Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
The Unknown Poster

The Mysteries Thread

Recommended Posts

I love a good mystery, true crime etc.

 

Here are a couple recent ones for discussion:

 

The lead investigator in the JonBenet Ramsey revealed some new information about the case of the little girl who was found dead on Christmas Day 20 years ago.

 
Among the new information, JonBenet was hit on the head and knocked unconscious, then strangled to death 2 HOURS later. So the killer would have had to hang out in the house for hours.
 
Also, when they asked Patsy (the mother) to provide a handwriting sample and specifically asked her to write $180,000, curiously she wrote it out in long hand (one hundred eighty thousand). Was she trying to avoid writing the amount and giving herself away?
 
The Ramseys were cleared years ago, but suspicion lingers.
 
JonBenet would be 25 years old now.
 
AND
 

Four police officers rushing to an overturned car in an icy Utah river say they all heard the same thing: a mysterious female voice calling out “Help,” from inside the vehicle.

But the driver of the car was dead and her 18-month-old daughter, while still alive, couldn’t have been the speaker.

It was a mystery that continues to haunt the officers – and may never be explained.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Satisfying my boredom today, here is a mystery I always found interesting:

 

Antikythera Mechanism

 

374908-787b0bcc-3244-11e4-b9e7-d00f86afd

Does not compute. The oldest computer known to man was built thousands of years ago. Source: AP

 

The Antikythera mechanism is an incredibly intricate analogue computer found in a shipwreck near Greece in the year 1900.

 

The device was used to determine the positions of celestial bodies using a mind-bogglingly complex series of bronze gears.

 

The device in and of itself would already be impressive, but the unbelievable part of the mechanism? It was created 100 years before the birth of Christ, and more than 1,000 years before anything even approaching its level of technological complexity and workmanship would be discovered again.

 

The device also came long before our modern understanding of astronomy and physics. The Antikythera mechanism was built over 1,600 years before Galileo was born, and over 1,700 years before Isaac Newton was born.

 

Now, the rational explanation is that the device used working theories on the movements of celestial bodies established at the time, and some remarkably brilliant craftsmen.

 

But if you were looking for a jumping-off point for your new time-travel novel or alien sci-fi epic, this one should hit you like a 10-tonne brick. Because for all the explanations we can offer, the Antikythera mechanism raises even more questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For any of you fellow lovers of True Crime, I just blasted through a book about the Jonbenet case.  I had been interested when it happened ofcourse but the recent news reignited my interest.  The book I was was by Steve Thomas, one of the lead detectives and a guy who caused a sensation when we actually quit police work over the case and in his letter of resignation explained his reasons (which was the stonewalling and protecting of the Ramsay's by the DA). 

 

I have followed the OJ case very closely over the years and this case is similar but different.  Whereas OJ had overwhelming physical and DNA evidence that directly tied him to the murders, the Ramsay case has no such (or very little) evidence because of the botching of the crime scene.  But the mountain of circumstantial evidence points squarely at the parents, more specifically Patsy, to such an extent that it's really shocking that she was never charged.

 

Recent news reveals that the Grand Jury in 1999 actually DID indict the parents but then DA Alex Hunter refused to sign.  The DA had made up their minds that they would never prosecute the Ramsays without a confession and have maintained that an intruder did it.  When you consider the facts, the intruder theory is preposterous.  There were only three people in the house that night that could have done it - mom, dad, brother.  And handwriting experts determined that the "war & peace" ransom note was written by Patsy.

 

Anyway...I reccomend the book if you like True Crime and I'd love to discuss the case (or others, like OJ) with other True Crime lovers on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For any of you fellow lovers of True Crime, I just blasted through a book about the Jonbenet case.  I had been interested when it happened ofcourse but the recent news reignited my interest.  The book I was was by Steve Thomas, one of the lead detectives and a guy who caused a sensation when we actually quit police work over the case and in his letter of resignation explained his reasons (which was the stonewalling and protecting of the Ramsay's by the DA). 

 

I have followed the OJ case very closely over the years and this case is similar but different.  Whereas OJ had overwhelming physical and DNA evidence that directly tied him to the murders, the Ramsay case has no such (or very little) evidence because of the botching of the crime scene.  But the mountain of circumstantial evidence points squarely at the parents, more specifically Patsy, to such an extent that it's really shocking that she was never charged.

 

Recent news reveals that the Grand Jury in 1999 actually DID indict the parents but then DA Alex Hunter refused to sign.  The DA had made up their minds that they would never prosecute the Ramsays without a confession and have maintained that an intruder did it.  When you consider the facts, the intruder theory is preposterous.  There were only three people in the house that night that could have done it - mom, dad, brother.  And handwriting experts determined that the "war & peace" ransom note was written by Patsy.

 

Anyway...I reccomend the book if you like True Crime and I'd love to discuss the case (or others, like OJ) with other True Crime lovers on here.

 

Im in to this kinda stuff as well.

 

I followed the OJ case more. As for the Ramsay case IMO the mother did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good book

 

"In Broad Daylight: A Murder in Skidmore, Missouri "

 

details the case of Ken Rex McElroy and his 21-year reign of terror throughout four counties in northwest Missouri, and the ultimate murder of McElroy, who was shot to death as he sat in his pickup truck on the main street of the town. Although there were more than 45 witnesses to the killing, and three grand juries considered the case, no one has been prosecuted for the killing."

 

This guy walked out of the courthouse, after another in a long string of not guilty verdicts, and the townsfolk gunned him down. Nobody saw anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good book

 

"In Broad Daylight: A Murder in Skidmore, Missouri "

 

details the case of Ken Rex McElroy and his 21-year reign of terror throughout four counties in northwest Missouri, and the ultimate murder of McElroy, who was shot to death as he sat in his pickup truck on the main street of the town. Although there were more than 45 witnesses to the killing, and three grand juries considered the case, no one has been prosecuted for the killing."

 

This guy walked out of the courthouse, after another in a long string of not guilty verdicts, and the townsfolk gunned him down. Nobody saw anything.

Never heard of that one.  I will have to check it out.

 

The Jonbenet book I just read is JonBenet:Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation by Steve Thomas.  I doesnt include the recent news but I highly recommend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book goes into great detail about this man's criminal behaviour, a large, vicious bully, terrorizing rural folk, old people, shooting, stabbing, and stealing, to the point where I absolutely despised him.

 

clearly not a surprise ending, but a very interesting story, well written. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For any of you fellow lovers of True Crime, I just blasted through a book about the Jonbenet case.  I had been interested when it happened ofcourse but the recent news reignited my interest.  The book I was was by Steve Thomas, one of the lead detectives and a guy who caused a sensation when we actually quit police work over the case and in his letter of resignation explained his reasons (which was the stonewalling and protecting of the Ramsay's by the DA). 

 

I have followed the OJ case very closely over the years and this case is similar but different.  Whereas OJ had overwhelming physical and DNA evidence that directly tied him to the murders, the Ramsay case has no such (or very little) evidence because of the botching of the crime scene.  But the mountain of circumstantial evidence points squarely at the parents, more specifically Patsy, to such an extent that it's really shocking that she was never charged.

 

Recent news reveals that the Grand Jury in 1999 actually DID indict the parents but then DA Alex Hunter refused to sign.  The DA had made up their minds that they would never prosecute the Ramsays without a confession and have maintained that an intruder did it.  When you consider the facts, the intruder theory is preposterous.  There were only three people in the house that night that could have done it - mom, dad, brother.  And handwriting experts determined that the "war & peace" ransom note was written by Patsy.

 

Anyway...I reccomend the book if you like True Crime and I'd love to discuss the case (or others, like OJ) with other True Crime lovers on here.

 

Im in to this kinda stuff as well.

 

I followed the OJ case more. As for the Ramsay case IMO the mother did it.

 

 

The worst thing about the JonBenet case is, unless you really do your own digging, the misinformation that the DA's office released in their zealous efforts to protect the Ramsey's would make you think they were innocent.  People can get facts wrong in the heat of the moment.  But innocent people dont keep telling lies.  They told too many lies.  They stonewalled detectives too many times.  There was simply no motive or opportunity for an intruder to have committed the murder.

 

The detectives theory was that Patsy flew into a rage over JonBenet's bedwetting.  Bed wetting can be a sign of abuse and there was signs or prior vaginal trauma.  However the detectives believe it wasnt sexual abuse but more corporal punishing when cleaning her up from the repeated bed wetting.  The night in question, they believe Patsy likely never went to bed as she claimed as she answered the door to the police in the morning wearing the same clothes and with perfect hair and make-up.  At some point, Jonbenet wet the bed.  Patsy changed her (the top Patsy originally claimed JonBenet went to bed in was found balled up in the upstairs bathroom though Patsy later changed her story).  In a fit of rage, Patsy smacked the child's head against something, maybe the tub, causing a massive head injury.

 

They believe Patsy might have thought she was already dead and carried her down to the "wine cellar" which was a difficult to locate storage room in the sprawling basement which had a large door that was sealed with a latch at the top.  She then realised Jonbenet was still barely alive and grabbed a paint brush from her art kit which was nearby (and noone else would have known about) and fashioned a garotte and strangled the girl.  She cleaned the body, wrapped her, left her "favourite nightgown" (which by Patsy's own account she had not been wearing) near the body and set about staging it.  The tape over her mouth was added after death.  The ropes around her wrists were so loose that a conscious child could have removed them.  She then closed and latched the door (why would an intruder do this).

 

She took her own note pad from a drawer and a sharpie from a can in the kitchen (why would a kidnapper not bring his own, how would he know where to find these items) and fashioned a ransom note that has to be read to be believed (called the War & Peace of ransom notes), asking for $118,000 which was a tiny sum for the Ramsey's who were worth hundreds of millions.  It was also the exact sum of a recent John Ramsey bonus (how would an intruder know this).  It included strange instructions.

 

Patsy then placed the note (the second or third note she started) on the back stairs that she routinely used (how would an intruder know this) and pretended to find it and screamed.  John, who was now awake and in the third floor bathroom claims he ran down as she ran up and they met on the second floor where she gave him the note.  When no finger prints were found on the note, they changed their story that he ran down to the first floor where the note was layed out.  The only fingerprints found on the note pad were Patsy's and handwriting experts determined Patsy was most likely the author.

 

Disregarding the notes orders to not call police or alert anyone or JonBenet would be "beheaded", John told Patsy to call 911.  One might ignore the order to call the police but the Ramsey's called several friends to come over too.  Friends they later pointed the finger at as potential "intruders".  The cops did a terrible job at this point.  The home was so sprawling that when a cop did a search of the basement, he saw the wine cellar, he opened it but it was pitch black so he closed it again without looking.  When he returned upstairs, Patsy was "eyeballing" him. 

 

One cop was left at the home with several guests.  She lost sight of John who "disappeared" for several minutes and later admitted he had gone to the basement but "found nothing".  The cop later foolishly suggested John and his friend search the house for clues.  John bee-lined down to the basement and to the wine cellar where he opened it and immediately reacted to the body even though his friend claimed it was pitch black and nothing could be seen.  John carried JonBenet upstairs, oddly holding her up in out-stretched hands (she was stiff).  Both parents were allowed to lay with, cover, carress the body.

 

John had been over-heard calling his pilot and ordering their plane on stand-by.  By the next day, Ramsey's had lawyers and PI's calling potential witnesses but never cooperated with the police.

 

The detectives believe John was not a party to the murder but would have known Patsy wrote the note and likely found JonBenet when he mysteriously wandered off earlier in the morning.  When police didnt find the body, he made sure he did.

 

Another interesting lie is that they always claimed the brother slept through the entire thing but enhancements of the 911 recording indicate Burke was with his parents at the time of the call and asked "what did you find".  Another interesting fact is, according to the Ramsey's Intruder Theory, JonBenet was abducted and killed over night, the morning of December 26th but when they erected her headstone they had the day of death engraved as December 25th, which would be correct according to the police theory.

 

Very, very interesting case since due to crime scene issues, what little DNA was there cannot be trusted.  But the mountain of circumstantial evidence pointed squarely at Patsy.  She died a few years later of cancer.  No death bed confession it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For any of you fellow lovers of True Crime, I just blasted through a book about the Jonbenet case.  I had been interested when it happened ofcourse but the recent news reignited my interest.  The book I was was by Steve Thomas, one of the lead detectives and a guy who caused a sensation when we actually quit police work over the case and in his letter of resignation explained his reasons (which was the stonewalling and protecting of the Ramsay's by the DA). 

 

I have followed the OJ case very closely over the years and this case is similar but different.  Whereas OJ had overwhelming physical and DNA evidence that directly tied him to the murders, the Ramsay case has no such (or very little) evidence because of the botching of the crime scene.  But the mountain of circumstantial evidence points squarely at the parents, more specifically Patsy, to such an extent that it's really shocking that she was never charged.

 

Recent news reveals that the Grand Jury in 1999 actually DID indict the parents but then DA Alex Hunter refused to sign.  The DA had made up their minds that they would never prosecute the Ramsays without a confession and have maintained that an intruder did it.  When you consider the facts, the intruder theory is preposterous.  There were only three people in the house that night that could have done it - mom, dad, brother.  And handwriting experts determined that the "war & peace" ransom note was written by Patsy.

 

Anyway...I reccomend the book if you like True Crime and I'd love to discuss the case (or others, like OJ) with other True Crime lovers on here.

 

Im in to this kinda stuff as well.

 

I followed the OJ case more. As for the Ramsay case IMO the mother did it.

 

In regards to OJ Simpson, the best book I read was called Run of His Life by Jeff Toobin (CNN Legal Analyst).  Really goes through it step by step.  In hindsight it's almost impossible to believe he got away with it especially when the defence was basically "there is so much evidence against OJ that it *had* to be a set up".

 

OJ would have easily been compelled to confess too, I have little doubt.  It was the lawyers that pumped up his confidence.  If you watch the verdict, when they say not guilty, one of OJ's lawyers, Robert Kardashion is shocked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

For any of you fellow lovers of True Crime, I just blasted through a book about the Jonbenet case.  I had been interested when it happened ofcourse but the recent news reignited my interest.  The book I was was by Steve Thomas, one of the lead detectives and a guy who caused a sensation when we actually quit police work over the case and in his letter of resignation explained his reasons (which was the stonewalling and protecting of the Ramsay's by the DA). 

 

I have followed the OJ case very closely over the years and this case is similar but different.  Whereas OJ had overwhelming physical and DNA evidence that directly tied him to the murders, the Ramsay case has no such (or very little) evidence because of the botching of the crime scene.  But the mountain of circumstantial evidence points squarely at the parents, more specifically Patsy, to such an extent that it's really shocking that she was never charged.

 

Recent news reveals that the Grand Jury in 1999 actually DID indict the parents but then DA Alex Hunter refused to sign.  The DA had made up their minds that they would never prosecute the Ramsays without a confession and have maintained that an intruder did it.  When you consider the facts, the intruder theory is preposterous.  There were only three people in the house that night that could have done it - mom, dad, brother.  And handwriting experts determined that the "war & peace" ransom note was written by Patsy.

 

Anyway...I reccomend the book if you like True Crime and I'd love to discuss the case (or others, like OJ) with other True Crime lovers on here.

 

Im in to this kinda stuff as well.

 

I followed the OJ case more. As for the Ramsay case IMO the mother did it.

 

 

The worst thing about the JonBenet case is, unless you really do your own digging, the misinformation that the DA's office released in their zealous efforts to protect the Ramsey's would make you think they were innocent.  People can get facts wrong in the heat of the moment.  But innocent people dont keep telling lies.  They told too many lies.  They stonewalled detectives too many times.  There was simply no motive or opportunity for an intruder to have committed the murder.

 

The detectives theory was that Patsy flew into a rage over JonBenet's bedwetting.  Bed wetting can be a sign of abuse and there was signs or prior vaginal trauma.  However the detectives believe it wasnt sexual abuse but more corporal punishing when cleaning her up from the repeated bed wetting.  The night in question, they believe Patsy likely never went to bed as she claimed as she answered the door to the police in the morning wearing the same clothes and with perfect hair and make-up.  At some point, Jonbenet wet the bed.  Patsy changed her (the top Patsy originally claimed JonBenet went to bed in was found balled up in the upstairs bathroom though Patsy later changed her story).  In a fit of rage, Patsy smacked the child's head against something, maybe the tub, causing a massive head injury.

 

They believe Patsy might have thought she was already dead and carried her down to the "wine cellar" which was a difficult to locate storage room in the sprawling basement which had a large door that was sealed with a latch at the top.  She then realised Jonbenet was still barely alive and grabbed a paint brush from her art kit which was nearby (and noone else would have known about) and fashioned a garotte and strangled the girl.  She cleaned the body, wrapped her, left her "favourite nightgown" (which by Patsy's own account she had not been wearing) near the body and set about staging it.  The tape over her mouth was added after death.  The ropes around her wrists were so loose that a conscious child could have removed them.  She then closed and latched the door (why would an intruder do this).

 

She took her own note pad from a drawer and a sharpie from a can in the kitchen (why would a kidnapper not bring his own, how would he know where to find these items) and fashioned a ransom note that has to be read to be believed (called the War & Peace of ransom notes), asking for $118,000 which was a tiny sum for the Ramsey's who were worth hundreds of millions.  It was also the exact sum of a recent John Ramsey bonus (how would an intruder know this).  It included strange instructions.

 

Patsy then placed the note (the second or third note she started) on the back stairs that she routinely used (how would an intruder know this) and pretended to find it and screamed.  John, who was now awake and in the third floor bathroom claims he ran down as she ran up and they met on the second floor where she gave him the note.  When no finger prints were found on the note, they changed their story that he ran down to the first floor where the note was layed out.  The only fingerprints found on the note pad were Patsy's and handwriting experts determined Patsy was most likely the author.

 

Disregarding the notes orders to not call police or alert anyone or JonBenet would be "beheaded", John told Patsy to call 911.  One might ignore the order to call the police but the Ramsey's called several friends to come over too.  Friends they later pointed the finger at as potential "intruders".  The cops did a terrible job at this point.  The home was so sprawling that when a cop did a search of the basement, he saw the wine cellar, he opened it but it was pitch black so he closed it again without looking.  When he returned upstairs, Patsy was "eyeballing" him. 

 

One cop was left at the home with several guests.  She lost sight of John who "disappeared" for several minutes and later admitted he had gone to the basement but "found nothing".  The cop later foolishly suggested John and his friend search the house for clues.  John bee-lined down to the basement and to the wine cellar where he opened it and immediately reacted to the body even though his friend claimed it was pitch black and nothing could be seen.  John carried JonBenet upstairs, oddly holding her up in out-stretched hands (she was stiff).  Both parents were allowed to lay with, cover, carress the body.

 

John had been over-heard calling his pilot and ordering their plane on stand-by.  By the next day, Ramsey's had lawyers and PI's calling potential witnesses but never cooperated with the police.

 

The detectives believe John was not a party to the murder but would have known Patsy wrote the note and likely found JonBenet when he mysteriously wandered off earlier in the morning.  When police didnt find the body, he made sure he did.

 

Another interesting lie is that they always claimed the brother slept through the entire thing but enhancements of the 911 recording indicate Burke was with his parents at the time of the call and asked "what did you find".  Another interesting fact is, according to the Ramsey's Intruder Theory, JonBenet was abducted and killed over night, the morning of December 26th but when they erected her headstone they had the day of death engraved as December 25th, which would be correct according to the police theory.

 

Very, very interesting case since due to crime scene issues, what little DNA was there cannot be trusted.  But the mountain of circumstantial evidence pointed squarely at Patsy.  She died a few years later of cancer.  No death bed confession it seems.

 

 

Thsnks dude thats really interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

For any of you fellow lovers of True Crime, I just blasted through a book about the Jonbenet case.  I had been interested when it happened ofcourse but the recent news reignited my interest.  The book I was was by Steve Thomas, one of the lead detectives and a guy who caused a sensation when we actually quit police work over the case and in his letter of resignation explained his reasons (which was the stonewalling and protecting of the Ramsay's by the DA). 

 

I have followed the OJ case very closely over the years and this case is similar but different.  Whereas OJ had overwhelming physical and DNA evidence that directly tied him to the murders, the Ramsay case has no such (or very little) evidence because of the botching of the crime scene.  But the mountain of circumstantial evidence points squarely at the parents, more specifically Patsy, to such an extent that it's really shocking that she was never charged.

 

Recent news reveals that the Grand Jury in 1999 actually DID indict the parents but then DA Alex Hunter refused to sign.  The DA had made up their minds that they would never prosecute the Ramsays without a confession and have maintained that an intruder did it.  When you consider the facts, the intruder theory is preposterous.  There were only three people in the house that night that could have done it - mom, dad, brother.  And handwriting experts determined that the "war & peace" ransom note was written by Patsy.

 

Anyway...I reccomend the book if you like True Crime and I'd love to discuss the case (or others, like OJ) with other True Crime lovers on here.

 

Im in to this kinda stuff as well.

 

I followed the OJ case more. As for the Ramsay case IMO the mother did it.

 

In regards to OJ Simpson, the best book I read was called Run of His Life by Jeff Toobin (CNN Legal Analyst).  Really goes through it step by step.  In hindsight it's almost impossible to believe he got away with it especially when the defence was basically "there is so much evidence against OJ that it *had* to be a set up".

 

OJ would have easily been compelled to confess too, I have little doubt.  It was the lawyers that pumped up his confidence.  If you watch the verdict, when they say not guilty, one of OJ's lawyers, Robert Kardashion is shocked. 

 

 

I pretty much watched that whole trial... i had a bad back injury and was layed up.  LOL

 

I watched that lawyer and commented on it right away... he was super shocked. I actually dont think he did it...  he had it done for sure but i doubt he did it himself.

 

Ive never read that book but ill pick it up and check it out.

 

There were so many screwed up things with that case and it showed what big money lawyers can do.

 

One thing that has always stood out for me was the blood on the wall. The first set of samples were taken and none was OJs.... then the next set of samples they took it was all OJs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll have to be more specific about blood on wall. I've read the OJ book three times and the blood evidence was overwhelming. His blood was there. It was dripped in a pattern matching the lost glove and the cut on his hand.

Blood mixture of him and both victims were found in the Bronco. The limo driver rang the bell several times and no answer. Then he observed a black male tuning across he property and suddenly he answered and claimed he was sleeping. This also matches the thumps Kato heard where the glove was found

Cops didn't plant anything. They would have had to know things about OJ and his movements that they couldn't know in order to set him up. To set someone up you have to know there is an opportunity to set him up. They couldn't possibly know.

The only other theory I've heard that is even remotely possible was that it was his son. You can google that theory. But there was loads of evidence. The DA did a lousy job for sure. They thought the case was so air tight they dismissed witnesses that were possibly impeachable.

Read Run Of His Life. He was a vile abuser of Nicole and the cops always protected him. He thought he was untouchable. He did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll have to be more specific about blood on wall. I've read the OJ book three times and the blood evidence was overwhelming. His blood was there. It was dripped in a pattern matching the lost glove and the cut on his hand.

Blood mixture of him and both victims were found in the Bronco. The limo driver rang the bell several times and no answer. Then he observed a black male tuning across he property and suddenly he answered and claimed he was sleeping. This also matches the thumps Kato heard where the glove was found

Cops didn't plant anything. They would have had to know things about OJ and his movements that they couldn't know in order to set him up. To set someone up you have to know there is an opportunity to set him up. They couldn't possibly know.

The only other theory I've heard that is even remotely possible was that it was his son. You can google that theory. But there was loads of evidence. The DA did a lousy job for sure. They thought the case was so air tight they dismissed witnesses that were possibly impeachable.

Read Run Of His Life. He was a vile abuser of Nicole and the cops always protected him. He thought he was untouchable. He did it.

 

Id have to do a bit of searching for the exact facts but in a nut shell and from my memory....

 

There was blood samples taken off the wall on 2 different days or times.  The first set of samples had none of OJs at all....  but the next set it was all OJs and none of the others. The first sets also had mixed blood samples of Ron and Nicoles blood yet all the samples of OJs none were mixed with any other blood.

 

The chances of that happening is very very odd and like 1 in a billion without some tampering id think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...believe it not, Ive changed my mind.  I dont believe Jonbenet's parents killed her.  I am now a believer in the intruder theory although I think a fresh investigation is needed.  I read a book called The Cases That Haunt Us, by famed FBI profiler John Douglas.  He dives deeply into this case (among others) and was involved in investigating the parents at the time.  He believes they didnt do it.  And he provides a great case.  A&E aired a documentary on the case this week with some new information too.

A few "lies" from the police that have since been corrected:

- The police claim there were no foot prints in the "freshly fallen snow" indicating no intruder.  However, police crime scene photos show no snow on the paths around the home at all.  Im curious as to whether there was snow and it melted by the time the photos were taken.  It doesnt appear there was much snow at all.

- Police claim no one could have fit through the grate and window of the basement to support the intruder theory.  On the A&E documentary, they showed famed investigator Lou Smit do just that, with relative ease.  There was also a scuff mark on the wall below the window and a shoe print on a suitcase under the window (that could have been used to step up to the window).

- Police claim Jonbenet was struck over the head and then strangled...in fact they claim she was strangled two hours later (supporting the parents as the murderers in the act of covering up the crime).  New analysis indicates defensive scratches to Jonbenet's neck as she tried to fend off the strangulation, indicating she was strangled BEFORE being struck over the head.  The head blow was so brutal it would have rendered her incapable of putting up a fight...and scratching her own neck during the strangulation.  This means she was strangled first, then struck over the head.  This doesnt necessarily disprove the parents did it, but it destroys the police theory.

- Several items were never recovered, supporting the intruder theory (he took them with him).

- Police claim strange marks on Jonbenet's body are either irrelevant (because they cant explain them) or were made via stabbing with Burke's toy train track.  The train track piece lines up with the double wounds but clearly werent the cause.  Several experts now say the cause is clear: A stun gun.  The parents would never need to stun Jonbenet to make her comply.  An intruder would.  And ofcourse, no stun gun was fund.

- Police say only family would have asked for $118,000 in ransom because it was the amount of bonus money John received.  However, there is evidence that this information was left in plain sight in John's home office.  An intruder who was wandering the large home for hours waiting for the Ramsey's to come home could have seen this.

- Police say Jonbenet was the victim of prior sexual assault, throwing suspicion on the parents.  Experts now say this is not true.

- Police withheld DNA evidence from the DA which indicated a non-family members' DNA found on two pieces of clothing on Jonbenet's body.  This is huge evidence and must be investigated.

 

The parents did seem to act odd.  But what's "odd" under these circumstances.  One of the big pieces of evidence used against them in the public was the fact they lawyered up.  On the A&E special, their lawyer now says a friend in law enforcement had called him shortly after the murder to tell him the cops were zeroing in on the Ramsey's.  The lawyer then took over to protect his friends.  I like true crime and I always say to my gf that criminals are very stupid because a smart person would say only one word to the police: Lawyer.  In many cases guilty people try to talk their way out of it and they try to learn what the police know.  Innocent people get lawyers (and dont let cops tell you differently, which they always will - when a cop is busted for something what is the first thing they do?  Get a lawyer and a union rep).

There are more programs coming up about this case so its going to be back in the spotlight.  Will it finally be solved?

 

Here's a preview of a CBS docu-series launching this month.  It seems to point the finger at the parents but one thing that immediately jumps out at me is their investigator saying no one could get in or out of the window...and yet Lou Smit is on video doing just that.  But it looks interesting:

http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-entertainment/video/?watch=2zif9qdh5c#ooid=0zaDRkNTE6T8UZjznMDOuvciYqMxPkPs

Edited by The Unknown Poster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't admit that I've spent a ton of time researching it, but based on the limited research I've done, it seems pretty obvious to me that Burke Ramsey killed his sister and the parents covered it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mike said:

I won't admit that I've spent a ton of time researching it, but based on the limited research I've done, it seems pretty obvious to me that Burke Ramsey killed his sister and the parents covered it up.

Im very curious why you think that?  I think that's the least likely theory.  When the case happened, I sort of "liked" the theory because I could see parents doing crazy things to protect one child.  But from what I've seen, there is zero evidence to support Burke had anything to do with it.  And the cover up would be really odd...seems a stretch.  But I'd love to hear your thoughts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

Im very curious why you think that?  I think that's the least likely theory.  When the case happened, I sort of "liked" the theory because I could see parents doing crazy things to protect one child.  But from what I've seen, there is zero evidence to support Burke had anything to do with it.  And the cover up would be really odd...seems a stretch.  But I'd love to hear your thoughts...

When you posted over a year ago in this thread, you posted some pretty damning evidence of Patsy (the ransom note, mostly) that gets ignored when you post your most recent theory.

The marks that you say are from a stun gun pretty clearly aren't, according to what I've heard. Stun guns don't cause abrasions, they cause burns. A lot of what I've read chalks those marks up to being from the train tracks.

I'm not going to try and say the theory doesn't have holes in it but here's the thing - no matter what theory you believe, they all have holes. Any side of the coin you want to be on, someone can point to evidence that can explain how you're wrong. The Burke theory just seems to be the most logical, in my opinion. And after reading the AMA with one of the lead investigators, he words his answers carefully, but it's pretty clear he thinks Burke did it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mike said:

When you posted over a year ago in this thread, you posted some pretty damning evidence of Patsy (the ransom note, mostly) that gets ignored when you post your most recent theory.

The marks that you say are from a stun gun pretty clearly aren't, according to what I've heard. Stun guns don't cause abrasions, they cause burns. A lot of what I've read chalks those marks up to being from the train tracks.

I'm not going to try and say the theory doesn't have holes in it but here's the thing - no matter what theory you believe, they all have holes. Any side of the coin you want to be on, someone can point to evidence that can explain how you're wrong. The Burke theory just seems to be the most logical, in my opinion. And after reading the AMA with one of the lead investigators, he words his answers carefully, but it's pretty clear he thinks Burke did it too.

Absolutely.  Thats what makes this an incredible case.  And Ive spent the morning reading more on it too and have seen more evidence that sways me back to the parents on some things.  Its crazy. 

The one thing everyone can likely agree on is that the cops screwed this case up so bad it might never be solved.  But the DNA evidence cannot be ignored.  Lou Smit maintained a database of suspects (he has since died but his family has it).  If Im a fresh investigator on this, I'd request DNA samples from everyone on the list.  I bet most comply.  Some will decline for privacy reasons etc.  But if you have even 100 suspects and can get 70 of them to provide DNA, you've narrowed your suspect pool considerably. 

The reason I dont buy the Burke theories is that it would be remarkably violent for a 9 year old to garrote someone.  And then for the parents to risk a cover up rather then calling the police.  In the vast majority of cases involving young children committing murders, they confess.  Burke's interrogation (which was shown on the A&E special) was unremarkable.  

The A&E special also showed photos of stun gun testing (and a prior death where a victim was stun gunned) and the marks were virtually identical.  Jab yourself with a toy - it doesnt create burn marks.  Stun Gun seems like a weird thing in this case but the train track theory is even more wild in my opinion.

Here's my "new" theory:  It was a kidnapping gone wrong.  The intruder had to have known a basic (if not strong) knowledge of the homes layout as the mansion was very large with a rambling floor plan.  Supposedly even the housekeeper didnt know of the basement room where Jonbenet was found (though the train track set was down there too so its not like it was an area no one went). 

The intruder entered the home while the Ramsey's were out.  He probably knew when the Ramsey's were going to be out and when they might return.  Since it was Christmas, if the intent was kidnapping, he had to know they'd be coming home and not out visiting friends/family for the holiday. 

He entered the home through an unlocked door or window (maybe the open basement window but its not necessary he entered this way - in fact, unless he specifically knew this window had been previously broken (by John Ramsey), its unlikely he'd open the grate to check (Unless the broken window could be seen from the yard, I have no idea). 

Neighbors said they saw flashing lights from inside the home.  I think this could be consistent with someone using a flash light, a maglight most likely.  Either the intruder saw paperwork in John's office indicative of the $118,000 bonus, or he already knew of it.  Either way, since he had time to kill, he wrote the note.  This is the difficult part.  A pre-planned kidnapping for ransom would likely have a note ready in advance.  Why take the chance of scribbling a note while you're there?  You have to be careful in writing this note, not only due to handwriting but verbiage.  A reason you might write the note there is to try and frame the Ramsey's but I dont see any other specific attempts to do so.

The ransom note contained phrases from movies like Speed and Dirty Harry.  It makes more sense as a cover-up letter.  Or someone "play acting" the part of a bigger kidnapping conspiracy.  The use of the words faction and "we" could point to a kidnapping being the work of more than one person.

The Intruder took Jonbenet from her bed.  She went either because she was stunned or because she knew the person.  She had pineapple in her stomach.  The parents said she didnt eat.  There was pineapple on the kitchen counter with a fork in it.  Its possible she helped herself to some pineapple before bed without her parents noticing.  But lets assume they are sure she didnt eat.  At some point that night she did.  Did she wake up and go down stairs on her own for a snack and encounter the intruder?  Did he take her to the kitchen for a snack (maybe...if he knew her).

He took her to the basement.  If his plan is to kidnap her, he's going to the same place he entered (the window) to exit.  She screams.  He wraps the rope he brought to tie her, around her neck to silence her.  She fights and scratches.  Maybe he's strangling her to keep her still while he sexually assaults her.  He brings the rope with him...he intends to tie her up.  But he uses a paintbrush near the scene to fashion the garrotte.  That tells me his plan was not to strangle her, not to kill her.  Why does he?  I dont know.  But she puts up a good fight and he strikes her on the head during or immediately after the strangulation.  Perhaps in a frenzy.  Perhaps he didnt mean to.  There is some level of regret.  He covers her with a blanket.  He exits through the broken window, leaving a hy-tec book print on the suitcase which he uses to boost himself up to the window.

Are there holes in this theory?  Absolutely.  The plan seems overly complex.  If he entered the house through a different window or door, why go into the basement to escape?  Its one thing to climb out that window himself, but to carry a child too?  If he entered through that basement window, why not exit through an easier method, walk out the backdoor?  Going into the basement corners you.  if John had come down those stairs, you're trapped.

Im reviewing information on suspects...I have a couple of theories as to who did it, if not the parents.  Ill be back.

Would love to hear some other thoughts and theories...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, it happened years and years ago, when he was just a little boy... I know it's tough but Eventually, people have to move on. 

I'm sure regardless of what happened there, he has moved on, that's all you can really do 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People always react to those interviews.  It wasnt that he was happy, it was that he smiled at various times.  I mean, is he supposed to be devastated and in a state of grief 24/7 twenty years later?  He was very young.  He had a weird way about him in his interview, almost detached.  But according to Dr Phil, Burke is very uncomfortable in front of cameras and was very nervous.  I didnt see anything outwardly odd about him in the interview.  Seemed like a normal guy talking about an awful situation that happened two decades ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...