you read the interviews in the Police Files Book John was asked multiple questions about wigs; did Patsy own any and did Santa wear one.

Lou Smit claimed to have lots of hair evidence that was never released. Seems kind of like an odd thing to keep quiet about as hair can usually be traced back to the human head it came from, unless he is saying wig hair was found at the scene...

. Thanks. I'll look this info up...

DrSeussMd wrote:

Santa cannot come forward either Lynette. Why should a private citizen “have” to come forward to defend themselves?“Suspects” and “Persons of interest” are not determined by message board posters, they are determined by the police. Just like you cannot question these people as a private citizen, you cannot effectively call them suspects. That is where libel comes in.
<quoted text>
They are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, I agree. I think they should remain on the list because the police think they should remain on the list. I tend to thing the police hold more weight than an internet poster.
Burke was too young to be charged in this crime. That doesn’t mean he was never a suspect, or that he was innocent. Extreme gap in logic there.
<quoted text>
I understand that and I am trying to help her. The fact that she wasn’t around lends only to the effort she wants to put into learning. It is all here on the board, and all she needs to do is settle in with a good cup of coffee or tea, and read until her little heart is content. That would be the quickest way for her to learn as opposed to the rest of us having to start from square one to educate her, list all of our sources pertaining to the conversation again, and go through the same motions we have gone through for 15 years. I am trying to give her the tools to gain what she says she wants.
<quoted text>

Seuss, Bill McReynolds died in 2002. He had many years in which to answer questions which he knew placed him under suspicion. I do not hold his wife's play against him, nor his daughter's abduction. Those could have been unfortunate coincidences although they DO seem almost TOO coincidental. But what about everything else, e.g. the fact that he allowed Patsy to go ahead with the Christmas party on the 23rd knowing very well the film crew was done, his strange memorial speech, the harp on which he'd saved a place for JB's name, his visit from Chris Wolf in hospital even though they were supposedly mere acquaintances, his son denying he'd met Patsy before when he had delivered a cake to her house, the red fibres at the crime scene, etc, etc.

I have no confidence that he was thoroughly and exhaustively investigated by the BPD, so to say that he was cleared by the police cuts no ice with me. They investigated him in the same manner they did everyone else except the Ramseys, so IMO just because the police do not regard certain people as suspects doesn't mean posters on a discussion board don't have the right to discuss them as such. If you disagree you'll have to take it up with Topix.

Burke was never a suspect, full stop. That's a fact. If you have proof to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Helping newbie posters is answering their questions as best we can. Sending them off to go and sift through hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, much of which consists of off-topic arguments and fights, is not helping them, it's making it as difficult as possible for them to learn. It doesn't hurt to lend a fellow human being a helping hand sometimes, does it? Those who aren't willing to help are not obliged to, so what's the problem?