Comments on The Continuing Tragedy Of Jonbenet Ramsey

Go to What Country Am I In? - Add a comment - Go to The Continuing Tragedy Of Jonbenet Ramsey

He was 10, 11, or 12, blackcat, at the time. The problem I run up against

on my theory is that, if they have tested John Ramsey (did they ever?) and his son, wouldn't their DNA match JonBenet's, at least partially. This may be why they've ruled members of the family out. However, if Patsy Ramsey was artificially inseminated or had an affair... But wasn't the boy a stepbrother? Ah, so many questions.

posted by saul_relative on August 28, 2006 at 9:36 PM | link to this | reply

interesting theory. I hadn't heard this one. I wonder if they've tested

the brother's DNA yet. How old was he?

posted by -blackcat on August 28, 2006 at 8:01 PM | link to this | reply

Physical strength becomes only a partial consideration, Blanche, when

coupled with adrenaline. Children have the strength of adults. A ten-year-old angry young boy could have easily done the damage. We want to presuppose that children are incapable of heinous crimes. However, in their innocense (or absence thereof), children can be cruel, calculating, and quite capable of atrocious acts. Additionally, fear of being found out could have raised his adrenaline to produce the force that drove the hammer blow. I would like to be wrong. I hope this delusional nut, Karr, is the killer. And I agree with you wholeheartedly on Patsy Ramsey -- strangely reliving her youth through her daughter, denying her her childishness by making her appear more adult. Creepy, really...

posted by saul_relative on August 21, 2006 at 5:30 AM | link to this | reply

I didn't watch too much of the Susan Smith, Saul,

I heard about it. I think there were some things I just couldn't bring myself to see on tv, and the idea of a mother killing her child or children is so monstrous, it takes a Greek play to do it justice.

I watched more of the Susan Smith case recently on the Discovery Channel, and saw the actual footage. To me, in Patsy Ramsey's case, anyone who is that invested in make-believe as to make her 6 year old girl look like a 30 year old Barbie, has a loose grip on reality anyway, so why put lying past her? Or covering up. You mentioned the brother. He was 10 at the time, I believe, a little young for the ferocity and physical strength required, I think now.

posted by Blanche. on August 20, 2006 at 3:58 PM | link to this | reply

It'll never end, just like the Single Bullet Theory and the O.J. Simpson

case, Blanche. And Patsy's crying for the camera routines -- remember Susan Smith? And Susan Smith wasn't an ex-beauty queen/actress.

posted by saul_relative on August 20, 2006 at 3:54 PM | link to this | reply

Saul, the Ramsey case was on Dateline last night,

My boyfriend and I watched for any new information (I have to say I didn't have all the facts), but quite a few things stuck out, in our minds: that the Boulder police that interviewed the Ramseys who were interviewed for the show both said that they went into their interviews with the Ramseys convinced that someone in the house was guilty, but came away with a different impression, based on a 4 hour interview with the parents, and apparently changed their minds because they "couldn't believe they were capable of it". In other words, they seem to have fallen for their charm and schmoozing.

They played the 911 tape of Patsy Ramsey the morning she discovered, allegedly that her daughter had been kidnapped and a ransom note left. Hysterics can be feigned too easily, and to me, hers didn't seem all that hysterical. I imagine that if a child of mine or anyone I knew were killed or kidnapped, I probably wouold be virtually inchoerent and probably infuriated that the 911 dispatcher was not exactly acting with all promptness to get a cop car there, instead playing 20 questions and acting dumb.

Other things came up to: the cops said that the "intruder theory" was looking more and more plausible, Why? Why would someone take the time to write a lengthy ransom note on stationery found in the house, and not take the child elsewhere?

More questions than answers. God only knows what the truth is or if it will ever come out, but I still smell a rat.

posted by Blanche. on August 20, 2006 at 3:46 PM | link to this | reply

Couldn't have said it better, Blanche. While all these assinine politicians

are playing CYA and point-the-finger, real measures aren't being taken where we need them most: ports, airports, and borders. Ridiculous.

posted by saul_relative on August 19, 2006 at 10:01 PM | link to this | reply

What's pathetic and infuriating, Saul, is while security guards in airports

force mothers to drink their own breast milk, dump shampoo (granted, that's understandable, like you said), and take off shoes: LESS THAN 7% OF ALL THE CARGO CONTAINERS COMING INTO US PORTS ARE INSPECTED.

So, yes, fear is a powerful motivator, in a sleazy one-trick-pony kind of way, and people fall for it. I'm not saying the terrorist threat isn't real, far from it, but the fact is, REAL steps to curtail it, are being neglected while these cowboys play good cop, bad cop.

posted by Blanche. on August 19, 2006 at 10:46 AM | link to this | reply

It is also pathetic, Blanche. And fear is an awfully effective motivator,

so don't look for that aspect of politics to ever change. As for the bottled liquids and fluids and gelatinous items -- you have to understand that, at the beginning, they really had no idea what they were looking for, so any type of viscous or liquid material was suspect, so... in the trash go the make-up, the soda bottles, the gel-soles for shoes, etc. It seemed a bit much in retrospect, but they were operating without knowledge and without scanning equipment to detect possibly dangerous materials. Overkill was better than the alternative -- plus they got to implant the terrorism image as something so close to home as a bottle of water or Gatorade.

posted by saul_relative on August 19, 2006 at 10:43 AM | link to this | reply

I didn't know that about the CO journalism prof, Saul,

that is funny, it kind of made me go "huh?" when that came up in the news reports, that Karr had been emailing him for years. I'm not sure which is weirder, that Karr would email or the guy would answer. I'm not buying it that the reason why police made an arrest was because Karr was about to take a job as a school teacher. In Thailand? Since when are US authorities concerned with pedophiles in Thailand? They'd have to build a bigger jail.

Anyway, youi''re obviously better informed on the terrorist ring than I am. I'm glad they arrested them, too, but I'm not happy that it's been turned into a 3 ring circus and that air travelers are having to ditch their bottled water, shampoo and other toiletries for no good reason (is shampoo explosive?), terrorize the public yet again for political reasons (although they've stopped with the "terror alerts', since people figured out a long time ago, that was political. When was the last time anyone heard of those?)

Yet again, the average person is caught between the lesser and greater of two evils, the terrorists themselvs and the politiciians who play on and exploit fear to stay in power. It's ugly.

posted by Blanche. on August 19, 2006 at 10:12 AM | link to this | reply

There is no doubt that the timing of this was pressured by the Bush

administration for the benefit of the GOP in the upcoming elections, denials aside. The Brits claimed that they became alarmed at sudden internet traffic among the terrorists and two of them dropping out of sight. I'm not buying that (I'm sure, during a surveillance, especially one involving so many, there are many occasions when two or more "drop out of sight"). Am I glad they arrested them. Hell, yeah, but the timing is suspect, especially in light of the fact that they've stated that the Bush administration has been trying to get them to make arrests long before now.

And with Jonbenet. Yes, it is going to rest on the DNA. This journalism professor's relationship with Karr is also suspect in my eyes. He's been in contact with Karr for years. He's known the Ramseys for years and publicly states he believes in their innocense. Could there have been information transfer here? From parents to prof to pedophile?

posted by saul_relative on August 19, 2006 at 10:01 AM | link to this | reply

Saul, hopefully, the DNA will clinch it one way or another, unless this is

a complete frame. Granted, Karr is a scumbag, and a pedophile, he's also been corresponding via email with a Colorado journalism professor for years, so it seems as though it's not as though he suddenly came out of nowhere, but the arrest did.

That and the terrorist plot that was "suddenly" foiled, although the Brits had had them under suveillance and infiltrated their ring for quite a while, and they had no visas, no money ,and no way to travel, makes the timing of "breaking" these two cases so flamboyantly, and so close to November elections, a little suspect to me. There's always more to the story than in the press.

posted by Blanche. on August 19, 2006 at 9:46 AM | link to this | reply

I've always thought as much, Blanche. Everything points to an "inside job"

The strange behavior of the Ramseys and their admirable composure during the initial phases of police and public accusation also led me to believe they were covering something up, but had nothing to do with the murder. Several subsequent lie-detector tests resulted positively for them. However, I have never heard of the son taking one. And here's something else: the son is never mentioned (except that he was asleep in the house) and has been very effectively kept from media scrutiny.

And I still could be wrong, but this guy Karr is the perfect catch. Too perfect. But proving nothing is perfect, his story is full of holes.

posted by saul_relative on August 19, 2006 at 7:29 AM | link to this | reply

Saul Relative, I had similar thoughts reading the newspaper report this

morning about Karr: Was he even in Denver at the time? How and under what circumstances was the confession obtained? Some things don't add up, another thing is that in his story he claims to have abducted JonBenet from school, yet school was closed for the Christmas break. His ex-wife changed her story once, I believe, from saying she could not defend him to saying that he was with her.

There are a lot of inconsistencies. The DNA will probably be the final evidence. I've long thought that it was someone in the house as well, it makes no sense to "abduct" a child and write a ransom note (for the exact amount that the father had just received as a bonus for his company, $118,000, how did the killer know that?) and kill her in the house. As well as the fact that the ransom note was written on stationery from inside the house.

None of it makes sense, other than as you say, it was someone in the house. Sibling rivalry and jealousy run amok?