Ramsey Case

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:03 pm

Did anyone catch the show last night (around midnight I think?) on #37, which I think is the WE channel- on JonBenet Ramsey?
I think it was called Death of a Little Beauty Queen? (or something- I missed the first 20 minutes, and it didn't repeat later.)

It seemed pretty new- I had not seen it before. It was based on Smit's investigation and narrated by a woman.
It had new evidence- or rather evidence that had not been shown before on a program.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:58 am

Smit climbed thru the open rear window (which he had done on TV before) but then later he showed the suitcase below the window and what appeared to be a footprint on the top of it.

He said the blanket or a covering on JonBenet left fibres or a fibre on her body and it came from that suitcase. He said it was a theory that an abducter tried to put a stunned (-gunned) JonBenet into that suitcase to smuggle her out of the house thru that same window. Then of course we see that long smudge on the wall beneath the window.

That was the first I heard or read about that theory.

There was more.

I take it no one saw this program? Even if it had shown before?

bobarth · Post by **bobarth** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:33 pm

Thanks Kat, had never heard that theory at all. Glad they are not blaming the parents anymore. Any new clues as to whom they think might have done it?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:33 am

It looked like a show that they updated at the end to make it current, like a 2003 with things added.
They included the mother's death and they tacked on the arrest of of the confessor.

The other thing they showed was the guest room. I had not been in that room before in a TV show. The bedskirt was sort of hitched up and disturbed. Smit showed that if someone was lying in wait under that bed they had a clear straight shot view to JonBenet's bedroom door.

There was also found in that room or an adjacent closet (I forget which- but if not in that room , very near it) a length of rope that did not belong there, nor did it belong to anyone who lived there. It wasn't necessairly used in the crime, but it was out of place.

Smit also said emphatically that JonBenet's bed had not been wet that night.

Also, in the cellar, he talked about the little girl's scream that neighbor claimed to have heard and they had experimented to find that could not be heard in the parent's room but could be heard by the neighbor because of an open vent to the outside very near where the body was found. (I think that had been written up before- but I never saw its location until this show.)

bobarth · Post by **bobarth** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:54 am

Thanks Kat

I dont remember anything about the guest room either. Lots of new information to me. Thanks for posting that. I never watch TV so unless it gets written about I never know about it.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm

I pity the fools whose opinions on this (and other) cases reflect their own inner demons.
Any person who is slowly killed by strangulation will lose control of their muscles etc.
It also happens when people suffer extreme emotions.
An ex-Secret Service agent has to keep a mop and bucket handy when some women met a Presicent.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:12 pm

Kat @ Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:33 am wrote:...
Also, in the cellar, he talked about the little girl's scream that neighbor claimed to have heard and they had experimented to find that could not be heard in the parent's room but could be heard by the neighbor because of an open vent to the outside very near where the body was found. (I think that had been written up before- but I never saw its location until this show.)

You should all know about an uncorroborated eyewtness's statements, as per Judge Davis (name?). They may be mistaken or lying and you have no way to find out.

It is possible that the "power of suggestion" will implant a recovered memory in some people that is real for them.

If they did hear a scream, why did they do nothing?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:43 am

I have to say, "Duh," ray.

I'm only *reporting* a TV show.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:24 am

I missed that show, and I never heard the theory of using the stun gun and such. I guess we will never know who killed JonBenet. I still think it was her mother, Patsy.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:52 pm

Oh yes. I left out the stun gun info.
How did you know of it if you had never heard the theory?
Anyway, that's a reminder, thanks- Smit did show the marks on JonBenet and then they showed an actual cadaver with proven stun gun burn marks in almost the same exact places- the cheek and ear!

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:15 pm

snokkums @ Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:24 am wrote:I missed that show, and I never heard the theory of using the stun gun and such. I guess we will never know who killed JonBenet. I still think it was her mother, Patsy.

Stephen Singular's book tells about the stun gun marks, two small circular marks on JonBenet's body or arm. Wasn't that on the show "Perfect Murder ..." from a few years ago?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:54 pm

Another new Ramsey case TV show tonight at 10 pm Eastern time:

48 Hours Mystery
CBS ----- Nov 25 ----- 10:00pm
Series/Talk, 60 Mins.

"Decade of Mystery"
John Ramsey discusses newfound evidence in the death of his daughter, JonBenét, and the arrest of John Mark Karr, who police say falsely confessed to the killing.

Original Airdate: November 25, 2006.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:22 pm

I watched this and it did tell the inside story of the entrapment and capture of John Karr, which was interesting.
But seeing Patsey dying from cancer and seeing closeups of what I call *John Ramsey's inappropriate smile* and closeups of John Karr's eyes was sickening. In different ways.

Did anybody catch this show?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 3:56 pm

I missed the beginning, watching something else.
But it seemed to make the important point that the DNA evidence ruled out anyone in the family, and two sets of footprints suggest 2 intruders.
I wonder if they are giving JMK enough space to lead to an accomplice?

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:25 pm

I watched it too, and was shocked to learn the authorities had enough DNA to rule out the family members just months after the murder, so why on earth did they keep dogging Patsy??? How cruel and inhuman of them......

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:57 pm

John Ramsey kept saying what a wonderful mother Patsy was and she would never hurt her child. Thru her, tho, the little girl was exposed in pageants to all kinds of public scrutiny, which probably led to her murder. I don't think they as parents stopped to think about how much the world may have changed since Patsey's pageant days. He did imply, in interview for this show, that since Patsy was not destined to live long it was sort of nice for her to be able to follow her dream of JonBenet being crowned.

It's very strange- I cannot begin to think I know anything about that kind of culture. I suppose it is similiar to child movie stars?

There is something revolting about John Ramsey tho- is it only me who feels this way?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:56 pm

shakiboo @ Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:25 pm wrote:I watched it too, and was shocked to learn the authorities had enough DNA to rule out the family members just months after the murder, so why on earth did they keep dogging Patsy??? How cruel and inhuman of them......

One of Eric Ambler's 1930s novels tells about a trick used by the Viennese Police. When they have an idea where a fugitive is hiding, they announce to the press that the suspect has left the country. Then, feeling safe, the fugitive will come out of hiding; and the police pounce on him!
This trick may go back to the 19th cent Parisian police and its famous police detective.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:37 pm

RayS are you saying that the police were just trying to make whomever really did it feel safe and maybe let slip something? If that's the case would they have let the family in on it?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:08 pm

shakiboo @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:37 pm wrote:RayS are you saying that the police were just trying to make whomever really did it feel safe and maybe let slip something? If that's the case would they have let the family in on it?

I can't speak for them. They could assume that the family would be the first suspect. Most murders take place in a home and involve a family or friends. Sad but true. Just read your local newspaper.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:14 pm

This Beauty Pageant Queen show is on again now. It's just getting into Smit's investigation. You haven't missed anything yet if you start now.
It's on WE channel.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:30 pm

The newspaper had a story about 'ten years after".

Has anyone's opinion been changed since 1996?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:26 pm

Nancy Grace is going to cover updates tonight on the Ramsey case.

I don't watch her and don't know what channel she is on.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Dec 26, 2006 6:50 pm

I see her on CNNH...which is CNN Headline News as opposed to the regular CNN, I believe.

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:03 pm

Thanks.
I've played the show on in the background. Haven't heard anything new. It's repeating.
I had forgotten about the suspect "McReynolds?" I think the name was. He committed suicide. They said he had a cap near him with those initials on it that signed the ransom note.

But Karr's writing matched the note?
Did I get that right?

Anyway, it sounds like if a person doesn't match the DNA they are eliminated now, automatically.
I'm not sure that is a wise approach.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:15 am

Why do you say that? It seems like DNA is pretty incriminating.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:38 pm

Kat @ Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:03 am wrote:Thanks.
I've played the show on in the background. Haven't heard anything new. It's repeating.
I had forgotten about the suspect "McReynolds?" I think the name was. He committed suicide. They said he had a cap near him with those initials on it that signed the ransom note.

But Karr's writing matched the note?
Did I get that right?

Anyway, it sounds like if a person doesn't match the DNA they are eliminated now, automatically.
I'm not sure that is a wise approach.

I think they said they suspected a second person at the crime scene, based on footprints.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:11 am

Well for instance, Angle, they eliminated Karr on the DNA evidence.
I had a feeling he was there or knows who was there. I think he may have seen poloroid pictures that may be black-market or underground. If officials in charge of the case lose interest in a suspect because he doesn't match something found in the panties, they might be missing out on an accomplice or an accessory-after-the-fact. If they pursued that person anyway, regarless of no match, then they might have leverage to get the person not matching to talk.
They need info- they might miss more by simply eliminating.
They also said it wasn't semen, so I think they should keep their options open.
This just isn't about Karr- they have let others loose for the same reason, now we hear.
Their view is too narrow- it always has been.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:10 am

That certainly makes sense.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:44 pm

Kat @ Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:11 am wrote:Well for instance, Angle, they eliminated Karr on the DNA evidence.
I had a feeling he was there or knows who was there. I think he may have seen poloroid pictures that may be black-market or underground. If officials in charge of the case lose interest in a suspect because he doesn't match something found in the panties, they might be missing out on an accomplice or an accessory-after-the-fact. If they pursued that person anyway, regarless of no match, then they might have leverage to get the person not matching to talk.
They need info- they might miss more by simply eliminating.
They also said it wasn't semen, so I think they should keep their options open.
This just isn't about Karr- they have let others loose for the same reason, now we hear.
Their view is too narrow- it always has been.

WHAT would be the correct thing to do, based on your knowledge?

Stephen Singular's book said the Boulder police had enough evidence to arrest, but the DA banned this because he didn't have enough evidence to convict (after the crime). Would you want to see another farce like in the OJ Simpson case? Not enought evidence to indict by the Grand Jury, then they were able to find bloodstains that were not just incriminating but suspicious.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:51 am

There was this thing on that Nancy Grace show where she herself gave the statements about handwriting comparisons between the note and John Karr.
I mean it was very convincing. She had all the similar alphabet letters enlarged and physically, with her own hand, pointed out the details of how they were alike. I'm not sure what this means, if true- or what her summation was.

Did anyone see this?
Do I have it right, and would someone in authority give her this evidence and the right to broadcast it? I couldn't tell how old this segment was. It would have to be fairly recent wouldn't it?

diana · Post by **diana** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:05 am

I'm not sure if this is the segment you're referring to, Kat -- but here's a link to a transcript of a broadcast where Nancy Grace compared the note left in the Ramsey house to an inscription written by Karr in his high school yearbook. It looks as though this program was aired close to the time Karr was brought back to the U.S. September 1/06?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... ng.01.html

The part about the handwriting comparison is quite a ways in -- but you can get there quickly by doing a word-search for 'SBTC' (the signature on the ransom note) after you bring up the page.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 2:50 pm

Kat @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:51 am wrote:There was this thing on that Nancy Grace show where she herself gave the statements about handwriting comparisons between the note and John Karr.
I mean it was very convincing. She had all the similar alphabet letters enlarged and physically, with her own hand, pointed out the details of how they were alike. I'm not sure what this means, if true- or what her summation was.

Did anyone see this?
Do I have it right, and would someone in authority give her this evidence and the right to broadcast it? I couldn't tell how old this segment was. It would have to be fairly recent wouldn't it?

I understand that it takes experts to compare handwriting samples, and experts disagree. It is not a science but an art. There is no standard for comparisons. We know that handwriting changes over the years.
Given the same teaching mehhods, you should expect similarities in printing (as in that letter?).
Nancy Grace is no handwriting expert; she is basically an entertainer. She has a law degree, like Geraldo Rivera or Gerald Springer, but that doesn't make her the Absolute Teller of Truth, does it?

You can print the reference to that article, but not copy the article if it is copyrighted. There is an exception for "fair use", quoting part of it. IMO

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:41 pm

Thank you Diana! I missed some of that- the transcript was very helpful! Thanks again.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:12 pm

RayS @ Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:38 pm wrote:
Kat @ Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:03 am wrote:Thanks.
I've played the show on in the background. Haven't heard anything new. It's repeating.
I had forgotten about the suspect "McReynolds?" I think the name was. He committed suicide. They said he had a cap near him with those initials on it that signed the ransom note.

But Karr's writing matched the note?
Did I get that right?

Anyway, it sounds like if a person doesn't match the DNA they are eliminated now, automatically.
I'm not sure that is a wise approach.
I think they said they suspected a second person at the crime scene, based on footprints.

Most of the info is repeating. I still think that one of the parents did it. Mrs. Ramsey went to her death, I think, knowing she killed her kid. I'll believe that until I die.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:11 pm

WE channel at 9 PM- For those who missed this Ramsey case show- it's on again tonight.

Jon Benet: Who Killed The Pageant ___

(My listing cuts off here.)

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:17 am

thanks think I'll watch it. that case always interested me.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:39 pm

Most of the info is repeating. I still think that one of the parents did it. Mrs. Ramsey went to her death, I think, knowing she killed her kid. I'll believe that until I die.

But WHY do you choose to believe it was done by a parent?
Given the examples from true crime stories, is it always the parent?

PS
This was a generic quote that applies to anyone who will answer the question. I don't want to be accused of fomenting discord.

I just wonder WHY some will blame the parents. Is it because that is all they know? Just like blaming Lizzie (or Bridget) for you know what.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:08 pm

Snokkums, it was on last night, sorry if you missed it.
Afterwards was a good show on "Who Killed Diana."

Ray, you have provided a quote but we need the name of the person quoted- thanks.

I no longer think it was Patsy Ramsey.
And I admit I'm still prejudiced against John Ramsey, mainly because of his *innapropriate smile.* He just seems creepy to me.