JonBenet Ramsey - a question for those who follow this story

[msjprincess]

I thought people said the bowl of pineapple was on her nightstand? This says the bowl was in the dining room. If the pineapple was poorly chewed and in near perfect condition, is it possible the murdered forced her to eat it (possibly even while she was unconscious or drifting in and out)?

It was on a table in a breakfast area

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

Why not?

I'm a random thief who's gotten into a home while the family is out or while they're asleep. I'm poking around the house and find paperwork showing the bonus amount. Kid wakes up, I panic and kill her. I come up with the idea of the ransom note to attempt to keep the body concealed as long as possible.

I've hatched a kidnapping for ransom plot and have been observing the family for some time. In my forays in and out of the home I've uncovered the bonus information and think it's a slam dunk to collect because I can guarantee it's an amount they have, a significant amount of money. During the events of the night I placed the ransom note and subsequently ran into trouble with the little girl and wound up killing her. I don't bother retrieving the note because I gotta get away from there in a hurry because now it's murder.

I'm a disturbed person with fetishes and obsessions. What took place in that house that night will not make sense to anyone thinking normally and rationally, but make complete and perfect sense to serve the purposes of my festishes and obsessions. My obsessions have allowed me to both cover my tracks and confound others observing the scene and the case because I am meticulous about the things I am obsessed about to a degree the average person would never even conceive of.

Just because something cannot be explained doesn't mean it's impossible.

Possible doesn't mean plausible. Or reasonable.

But I have to say, you seem very sure that it was an outsider. Why?

 

[EMom]

It has always seemed far more plausible to me, especially given the tortuous nature of the murder, that a non-family member killed her. There is nothing in that family's history, save wild tabloid type theories, to remotely suggest any member could kill JB in that manner.

 

[cabanafrau]

Possible doesn't mean plausible. Or reasonable.

But I have to say, you seem very sure that it was an outsider. Why?

Partially playing devil's advocate. Partially because I realize that the family was the primary focus of the investigation and yet the authorities were never able to bring charges when it's patently clear there was a strong desire to do so.

Because of my current job I also realize that the investigation was completely bungled and there was a significant breakdown in protocols by law enforcement -- a breakdown that makes it very unlikely charges could ever be brought in the case. I'm also disgusted that despite there being little significant evidence pointing at them the family has had to endure years of speculation about their guilt, especially in regards to someone who was a nine year old at the time. Then I see where many posters here are basing their suspicions on websites, books, tv programs, etc. without any clear knowledge about what the source or accuracy of the information that's being presented is -- yet they feel they have a good basis to feel it was the family covering up for the nine year old? Give me a break.

Have I thrown speculation out there? Yep. I am open about it. It's not directed specifically at any suspect (With my apologies for speculating that someone close to the housekeeper could have taken her key and had it copied without her knowledge.). It comes at the case from the general outline of events, not clinging to pieces and parts of a "timeline" that's been cobbled together from source material of unknown origin and includes statements like someone reporting the info. "believes" this or "knows" this or that could or couldn't be true, where a bowl of pineapple was found, what's been "reported" to have been found on a speculative box of chocolates in Jon Benet's room, why a strange latch was on a door in the basement, whether $118k was exactly or almost exactly the bonus amount, whether earlier drafts of a ransom note were or were not found in the house or what is the time necessary to digest pineapple. For goodness sake, someone posted something about finding it strange the family would have fresh cut pineapple in the refrigerator because the poster really doesn't have occasion to have fresh cut pineapple in their refrigerator, so that is a strange thing for the Ramsey family to have. Hang onto your hats, I live in a strange house where you're likely to find fresh cut pineapple in the refrigerator several times in a single year.

I don't know what happened. I don't think it will ever be conclusively proven what happened. I do think given the fact the family lost a child it's unfair to speculate on such flimsy information that they're guilty when it's equally as easy to speculate that someone other than one of the family did the killing.

ETA, if possible doesn't mean plausible or reasonable, why doesn't that apply to the family? Is it so incredibly plausible or reasonable a nine year old did it?

 

[mi*vida*loca]

It has always seemed far more plausible to me, especially given the tortuous nature of the murder, that a non-family member killed her. There is nothing in that family's history, save wild tabloid type theories, to remotely suggest any member could kill JB in that manner.

If she had been cracked over the head and placed in the basement without all of the other stuff I would say the parents covered up for Burke accidentally killing her. But the way she was tortuted i can't say the parents would do all that to her if it was a cover up for Burke. If Burke did it unexpectedly they would be beside themselves with grief and IMO not willing to destroy her body further.

 

[JaneBanks]

Partially playing devil's advocate. Partially because I realize that the family was the primary focus of the investigation and yet the authorities were never able to bring charges when it's patently clear there was a strong desire to do so.

Because of my current job I also realize that the investigation was completely bungled and there was a significant breakdown in protocols by law enforcement -- a breakdown that makes it very unlikely charges could ever be brought in the case. I'm also disgusted that despite there being little significant evidence pointing at them the family has had to endure years of speculation about their guilt, especially in regards to someone who was a nine year old at the time. Then I see where many posters here are basing their suspicions on websites, books, tv programs, etc. without any clear knowledge about what the source or accuracy of the information that's being presented is -- yet they feel they have a good basis to feel it was the family covering up for the nine year old? Give me a break.

Have I thrown speculation out there? Yep. I am open about it. It's not directed specifically at any suspect (With my apologies for speculating that someone close to the housekeeper could have taken her key and had it copied without her knowledge.). It comes at the case from the general outline of events, not clinging to pieces and parts of a "timeline" that's been cobbled together from source material of unknown origin and includes statements like someone reporting the info. "believes" this or "knows" this or that could or couldn't be true, where a bowl of pineapple was found, what's been "reported" to have been found on a speculative box of chocolates in Jon Benet's room, why a strange latch was on a door in the basement, whether $118k was exactly or almost exactly the bonus amount, whether earlier drafts of a ransom note were or were not found in the house or what is the time necessary to digest pineapple. For goodness sake, someone posted something about finding it strange the family would have fresh cut pineapple in the refrigerator because the poster really doesn't have occasion to have fresh cut pineapple in their refrigerator, so that is a strange thing for the Ramsey family to have. Hang onto your hats, I live in a strange house where you're likely to find fresh cut pineapple in the refrigerator several times in a single year.

I don't know what happened. I don't think it will ever be conclusively proven what happened. I do think given the fact the family lost a child it's unfair to speculate on such flimsy information that they're guilty when it's equally as easy to speculate that someone other than one of the family did the killing.

ETA, if possible doesn't mean plausible or reasonable, why doesn't that apply to the family? Is it so incredibly plausible or reasonable a nine year old did it?

To the first bold, the grand jury did bring down an indictment, the DA decided not to pursue it saying there wasn't enough evidence. There are things that the grand jury knows that will never be made public. Obviously it was enough for them to indict.

I have used quotes from books and websites in this thread but sources are from actual detectives from this case. You can easily find information from depo's, interviews, search warrants, etc. online. Here is a great link -- Just scroll down a bit and you will find it all. http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetindex.htm

These websites and forums aren't just making things up willy nilly. They have gotten their information from actual investigative materials that have been made public. Some theories out there can be far fetched but there are actual facts that are known. It is a little insulting to suggest that people who may not agree with you aren't using real information.

 

[cabanafrau]

To the first bold, the grand jury did bring down an indictment, the DA decided not to pursue it saying there wasn't enough evidence. There are things that the grand jury knows that will never be made public. Obviously it was enough for them to indict.

I have used quotes from books and websites in this thread but sources are from actual detectives from this case. You can easily find information from depo's, interviews, search warrants, etc. online. Here is a great link -- Just scroll down a bit and you will find it all. http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetindex.htm

These websites and forums aren't just making things up willy nilly. They have gotten their information from actual investigative materials that have been made public. Some theories out there can be far fetched but there are actual facts that are known. It is a little insulting to suggest that people who may not agree with you aren't using real information.

I have no problem whether people disagree with me. Have at it, no problem.

What I don't accept at face value is the completeness or accuracy of "investigative materials" that have been made public. I am familiar with how these types of investigations are done and am extremely skeptical with many of the things put forth in this thread as purporting to spring out of the official investigation. Are you not the same poster who upthread quoted the piece about the police needing to "piece together the work of several pathologists"? There is plenty wrong with that statement alone to raise more than an eyebrow.

 

[goofy !]

And to add to the pineapple story. It is thought an intrude used a stun gun to render JBR immobile to take down to basement. So how could he use a stun gun on her and then feed her pineapple while he wrote the ransom note?

That is internet lore.

Our old neighbor (since moved), Boulder LE at the time of the murder and involved, tended to have a looser tongue during neighborhood parties after a few drinks. He never shared any juicy details, but he did tell us that everything you read or see in the media is pure speculation based on the information that was released. The Ramseys, including Burke, were eventually cleared because of information that has never been released and evidence you will never see on Dateline or Dr. Phil. So, while fun to speculate on the who dunnit and it makes for great crime tv, there is so much the public does not know about this case and will never know until an arrest is made. I tend to believe that the police department is keeping some very important information close to the heart.

 

[goofy !]

I know, I was agreeing with you. I used to read WebSleuths. Until I started reading about a case that was local for me. That's when I realized that many of the people there come up with crazy theories and run with it.

This was very local, involving many people I know. I agree that some of the theories that are being presented as hard evidence are crazy.

Oh, and just to start another crazy theory, my investigator neighbor also spilled one night that the police have a rather good idea who the killer is.

 

[lovin'fl]

This was very local, involving many people I know. I agree that some of the theories that are being presented as hard evidence are crazy.

Oh, and just to start another crazy theory, my investigator neighbor also spilled one night that the police have a rather good idea who the killer is.

So did you know the White's? Does Mr White still maintain friendship with JR?

 

[JaneBanks]

I have no problem whether people disagree with me. Have at it, no problem.

What I don't accept at face value is the completeness or accuracy of "investigative materials" that have been made public. I am familiar with how these types of investigations are done and am extremely skeptical with many of the things put forth in this thread as purporting to spring out of the official investigation. Are you not the same poster who upthread quoted the piece about the police needing to "piece together the work of several pathologists"? There is plenty wrong with that statement alone to raise more than an eyebrow.

But that quote has nothing to do with why I quoted that excerpt from his book. I was answering the question with whether or not the pineapple was fresh, I just happened to quote the excerpt in its entirety. The context just isn't there to prove that I somehow used incomplete/incompetent sources.

You don't have to trust anything, I don't trust everything I read about this case either.

 

[goofy !]

I have not read about this case in years but what you say gets me. I just don't understand how it can be anyone but a family member.

She was tortured, killed in her own home, fed pineapple by 'said kidnapper/killer' while her parents slept? Really?!! How long does this go on and the parents/no one in the house moves, makes a sound. Giving this killer all the time in the world? Including possibly writing a ransom note. If the killer wrote the note during a prior visit or took the pad out of the house and returned it at some point, that just doesn't sound plausible to me.

The house is a mansion. It is old with all sorts of nooks and crannies, a bit of a maze with additions.. The possible open window was in the basement, 3 floors below the sleeping parents. I barely hear my kids on the floor below me when they are up while I am sleeping in our small house, I definitely would not have heard anything going on in a basement in a house that big. Google the house. There are floor plans and pictures of the interior. It is not at all strange that the parents did not hear anything.

 

[JaneBanks]

The house is a mansion. It is old with all sorts of nooks and crannies, a bit of a maze with additions.. The possible open window was in the basement, 3 floors below the sleeping parents. I barely hear my kids on the floor below me when they are up while I am sleeping in our small house, I definitely would not have heard anything going on in a basement in a house that big. Google the house. There are floor plans and pictures of the interior. It is not at all strange that the parents did not hear anything.

Something very interesting about that window in the basement. It is a very small window and a small person can fit through just barely yet there was a cob web still formed in the corner of the window. If someone were to break the window and slide through, you would think the cob web would be swept away.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Something very interesting about that window in the basement. It is a very small window and a small person can fit through just barely yet there was a cob web still formed in the corner of the window. If someone were to break the window and slide through, you would think the cob web would be swept away.

It's not that small. The A&E show had a guy (maybe that Lou investigator guy?) climb through it. He appears average sized and was older so it's not like he had any arcobat moves.

 

[goofy !]

A random thief that knew the amount of the bonus. Knew where to find paper and pen, and put the items back. Okay.

Ramsey was the CEO of Access Graphics, a very successful and popular tech company in Boulder at the time. His salary and bonuses were public record. Not sure, but wouldn't be surprised if his bonus was published in the Camera at the time. I know we knew many of our neighbors stock option sales, bonuses, and salaries as they were regularly published in the paper at the time.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Partially playing devil's advocate. Partially because I realize that the family was the primary focus of the investigation and yet the authorities were never able to bring charges when it's patently clear there was a strong desire to do so.

Because of my current job I also realize that the investigation was completely bungled and there was a significant breakdown in protocols by law enforcement -- a breakdown that makes it very unlikely charges could ever be brought in the case. I'm also disgusted that despite there being little significant evidence pointing at them the family has had to endure years of speculation about their guilt, especially in regards to someone who was a nine year old at the time. Then I see where many posters here are basing their suspicions on websites, books, tv programs, etc. without any clear knowledge about what the source or accuracy of the information that's being presented is -- yet they feel they have a good basis to feel it was the family covering up for the nine year old? Give me a break.

Have I thrown speculation out there? Yep. I am open about it. It's not directed specifically at any suspect (With my apologies for speculating that someone close to the housekeeper could have taken her key and had it copied without her knowledge.). It comes at the case from the general outline of events, not clinging to pieces and parts of a "timeline" that's been cobbled together from source material of unknown origin and includes statements like someone reporting the info. "believes" this or "knows" this or that could or couldn't be true, where a bowl of pineapple was found, what's been "reported" to have been found on a speculative box of chocolates in Jon Benet's room, why a strange latch was on a door in the basement, whether $118k was exactly or almost exactly the bonus amount, whether earlier drafts of a ransom note were or were not found in the house or what is the time necessary to digest pineapple. For goodness sake, someone posted something about finding it strange the family would have fresh cut pineapple in the refrigerator because the poster really doesn't have occasion to have fresh cut pineapple in their refrigerator, so that is a strange thing for the Ramsey family to have. Hang onto your hats, I live in a strange house where you're likely to find fresh cut pineapple in the refrigerator several times in a single year.

I don't know what happened. I don't think it will ever be conclusively proven what happened. I do think given the fact the family lost a child it's unfair to speculate on such flimsy information that they're guilty when it's equally as easy to speculate that someone other than one of the family did the killing.

ETA, if possible doesn't mean plausible or reasonable, why doesn't that apply to the family? Is it so incredibly plausible or reasonable a nine year old did it?

Yes.
That's what I was trying to get at earlier. A lot of the theories and talk center around these little things and trying to explain why the family was off. Is it really that strange to have a latch on the outside of a door? I can't really believe people think that's so weird. There's a million different reason why it could have been there. With it being up high, the easiest conclusion is somebody wanted to be able to keep kid out of there. Sonebody could mean anyone that has lived in that house in all the years it was standing. Tools, chemicals, presents there's a bunch of different things someone might want to keep away from a kid. It means nothing.
Pineapple? Oh the horror, what weirdos they had pineapple. Obviously there was something going on with them because they had pineapple..give me a break. People buy and eat pineapple
It's not weird. There's a reason supermarkets sell pineapple already cut up. They wouldn't bother if people didn't eat it.
A lot of the things that don't make sense, don't make sense anyways you looks at it.
People seem to just look at it one way. Well it would make sense for an intruder to do x so it must have been someone in the house. It doesn't make sense for someone in the house to do it either. It just doesn't make sense and doesn't mean anything.

 

[EMom]

Something very interesting about that window in the basement. It is a very small window and a small person can fit through just barely yet there was a cob web still formed in the corner of the window. If someone were to break the window and slide through, you would think the cob web would be swept away.

Lou Smit.....I watched the video of him going in through the window and he didn't look like a shrimp. He managed to get in easily enough. Did the police even TRY to recreate someone getting in this way? As for cobwebs, as I was coming in my house an hour ago, I saw some webs in front of our house where we never enter. We never come in that way, so we never see it, and the webs had built up a bit. I decided to tear them down. I had a piece of large junk mail (8 x 12) with me, so I tore at it and as I would destroy one bit and more on to the next, the original bit would flop back behind me and re-stick. Webs are STICKY. They re-stick. It's their nature. None of this is shocking.

The police determined the suspects and forced every "fact" to fit that conclusion. Bad police work.

 

[EMom]

My house is just a hair under 4000 SF. We don't have a basement, but we do have an attic that is probably about 4000 SF and it is a tall, stand up and walk around in it, attic. I promise you, someone could hang out in my house/attic for some time if they really wanted to. It's just the way it's built. And the Ramsey home was over 2.5 times bigger than mine. I actually find it incredibly easy to believe someone could make themselves "at home" without the family knowing it.

 

[goofy !]

The house is 4 floors including the basement. It was built in 1927 when open concept hadn't been heard of yet. There were plenty of places someone could have hidden for days let alone hours.

Every time it goes on the market, you can get a great deal! It is considered one of the top tainted houses.

 

[wilkeliza]

The house is 4 floors including the basement. It was built in 1927 when open concept hadn't been heard of yet. There were plenty of places someone could have hidden for days let alone hours.

Every time it goes on the market, you can get a great deal! It is considered one of the top tainted houses.

I imagine most people don't know what when on in their houses by previous owners. I admit I would totally buy it if I live in Boulder and had that kind of money. The only issue would be the lookie loos who would constantly be poking around. I'm sure if I dug into all the apartments I've had in NYC something gruesome happened in at least one of them.