Author: Ally
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 08:47 am |        |
As this is the topic of Tuesday's chat, I thought I would open a thread. Perhaps the chat will inspire some people to post here or the thread will inspire some people to come in and chat.
For those of you who haven't seen a tabloid in the last 6 years and therefore might be unfamiliar with the case, 6-year old JonBenet Ramsey was found strangled in the basement of her home on Dec. 26, 1996. She had also suffered a blow to the head. It was not determined which had actually killed her--opinions vary. There are a variety of theories about who killed her and why and most of them are aimed at her family. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 10:26 am | |
Hi all,
I would commend all to read investigator Steve Thomas's book on the case. He resigned from the police force over the case because he felt the police and district attorney's office were letting the killer get away.
His theory is that the mother, Patsy, had a violent confrontation with her daughter following a bed-wetting incident and accidentally killed JonBenet.
She then staged the scene to make it look like an intruder had invaded the house and attempted to kidnap the little girl.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Ally
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 10:32 am | |
| I would recommend reading Perfect Murder Perfect Town. This is a non-biased book that attempts to stick to just the facts. Thomas' book is a good one to show the behind the scenes struggles with the DA but he does slant situations heavily against the Ramsey sometimes to eye-rolling effect (at least for me). Sometimes his interpretations on Ramsey actions aren't always the only possible reasons. There is also a book published by the Ramseys called Death of Innocence and it tells their side of things. Have lots of Visine on hand...much eye rolling will occur in their book too. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 11:55 am | |
Ally,
Forgive me but I think I have something for you, I forget about it only to be reminded the next day when I open my desk. It is far to big to send in the e-mail. E-mail me a mailing address and I'll zip it to you.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Ally
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 01:13 pm | |
Hi Scott...
I have sent you an email.
Thanks!!
Ally |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 07:57 pm | |
Not that anyone on these boards are interested in this topic but...
Didya hear that two pieces of evidence -an "unidentified" bootprint and palm print -that the Ramseys have been using to point to an intruder as the killer, have been identified? The palm print belongs to the oldest daughter and the bootprint belongs to the son. The police say they are not linked to the crime at all, they just have prints in their parent's house, as would be expected.
The intruder theory is looking thinner and thinner.. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 08:13 pm | |
Hi Ally:
And the plot sickens....
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 08:58 pm | |
| ...to the point that its almost forgotten !!! What a shame. |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 09:11 pm | |
| ...to the point that its almost forgotten !!! What a shame.....Divia; does this not remind you of the recent Moxley case( big bucks and less than stellar investigatory procedure ) ? Cool Head Howie |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 09:39 pm | |
The Ramseys have successfully litigated a case where they were accused, but not proven guilty. Beware what you say here.
David |
Author: Ally
Thursday, 12 September 2002 - 09:46 pm | |
Hey David,
The Ramseys sue everyone--newspapers and book publishers that is. They sued Steve Thomas and supposedly it went to settlement rather than trial and they are currently suing the New York Post. There are dozens of Ramsey websites that discuss their perceived guilt and they are aware that it is futile to attempt to sue a person for stating their opinion. They are suing so many fat cats in an attempt to recoup their finances that I doubt they would be willing to piddle with the Casebook or any of the other websites out there. But I will make sure to keep my opinion as an opinion.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 12:04 am | |
Dear Howard:
Actually, I had not thought of a similarity between the Moxley and Ramsey cases... I suppose one could. Who knows, maybe we will find out who killed JonBenet in 30 years? To be honest, I think there are more parallels to the Borden murders than the Moxley murder.
Dear David:
Just for clarification purposes, "And the plot sickens...." was referring to the entire case, not specifically towards the Ramseys themselves. I don't know who killed JonBenet, nor am I speculating. The whole thing is just sad.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: stephen miller
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 01:21 am | |
Hi Ally I know absolutely nothing about this case could you recommend any books for me please
all the best
steve |
Author: Ally
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 07:18 am | |
Hiya Stephen.
For a just the facts recital, get Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. They manage not to be too biased towards any one particular subject.
Now books to take with a grain of salt (or a helping heapful):
JonBenet by Steve Thomas --He was the lead detective on the case and is convinced that Patty did it.
The Death of Innocence--A book by the Ramsey's themselves loudly bleating their total non-involvement. Proceeds were supposed to go to a charity fund set up in JB's name but doesn't seem to have gotten there. Go figure.
I hope you get into the case, I would love to have someone to argue about it with.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 09:14 am | |
Ally,
You could always argue with me - I think Steve Thomas's book is dead on correct.
Rich |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 09:38 am | |
Stephen:
You might like to try "The Cases That Haunt Us" by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker. They also discuss JtR, Lizzie Borden, the Lindbergh kidnapping, the Zodiac and the Black Dahlia (which seems to be a popular topic at the moment).
(Ducks flying objects from anti-profilers.)
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 10:00 am | |
Hi Timsta,
I read "The Cases That Haunt Us" and was more than little surprised at how easily Douglas seems to be swayed by whoever is consulting with him.
For example, on the Jack the Ripper case he seems to come to the conclusion that David Cohen was Jack the Ripper - the same suspect whom Martin Fido believes to be the killer. And in the text of the book, Fido is mentioned frequently as the source of information. I wonder if Stewart Evans had been the primary source perhaps Tumblety would have been the named most likely suspect.
He is quite defensive about his work on the Ramsey case - since he was paid by the Ramsey's and came to the conclusion that the family preferred. I wonder if Steve Thomas had commissioned Douglas to investigate if the conclusions would have been different.
I do not question Mr. Douglas's motivations or capacity. But I also think any profiler sees information through the prism of the information given to him by his sources. Douglas previously had named Kosminski as his most likely suspect but in this book admits he did not have all the information he needed and so was in error.
I find the more interesting and powerful chapters are devoted to the cases Mr. Douglas was not personally involved with - the Lindbergh and Zodiac cases specifically.
His overview of the Black Dahlia case is interesting but only a few pages in length so does not have the necessary detail someone who is interested in the case might enjoy.
Rich
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 12:17 pm | |
Hi Rich.
I didn't say I necessarily agreed with Douglas's findings, or that his book was a definitive source for the Short case - I mentioned it really due to the fact that it also contained a pretty lengthy JtR section in addition to the Ramsey discussion and hence might be of interest to someone enquiring on a JtR forum about the Ramsey case. 
I think Martin clarified the input he gave to Douglas elsewhere on the boards. I don't think in fact it was as extensive as the text might lead one to believe.
I think it's useful to examine the WM from a behavioral psychology viewpoint, whatever one's opinion of the merits of 'profiling', if only because it provides a counterweight to many of the other motivations often proposed (conspiracy, occult, social reformer, etc.)
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Ally
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 02:17 pm | |
Ally tapes up her hands and dons her gloves. Okay, here is why I don't believe the Thomas scenario. His scenario is that JonBenet wet her bed that night and Patsy snapped and lost it, striking her daughter or possibly pushing her at which point she fell unconscious and the coverup begins.
First there is absolutely no other incident recorded or witnessed by anyone of Patsy ever losing her temper or striking her kids..nothing. Not even a slap on the butt. These were not reclusive people who kept to themselves, they were very socially interactive and you *can* get an idea of how a person disciplines and handles their kids upsets if you interact with them. Child abuse is not as easy to hide as people think..people do find it easy to ignore the signs until it is too late but even in this instance there are no after the fact stories of abuse. So we are to believe that for no apparent reason, Patsy just snaps when JOn Benet wets the bed, picks up a flashlight and whacks her across the head with it.
Ahh but some people say...it was just the final straw..she was tired of JonBenet wetting the bed and she just flipped. Okay. Except that the housekeeper (who believes the Ramseys were involved in some way I believe) states that Patsy was always very matter of fact about her wetting the bed. THey had an established routine of how to handle it and a laundry machine located right outside the room, the soileds come off, go in and new stuff is put on. So this was just a regular routine that Patsy didn't seem to give a hoot about but suddenly for some reason that night, it causes her to fly into a rage and bash her daughter? Sorry doesn't gibe with me.
JMO,
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 02:38 pm | |
Hi Ally,
If you recall though, Thomas states the reason Patsy was upset is that she did not want to take the family trip the following day. She was seen as agitated and annoyed that evening.
Thomas postulates that in this aggravated state, something snapped. Perhaps it was the bedwetting. She then struck and killed Jon Benet.
Now, I don't think the motivation is all that important. I think what is more vital is the other evidence that links Patsy to the killing.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Ally
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 02:46 pm | |
But Richard,
You said you think Thomas is dead on and therefore, his motive would have to be as well. I disagree. And also, there is no evidence linking anyone to the killing, there is evidence linking Patsy to the coverup, so if you believe that it was done by one and the same, then you would have to believe that PAtsy killed her. I don't necessarily agree that the person who killed her was the person who covered it up.
Regardless, Thomas' motive for Patsy is the weakest one I have heard. Lots of people get stressed about trips..how many react by whacking their daughter? It was no more the first trip they had taken than it was the first time JonBenet wet the bed. Here is a woman who beat ovarian cancer, battled it out without losing it and supposedly emerged from it with a core of strength and calmness and she would then snap over a trip and a wet bed? I can't see it.
Ally |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 04:48 pm | |
Hi Ally,
I would suggest you look at the case of Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald as the kind of example Steve Thomas was referring to.
In that case, a medical doctor with all the things going for him, no history of violence, had his entire family beaten to death. No one suspected him of the crime initially because there apparently was no motive.
Eventually, by forensic evidence, investigators found that he committed the crime. It sparked, more than likely, by bedwetting.
I do not know how you come to the conclusion that Patsy never beat her child - how is this known?
Rich |
Author: Ally
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 05:07 pm | |
Richard,
I think that is a perfect example because I don't believe that Dr. Jeffery MacDonald did it. He described to perfection a woman as being involved that the cops had seen near his house when they were arriving, and later when she was identified, she said repeatedly before her death that she had been involved. There is even a videotape of her saying it. Two out of the three suspected drug addicts confessed to being there and one confessed to the killing. The Dr's trial was a travesty and not very convincing at least from what I have read. If you are basing your information on the book Fatal Vision, you might want to get a couple of other books on the subject ones that don't necessarily approach it from a totally biased point of view.
The author himself has said under oath that he doesn't believe it happened like that and that he manipulated the taped interview with Macdonald because he was experimenting with a new type of journalism where the story was more important than the truth.
I believe I covered that in the previous post Richard about whether she hit her kids. Even Steve Thomas said there was absolutely no evidence that she ever even spanked her kids.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 05:12 pm | |
Hi, Ally and Richard,
Regarding the woman in the Jeffrey MacDonald case, the one who claimed involvement--wasn't her story discredited? All I know about the case comes from documentaries, which I haven't seen for awhile--but wasn't it revealed that the details of her story didn't pan out with what is known about the murders?
Have a good weekend,
Dave |
Author: Ally
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 05:51 pm | |
From what I remember she was whacked on drugs at the time and couldn't hardly remember crap so I wouldn't be surprised if what she said did not gibe...she also always said that she had only been in the house and had not participated in the murders. But she did say who else was involved and that guy later told two separate people that he had killed the family and I think he was also seen near someplace where there was graffiti confessing to the murders. Again I don't remember much of hte case only that there was a huge backlash when the Fatal Vision guy was exposed as having written pure fiction as fact and it was wondered how much that book had tainted the jury pool.
Ally |
