JonBenet's family still hopeful killer can be found

This has to make you wonder why Patsy wrote that ransom note, no?

Just can't accept the truth, can you? The ransom note was NOT written by Patsy; her handwriting didn't match the writing in the note and neither did the handwriting of any other family member. You know this, so give it up. The DNA evidence proved from the onset of this case that someone else killed JonBenet. From the beginning, the BPD had evidence supporting an intruder but chose to try convicting the Ramseys because they were convenient. There was the pubic hair not belonging to any Ramsey, the DNA under JB's fingernails, and now the latest; therefore, it shouldn't take a genius to correctly conclude someone else murdered JB.

gringojoel wrote:

This has to make you wonder why Patsy wrote that ransom note, no?

I failed to mention the third piece of DNA evidence the BPD had from the beginning: the drop of blood in her panties. For a police department to have three pieces of DNA evidence and not use it is not ony criminal negligence but stupidity. They didn't have to wait for this latest DNA to decide the Ramseys didn't do it.

Logan, who do you think wrote the ransom note then? The sadistic pedophile intruder who killed her? Why do you think he would he have left the note?
Do you also think this 'intruder' was the same person that had been sexually abusing JB in the past?

I have no idea who wrote the note; but I can say it definitely was not one of the Ramseys. Why the perpetrator left it is puzzling. The wording sounds like something an immature, not highly intelligent person would have written, someone who liked to watch action movies and copied from one. Perhaps there was more than one person involved in her murder and that another person wrote the note while the murder was taking place. or it was written before he entered the house, which seems most likely the case. The person obviously knew about Ramsey's bonus since he asked for that precise amount. Employees or former employees plus the housekeeper could have known that.(The housekeeper and her husband are not off my list of suspects.) I do believe it was someone who hated John Ramsey and knew something about him.

I don't recall any proof that she had been sexually molested prior to her murder. In fact, her pediatrician stated in a news conference that there were no signs of her having been molested before the murder.

gringojoel wrote:

Logan, who do you think wrote the ransom note then? The sadistic pedophile intruder who killed her? Why do you think he would he have left the note?
Do you also think this 'intruder' was the same person that had been sexually abusing JB in the past?

Logan wrote:

I have no idea who wrote the note; but I can say it definitely was not one of the Ramseys. Why the perpetrator left it is puzzling. The wording sounds like something an immature, not highly intelligent person would have written, someone who liked to watch action movies and copied from one. Perhaps there was more than one person involved in her murder and that another person wrote the note while the murder was taking place. or it was written before he entered the house, which seems most likely the case. The person obviously knew about Ramsey's bonus since he asked for that precise amount. Employees or former employees plus the housekeeper could have known that.(The housekeeper and her husband are not off my list of suspects.) I do believe it was someone who hated John Ramsey and knew something about him.
I don't recall any proof that she had been sexually molested prior to her murder. In fact, her pediatrician stated in a news conference that there were no signs of her having been molested before the murder.<quoted text>

The note was written with Patsys pad and pen. The pen and pad were then returned to where they came from.
The autopsy reported that JB showed signs of long term sexual activity (abuse).
I admit the DNA evidence now makes it look like an intruder but there are so many things that make it look like a cover-up also. Like that the duct tape was applied after her death. Why?
Also, why kill her two or three times? Once she was dead, why crush her skull? I don't think this looks anything like a sick sexual predator murder. It looks more like a cover-up for an accidental murder.
The 'touch' dna however does make it seem that someone else 'had' to be involved.
Puzzling case.

Hi Gringojoel

oh, how nieve they are

hell, yes Patsy wrote the note (hence)

we go back to behavoir, re Voltz

all these cases differ, the Ramseys bullied the local authorities, pulled the Rich Mans card

another guy we know pulled the All American Boy (magazine publisher) defense)

i would like to hear the take of the young Boulder detective who took on the arrogant Ramseys
on the Larry KIng interview

heard that one of the first things John B did was to call his lawyer, before he called the cops

contrast this to John Walsh who never lawyered up

and none should forget that tacky Ramsey's flight out of town

If the note were indeed written with a pen and notepad belonging to Patsy, that simply means the killer helped himself to her property. That also makes me think that perhaps the housekeeper used it. She and her husband had access to everything in that area, so who's to say either she or her husband--or even an associate--didn't write the ransom note and plan the crime? The Ramseys certainly didn't write it, for the handwriting of neither matched the note.

I don't recall that the autopsy definitely determined she had been sexually abused for some length of time; but if it did, that does not convict the Ramseys of it. Children are often abused by friends, employees, or other relatives. However, the pediatrician who was JB's doctor stated he saw no signs of sex abuse.

Have you read cases of pedophiles? Have you never read how they do these terrible things to their victims, like the overkill in JonBenet's case? When one is in a frenzy of killing, he doesn't think; he gives in to his compulsions. They are sick, perverted individuals who enjoy torturing the victim because they derive sexual pleasure from doing so, like serial killers do; so what was done to JonBenet was not unusual. Pedophiles are not normal and therefore do not behave in a manner one would expect.

The overkill is not something one would do in an arranged scene. That was done by a warped individual out of control. Valuable time in which the killer may have been caught has been wasted on the wrong persons.

gringojoel wrote:

<quoted text>
The note was written with Patsys pad and pen. The pen and pad were then returned to where they came from.
The autopsy reported that JB showed signs of long term sexual activity (abuse).
I admit the DNA evidence now makes it look like an intruder but there are so many things that make it look like a cover-up also. Like that the duct tape was applied after her death. Why?
Also, why kill her two or three times? Once she was dead, why crush her skull? I don't think this looks anything like a sick sexual predator murder. It looks more like a cover-up for an accidental murder.
The 'touch' dna however does make it seem that someone else 'had' to be involved.
Puzzling case.

Can you prove Patsy wrote the note? The BPD couldn't.

You've got it backwards: the Ramseys didn't do the bullying; the ignorant, highly incompetent BPD did while they let the real killer(s) go free to kill again. I've seldom read of such bungling as that of the BPD.

As for the detective you liked, Steve Thomas is an arrogant detective who couldn't do a do a good investigation of a bicycle accident, much less a murder. He is a vicious man who took great pleasure in destroying an innocent family.

STANFORD wrote:

Hi Gringojoel
oh, how nieve they are
hell, yes Patsy wrote the note (hence)
we go back to behavoir, re Voltz
all these cases differ, the Ramseys bullied the local authorities, pulled the Rich Mans card
another guy we know pulled the All American Boy (magazine publisher) defense)
i would like to hear the take of the young Boulder detective who took on the arrogant Ramseys
on the Larry KIng interview
heard that one of the first things John B did was to call his lawyer, before he called the cops
contrast this to John Walsh who never lawyered up
and none should forget that tacky Ramsey's flight out of town

Logan wrote:

If the note were indeed written with a pen and notepad belonging to Patsy, that simply means the killer helped himself to her property. That also makes me think that perhaps the housekeeper used it. She and her husband had access to everything in that area, so who's to say either she or her husband--or even an associate--didn't write the ransom note and plan the crime? The Ramseys certainly didn't write it, for the handwriting of neither matched the note.
I don't recall that the autopsy definitely determined she had been sexually abused for some length of time; but if it did, that does not convict the Ramseys of it. Children are often abused by friends, employees, or other relatives. However, the pediatrician who was JB's doctor stated he saw no signs of sex abuse.
Have you read cases of pedophiles? Have you never read how they do these terrible things to their victims, like the overkill in JonBenet's case? When one is in a frenzy of killing, he doesn't think; he gives in to his compulsions. They are sick, perverted individuals who enjoy torturing the victim because they derive sexual pleasure from doing so, like serial killers do; so what was done to JonBenet was not unusual. Pedophiles are not normal and therefore do not behave in a manner one would expect.
The overkill is not something one would do in an arranged scene. That was done by a warped individual out of control. Valuable time in which the killer may have been caught has been wasted on the wrong persons.
<quoted text>

What does it mean that John Ramsey went to the basement after the 'kidnapper' failed to call, stayed down there long enough for LA to ask where he went, came back up empty handed except for his mail, then went BACK DOWN there when Arndt told him to search "TOP to BOTTOM" for "anything out of place". What do you make of that?

He was down there before, why didn't he look then? And if nothing was strange down there, why bother to go BACK AGAIN?

Nelly wrote:

<quoted text>
What does it mean that John Ramsey went to the basement after the 'kidnapper' failed to call, stayed down there long enough for LA to ask where he went, came back up empty handed except for his mail, then went BACK DOWN there when Arndt told him to search "TOP to BOTTOM" for "anything out of place". What do you make of that?
He was down there before, why didn't he look then? And if nothing was strange down there, why bother to go BACK AGAIN?

Exactly, and why not start from the place where she went missing the bed room. Was the bedroom blocked off. I would have went up there anyway to see if I could find anything. Anyone I ever ask if their child were taken from the bedroom and the police asked you to check the house again and where woudl you start looking, inevitably the answer is the "bedroom".

But no one was finding JonBenet and he wanted her found - so he did it.

Right On The Money wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly, and why not start from the place where she went missing the bed room. Was the bedroom blocked off. I would have went up there anyway to see if I could find anything. Anyone I ever ask if their child were taken from the bedroom and the police asked you to check the house again and where woudl you start looking, inevitably the answer is the "bedroom".
But no one was finding JonBenet and he wanted her found - so he did it.

Interestingly enough, JR went to JB's bedroom twice and both times looked under the bed's dust ruffle. He said that in DOI, I kid you not. Said that on his way to dress for the incoming police he stopped at JB's doorway for a minute, then went in and looked under her bed..and then the first cop made note of JR doing it in front of him!(either PMPT or ST's book, sorry) That's TWO times, once for his 'story' and one for the cop's.
What would the IDIots make of that, I wonder? CEO fat cats ALWAYS do things twice?

PS so far that's THREE times he got on all fours that day! lol

He was probably so emotionally upset at that point that he did things without thinking. I suspect the frightening circumstances would cause a great deal of emotional turmoil in in the mind of one whose child is missing. Could it be his mind wasn't as logical at that point as it usually was? Do you not think he may have been a little bit unstable, imagining what might be happening to his daughter?

Why aren't you criticizing Arndt? She was the policewoman; why in the world would the police ask the victim to do her job? Why didn't she herself go search the house or at least have someone in authority do it? It's not normal to go to a crime scene and stand around like a dolt, allowing civilians to do your job.

Nelly wrote:

<quoted text>
What does it mean that John Ramsey went to the basement after the 'kidnapper' failed to call, stayed down there long enough for LA to ask where he went, came back up empty handed except for his mail, then went BACK DOWN there when Arndt told him to search "TOP to BOTTOM" for "anything out of place". What do you make of that?
He was down there before, why didn't he look then? And if nothing was strange down there, why bother to go BACK AGAIN?

Logan wrote:

He was probably so emotionally upset at that point that he did things without thinking. I suspect the frightening circumstances would cause a great deal of emotional turmoil in in the mind of one whose child is missing. Could it be his mind wasn't as logical at that point as it usually was? Do you not think he may have been a little bit unstable, imagining what might be happening to his daughter?
Why aren't you criticizing Arndt? She was the policewoman; why in the world would the police ask the victim to do her job? Why didn't she herself go search the house or at least have someone in authority do it? It's not normal to go to a crime scene and stand around like a dolt, allowing civilians to do your job.<quoted text>

Because A. We're not talking about Arndt. and B. Arndt didn't have a dead body in her basement. and C. Arndt was told by first officers on the scene that the house had been searched and no signs of nothing.

And NO, if he can go around crying that the FBI wasn't there, or that Arndt screwed up, or that FW took notes that day, etc., then NO I don't buy shock as his excuse. He was perfectly observant about everyone else's actions, and was clear enough to get up from the prayers to go call his pilot to fire it up.
He recalled, SEVERAL TIMES, his attempt to untie the knots in the wristcords. If he were in shock while he did that, would he recall that and what he did next? Or would he have attempted the neck ligature instead and perhaps CPR right then and there until they pulled him away?

Emotional turmoil? HA! I'll just bet. The thought of prison probably wreaks havoc on a fella's emotions, you betcha;)

gee, I wonder why the first words out of Smit were about PUBLIC OPINION? Why does he care about the public's perception of the victim's family when he SUPPOSEDLY believes there's an unidentified killer out there and he was hired to find 'him'?
I really don't see how the public's opinion has stopped him from doing his job, or that it should ever have concerned him in the first place. I'd say he's emotionally involved, and you don't need a justice degree to know that's not playing 'cricket'.

In reality, Patsy's writing does match the ransom note writing. Anyone can see it. Only legaleze can deny it.

"We're" not talking about Arndt? Well, I am. It was my impression we were discussing the Ramsey case, not your unreasonable, biased beliefs about John Ramsey; and the Ramsey case includes Arndt.

Don't you feel embarrassed to to display such biased behavior? If the killer were in custody, you--like the other anti-Ramseys diehards--would still accuse the Ramseys. You swallowed the misinformation put out by the BPD and the media about the Ramseys hook, line and sinker; and you'll hang on till the bitter end. Like it or not, the Ramseys are not guilty.

When a body has as much DNA evidence at JB's did, and that evidence proves that another man was there, how can you still accuse Ramsey? Ramsey left no DNA in her panties, under her fingernails, on her long johns, and a pubic hair on her blanket; but another man did. This has been researched and determined scientifically; yet you in your obstinacy disregard it. Why is that?

Nelly wrote:

<quoted text>
Because A. We're not talking about Arndt. and B. Arndt didn't have a dead body in her basement. and C. Arndt was told by first officers on the scene that the house had been searched and no signs of nothing.
And NO, if he can go around crying that the FBI wasn't there, or that Arndt screwed up, or that FW took notes that day, etc., then NO I don't buy shock as his excuse. He was perfectly observant about everyone else's actions, and was clear enough to get up from the prayers to go call his pilot to fire it up.
He recalled, SEVERAL TIMES, his attempt to untie the knots in the wristcords. If he were in shock while he did that, would he recall that and what he did next? Or would he have attempted the neck ligature instead and perhaps CPR right then and there until they pulled him away?
Emotional turmoil? HA! I'll just bet. The thought of prison probably wreaks havoc on a fella's emotions, you betcha;)

It does not resemble her handwriting. Time to see an opthalmologist!

BrotherMoon wrote:

In reality, Patsy's writing does match the ransom note writing. Anyone can see it. Only legaleze can deny it.

Logan wrote:

"We're" not talking about Arndt? Well, I am. It was my impression we were discussing the Ramsey case, not your unreasonable, biased beliefs about John Ramsey; and the Ramsey case includes Arndt.
Don't you feel embarrassed to to display such biased behavior? If the killer were in custody, you--like the other anti-Ramseys diehards--would still accuse the Ramseys. You swallowed the misinformation put out by the BPD and the media about the Ramseys hook, line and sinker; and you'll hang on till the bitter end. Like it or not, the Ramseys are not guilty.
When a body has as much DNA evidence at JB's did, and that evidence proves that another man was there, how can you still accuse Ramsey? Ramsey left no DNA in her panties, under her fingernails, on her long johns, and a pubic hair on her blanket; but another man did. This has been researched and determined scientifically; yet you in your obstinacy disregard it. Why is that?
<quoted text>

Embarrassed? Hell to the NO!
Telling me what and who I listened to to form my opinion, IMO, is your first mistake. I don't know how many times I've posted THE RAMSEY'S OWN WORDS/ACTIONS as the reason I suspect them.

I wonder why YOU are so passionately self righteous about the public's opinion of the suspects in this case when there's plenty other cases where the public does the same thing. Why aren't you crying for the Aisenberg's, or David Westerfield, or John Couey, or Scott Peterson, or the Midyette's? Everyone gave their opinion on those people before they were convicted or let go for lack of evidence, are you crusading for them too? How is it those people can be trashed and the Ramsey's are somehow off limits? Are you going to tell us you didn't have an opinion of Mark Lundsford and his family until Couey came along? How about that poor Richard Ricci in the E Smart case..Ed Smart blamed that guy on air! Is Ed Smart a BORR?
I talk about the things the Ramsey's SAID and SAID THEY DID. I taped their tv appearances and crockumentaries and wondered why they were different people in every appearance.. even on days they did two or more interviews!
I wondered why the props/ploy of pulling JB's gloves out of her purse, or JR wearing her talent medallion and saying he wears it everyday? But I never saw either gloves or medallion in their photos and interviews after that. I doubt seriously anyone found gloves in Patsy's purse after she died and they cleared out her things. Why would they make such statements if they didn't mean them? Their little lies and sneaky games make me think they're guilty . Oh yeah, and the ransom note, ransom ammt, not searching their entire house, not reading the rn in full before sauntering upstairs to dress, calling for the pilot, the pineapple, no signs of break in per JR, and sending Burke away and not asking a single freaking question of an intelligent 9 year old or worrying about the kidnapper coming for him!!!

I'm entitled to think and say what I believe here in America. I defy you to find one post of mine that's a lie or misinformation as you spinsters like to say;) G'head, find them.