Author: David Radka
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 11:57 pm |        |
Another theory, if you want to take a chance on Patsy Ramsey as the culprit, goes like this: JonBenet wets the bed. Patsy goes in to change her as usual. JonBenet needs to be washed, so Patsy carries the half-asleep child to the bathroom. Since Patsy is exhausted from partying herself, she accidentally bangs JonBenet's head against a towel rack or similar fixture as she carries the child into the bathroom, causing a concussion. Patsy realizes that she would have to answer difficult questions at the emergency room concerning possible child abuse. It would make life very awkward for her in promoting JonBenet as a child beauty queen, not to mention business problems for her husband as President of a big corporation. So, being the tough, cool customer she is said to be, she contrives to murder her child and make it look like a kidnapping/extortion attempt. Her handwriting checks out on the ransom note, I might add.
David |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 12:56 am | |
Are there any ideas out there (if we accept the "Patsy did it" scenario) that explain the obvious marks at attempted stangulation? Sounds to me like someone TRIED to strangle JonBenet, couldn't manage it, and then hit her on the head. Could this be the mark of someone with relatively little hand strength who panicked and clobbered her? Any candidates in the house with little hand strength who might panic? And could there have been one person in the house that would bring John and Patsy together in a semi-united front, considering they hired seperate lawyers? Ideas, anyone?
Pain-in-the-butt Judy |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 01:22 am | |
| Hi Judith, How are you doing ? The person who killed the girl will not be found in the household. This case is like the Aussie murder mystery where many people thought 2 and 2 made 9.There were enough of them on this site as it happened. |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 02:42 am | |
Hi Ivor baby, I'm peachy.....how about you? Good to hear from you...and what do you hear about the next UK conference? I've had several pointed e-mails asking what's up regarding that.... any news?
I'm afraid m'ducks, that the Ramsey case, like so many others, has been pissed on, walked over, and muddled so much that we will never really know what happened in that house; John, Patsy and Burke sure as hell aren't saying!!! But I have to disagree with you about whodunnit...I think the killer was well and truly in that house BEFORE everyone else in Colorado trooped though! We must, I fear, agree to disagree.
Hope you've been keeping well,
Judy |
Author: Ally
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 07:13 am | |
Heya David,
Minor clarification point: Patsy's handwriting doesn't match the ransom note but it can't be excluded as a possible match for the handwriting on the note. Yet another maddening tidbit that pro-Patsys and anti-Patsys can point to and sayin in unison "See she did it"/"See she didn't do it"
I think on the handwriting scale of like 1-5 with 5 being an exact match *some* of her handwriting came in at 1 whereas all others came in as 0. (Haven't I had this conversation on an otherboard...hmmm) So basically she could be excellent at disguising her handwriting and only allowed a few bits of her real hand to peak through, or someone else could have written it. Guess which one I think more likely.
I think if either one of the parents did it, we would have known about it by now. Especially as it seems their marriage is on the rocks, what better weapon than a "You killed our daughter." to have?
Ally |
Author: Ally
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 07:18 am | |
Hiya Judy,
/clipart{wink} Why whoever could you mean?
So what do you think...considering that Patsy has cancer (fairly serious too) if it goes to remediation do you think she would do the protective thing and do a dramatic death bed confession as one last protective gesture? Somes think yes and somes think no. |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 10:59 am | |
Dear good and true friend Ally,
Patsy prove herself a murderer? I have another nice bridge I'd like to talk to you about! a lovely thought, but not one that will ever come true. You HAVE heard the saying about "wishing in one hand, and ......" Well, you get the drift.
Nope, I don't think anyone in that house will ever talk about the night that child died. More's the pity.
For anyone who has NOT heard the "Wish in one hand" quote, plese e-mail and ask for the rest. Because Ally and I are good friends, no way do I put her on the hook of having to censor my posts.
needler@ntelos.net
Cheers to all, and wishes for a great weekend,
Judy |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 12:50 pm | |
| Hi Judith, The only thing I know about the next UK conference is that it may be held at Liverpool.I have heard a few people threaten to boycott the conference though if it is held at Liverpool.Some people believe some wheeling and dealing started to get the ball rolling to have Liverpool as a venue.I can see why people would think that and why they would want to boycott Liverpool.The Maybrick Diary is a hoax and I cannot see why it should be encouraged when it should have been nipped in the budd at the start.The people that dealt with it were way out of their depth as matters have proven.They certainly were not experienced in dealing with such people or situations as events have shown.It leaves the gates open for other hoaxes and in fact the dodgy watch popped up after the diary which proves my point.Even the watch could not be dealt with in a desired manner. In the case of the little girl the police gave out some stories which were not true when compared to the hard facts.The story about the snow around the house and on the path was utter crap.The child if anything was spoilt rotten by her family and that was plain to see so a motive for murder did not exist. Look at the stupid reasons that were then put foward as a motive.By the way signs of an intruder were in evidence. Read the police report by the retired officer who was brought in to deal with the case.When his findings were not to the liking of the local powers that be they got rid of him. That man was mustard when it came to investigating the case.Remember Judith innocent until proven guilty is the message the law preaches. |
Author: Ally
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 01:15 pm | |
Ivor,
1. The snow was a media thing not something considered as evidence.
2. Spoiled rotten is actually a motive for murder...if you don't consider the parents the guilty ones. It also doesn't really exclude parental murder either if it was the daddy. Spoilt doesn't equate love or parental affection.
3. The retired police officer that you mention quit on his own because he didn't like the way the investigation was going and when he left he went straight to the Ramseys with all kinds of confidential information. He was also hired by the DA not the police.
Ally |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 09:18 pm | |
| Ally, I cited the snow as an example of how the truth is twisted out of all proportion in an attempt to use it as evidence by the media to caste doubt on the parent's story.In the UK I can recall high profile murder cases where the press printed such outragious lies about what happened to the victims that public feeling was at boiling point. James Bulger is only one such case and the press should have been taken to court for the lies they printed. The stress caused to the parents by such lies must have been great.What happened to young James was bad enough without press scum with no scruples making matters worse.The trouble with the public is that they tend to believe most of what they read in the papers.I have heard many stupid people state,"If it were not true then the paper would not print it". |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 12:33 am | |
Aaaaah, Ivor; I would LOVE to believe innocent until proven guilty, but have a bit of trouble with that. Money and influence seem to be the deciding factors in the innocence side of the ledger. I have no faith that innocence actually makes a crap to most juries these days, and could cite more than several instances of that. And PLEASE everyone, don't jump and start yelling about justice and all that. I won't argue about a feeling; it's a waste of my time and my finger muscles. Have your own view and hold fast to it; I'll do the same with mine.
HOWEVER, each view of each crime is skewed to fit each individual's concepts, by the crime, the circumstances and the people involved. The Ramsey case screams "insider' to me...if not to you, that's OK. This is another one that will see no solution within our lifetimes, I fear.
And I must disagree about Liverpool, as well. The first two UK conferences were held in Ipswich and Norwich, the third in Bournemouth, so why not Liverpool? I can get my Beatles fix if it's held there, and take a pass on any field trips to Battlecrease!!!
Have a brilliant Sunday,
Judy |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 07:29 am | |
One more thing to add to the innocent until proven guilty schtick..if we are to follow it then let everyone immediately stop discussing Jack the Ripper...cause ain't no one ever going to prove their pet suspect guilty according to the law.
Ally |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 01:49 pm | |
Whats wrong with Liverpool Ivor , its as good a conference venue as any - some great music pubs up there , nice art gallleries , the Beatles exhibition is great , and there is good shopping in the city or in Manchester.
I don't think it means that the Diary case will gain any more or any less credibility due to the location where the Conference is set : I'm definitely going to go anyway if I'm able !
Judy - the JeanBenet Ramsey case says ' insider ' to me too , that weird note that was written looks like something done as a cover-up. There was a case mentioned on British TV last Monday where a child was murdered in the 1860s ; it turned out to be the older step-sister who had done it , she was only 14 but she was jealous of the young child and even made it look like a kidnapping to throw police off the scent. The cops didn't catch her either , they bungled the investigation and the truth only came out when she confessed 5 years later. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison and she then emigrated to Australia.
Simon  |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 01:51 pm | |
| Found guilty according to the law!!!!!! Many people have been found guilty by the law on the slightest of evidence. I know of cases tried before UK magistrates, assizes, and crown courts with no evidence as such and those tried were found guilty on the slightest of circumstantial evidence alone.As for time making the case impossible to be solved that is not true.Also the condemned can be proven innocent years after the event so it can work either way. Captain William Kidd was found guilty of murder and piracy and hanged at Wapping in 1701. He had stated that he was innocent of the charges and the documents to show so went missing. Just a few years ago the documents in question were found and they showed Kidd had told the truth at his trial and that he was not guity of murder or piracy. Evidence is just waiting to be found in many cases and nothing exists to show that the ripper case is any exception. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 02:03 pm | |
Simon, Any criminal case should be investigated on its own merits. One case used as an example does not prove another case.
As for Liverpool no doubt it will be used to exploit the diary by some. The person who came up with the idea of Liverpool believes the diary genuine.As far as I am concerned anyone exploiting the diary for financial gain is as bad as those who forged it if they suspect it is not genuine. |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 04:05 pm | |
Dear Simon,
I agree about Liverpool; maybe Ivor is right, and it was chosen strictly because of the diary. But SO WHAT if the proposer thinks the Diary is genuine? That, and £2 will get you a great cappuccino at any take away! There are a great many people who do NOT think the diary genuine, so there you are. Because Liverpool has been suggested as a conference site, does not mean the entire conference will be given over to the diary, as I hope it is not.
The reason Baltimore was chosen for the US conferences in 2002, and again in 2004 is NOT because of Tumblety...it was chosen because it has an international airport, a hotel that wanted us badly, and was (and IS) willing to work with us and provide what we need for the least expense. PLUS, both Stephen, Ally, my husband and I live close, and can make the trip within four hours; Chris George lives in Baltimore and was instrumental in choosing Baltimore for 2002. Do any of those reasons mean we chose Baltimore because there is a Tumblety connection? No.
I think conferences should be sited for accessability, cost and amenities. Granted the Baltimore hotel is NOT the Ritz, but it is clean, has good food and wants us there!! What more could we ask?
I understand what Ivor is saying, but think the diary thing has been blown out of proportion for so long, that ANY mention of Liverpool brings strong feelings rising to the surface. I will miss you, Ivor, if you choose not to come simply because it is Liverpool.....
Judy |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 09:07 pm | |
Greetings all:
I too live near Baltimore (a mere hour away)... and I am looking forward to attending the next conference there!
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: judith stock
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 12:05 am | |
That's good to know, Divia; you're welcome, and we would love to have you come. Check with some of the people who came to the last one and see what they think. Personally, I thought it was great fun and informative, as well, but then, I'm very prejudiced!
Keep an eye on the Casebook for the opening announcement for the conference....attendance will be limited, so don't let too much grass grow under your feet. Here's another heads-up: we will have two manners of attendance ONLY...one will cover room, meals and conference, the other will be for locals and will include NO ROOM, but meals and conference. This time around we will NOT offer an option for conference only, with no rooms or meals.
Stay tuned...
Judy |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 02:36 am | |
Dear Judy:
But what if you are a local (my, sounds like League of Gentlemen!) but want to stay in a room? Usually when I attend a convention or conference I don't like having to drive home every evening no matter how close it is.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 10:44 am | |
Hi, Judy, Ivor, Divia, Simon, et al:
First, I have to bemoan the fact that conversations are being held in threads where they don't belong, such as the discussion of where the next UK convention should be held, in the JonBenet Ramsey thread of all places!
I believe the idea of holding the next UK convention in Liverpool originated with a remark of Jeremy Beadle's in Bournemouth. Although I was not at the particular session where Liverpool was first mentioned, which was the discussion with Joe Sickert which did not appeal to me, I believe Jeremy simply made a remark that Liverpool might make a good venue for the next convention.
I don't see this as part of a Maybrick conspiracy even if Mr. Beadle does think the Diary may be genuine. As a Liverpudlian born and bred--I was born in the same hospital as John Lennon, Oxford Street Maternity Hospital--I am as pleased as punch that the next Ripper convention will be held in my home town! Neither do I think that Liverpool has to imply MAYBRICK since other suspects such as Tumblety, Deeming, and James Kelly had ties to Liverpool as well.
As you know, Ivor, I am an opponent of the Diary. I do not think that the choice of holding the convention in Liverpool implies any endorsement for the Diary. Rather, since the convention has to be held somewhere, Liverpool makes a fine and dandy convention location.
Neither do I see any groundswell of emotion to not hold the meeting in the 'Pool--in fact, quite the opposite, most people with whom I am in contact and who have attended who the past three conventions, two U.S. conferences and the last U.K. convention in Bournemouth, are very much for holding the meeting as planned in Liverpool.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 11:09 am | |
Dear Chris:
Sorry... I shouldn't have encouraged the conference discussion in this thread by posting a response.
Carry on, those discussing the Ramsey case!
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 01:04 pm | |
Hi, Div:
That's okay! There's a lot of stuff in various threads on these boards that more appropriately should be elsewhere. Just one of things that happens.
All the best
Chris |
Author: judith stock
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 11:09 pm | |
Divia......One last gasp regarding the 2004 conference, and I'll leave this thread. CG is absolutely correct, and it's my fault for rambling, so I apologise to one and all, especially to Ally, who must try to sort these tangles!!!
YES, if you are local you may take a room; the point of the last was to establish that we would no longer have a conference fee ONLY, which excluded meals and a room. ONE person took advantage of that in 2002, and we have decided to drop it as a choice. So come on down, Divia!! You are welcome, and we would love to see you take a room. It's after hours that all the best talk goes on, anyway!
Off this thread,
Judy |
Author: Eliza Cline
Friday, 20 September 2002 - 01:57 pm | |
I am currently reading a book called "Perfect Murder Perfect Town" and I ran across a strange and interesting little fact about the broken window that was found in the basement, in the room adjoining the closet where Jon Benet's body was found.
It seems the father, John Ramsey, told police that he broke the window himself months before the murder, when he had lost front door key and he was trying to get into the house. This seems to be a curious lie on the part of John Ramsey, since the housekeeper and the other servants maintained that Ramsey never went into the house from the front door, he always used the garage, and all he would need to do to gain entrance to the house was push in the code to the automatic garage door.
There would be no need for Ramsey to break a window to get into the house. I wonder if Ramsey intentionally broke the window on the night of the murder, in an attempt to make it look like an intruder was trying to break in. |
Author: stephen miller
Friday, 20 September 2002 - 03:00 pm | |
Hi Ally and Timsta thank you for the recommendations I will look for these books soon
my thanks are a little belated as I have been on holiday in Turkey this week and have just landed back in England
Ally maybe we will argue about this case maybe not you never know but for now I'm going to be busy catching up with all the messages here
see you soon
steve |
