"Wish I'd Thought of That!"
Aug 28, 2006
For those of you unfamiliar with the case, in 1994 Michael Fay was tried in Singapore for vandalism. Fay, who was 18 when the crimes were committed, has been diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Or, as we say in America, he was 18. The law itself was written in 1966 to inhibit Communist-friendly graffiti. Applying it to Fay (and others) after the family made restitution seems off the mark, especially since the punishment called for caning. U.S. pressure on Singapore to dismiss this element of the sentence was considerable. Fay was ultimately caned four times.
Still, that is the attitude towards crime and punishment I expect in Asia. We don't administer the law from a medical journal, we punish that shit. And frankly, I find it reassuring that some countries, while receptive to American tourism, do not share the sense that Americans should get American treatment no matter where they are.
In fact, if anyone had actually listened to John Ramsey instead of merely repeating him ("Let the justice system take its course"), Karr would still be in Thailand on sex offense charges, and US authorities would be testing his claims, not swallowing them whole. How about some evidence before we jump, hm? A gum wrapper, a cigarette butt, someone sighting a scrawny, pencil-necked Spandau Ballet reject lurking a Boulder street late at night, some skin cells, anything. Since when does a US case take such precedence over crimes perpetrated abroad that due process in that country is conveniently voided? Since when does that happen on the strength of an admission completely out of context to the crime at hand?
What happened to Karr's knowledge of events that weren't disclosed to the media? As Hockey Ho pointed out, the autopsy is online. We all know how social engineering works, too. Short of (most) state secrets, it's usually sufficient to ask persistently, and you'll find the information you want. The security around crime scene information is a matter of non-disclosure, not secured communication. Here's how that technology works: "Everyone who knows, keep your mouths shut." So what happens if someone obsessed with the case presses the right button and gets more information? So he didn't get it from a mainstream source. How does that prove the information was airtight for the last 10 years?
I don't think Karr is laughing it up, or bragging how he played Thai and US authorities and parlayed a prison sentence worth shivering about into a business-class flight home and international publicity. As any Spinal Tap fan can tell you, there's a fine line between being stupid and clever, and Karr somehow tripped over it in the right time and place. It does seem like a ready-made David E. Kelley plot, though: watch Variety for a deal in the next few weeks.
A previous thread said the parents were cleared by DNA test too, but I've read where experts say the DNA could be totally unrelated and could have been there from manufacture. Intersting that there is so little DNA on the child (1 spot in the underwear, and degraded DNA under the fingernails that's useless) so that an intruder left a little but no sign of their presence outside of that. By the way - they found beaver hair too - but I don't think a beaver killed JonBenet.
A few more things to point out. The parents said JonBenet was asleep when she came home and she did not have pineapple at dinner but there was pineapple in her intestinal tract so it seems likely that she was awake because of the approximate time of death. There was a scream heard by the next door neighbor and the lights were seen on in the middle of the night. Patsey Ramsey was wearing the same clothes the next day that she wore to the party the previous night. A flashlight, that I've heard may be the blunt instrument that struck her in the skull, was wiped clean not only on the outside, but even the batteries were wiped clean! I personally don't know anybody that uses gloves to put in batteries and have not heard the Ramsey's say they used gloves whenever they used the flashlight. There are inconsistencies elsewhere in the story concerning JonBenet's brother's pocket knife and it's relevance to being a weapon used in the crime and the storage location (wine cellar?) where the body was found appears to have been hidden to everybody but the Ramsey's. The housekeeper who had worked there for a few years had no idea it existed. When Fleet White went looking for the body and Ramsey found the body his reaction tipped Fleet that he was somehow involved or knew. There was an untouched spider web on the window where they intruder supposedly entered and the houskeeper said that the basement window was not broken previous to that night.
As I've pointed out previously I can't imagine a killer telling the parents to "use that good Southern Common Sense" and that they respect John Ramsey but not the country he served. It's convenient that an intruder would write a ransom note using Patsey's pen and paper. Some of the handwriting experts did indicate Patsey wrote the note. I've also read that the note indicates that the child was already dead at the time the note was written because of the wording "the child dies". If the ransom note was real, it said not to call the police or JonBenet would die. Black & White police cars pull up in front and the Ramsey's didn't care - maybe that's because they knew she was dead. Ramsey had called his pilot and had him on standby so they could fly to Georgia the day of the murder - a trip that was previously unplanned.
The whole CNN thing is bizzarre. The parents lawyered up and wouldn't talk to the police but they found time to go on CNN and tell the world there's a killer out there. With other families they've cooperated with police immediately - even Polly Klass' dad took a polygraph right away. The Ramsey's refused to take one from the police and allegedly the first one they took was discarded because the results weren't to their liking. They took a second 'private' one and published those results.
By the way, the parents were *never* cleared by the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury looked at the evidence and I believe they were not allowed by Alex Hunter to vote to send it to trial. He took the information and swept it under the carpet and called it good. Maybe he felt he couldn't get a conviction but the Grand Jury did not clear the Ramseys.
There are lots of reasons that point to the Ramseys being involved and an an intruder *not* being involved but because of the bungling in the beginning this case will never be "solved" or prosecuted. The "real" tragedy is many children die every year and this one got so much attention.
The DNA evidence includes a partial palm print, the blood, and stuff under the fingernails. The other evidence includes cord and tape (not found in the house) and an unidentified boot print on the suitcase underneath the broken window. In my opinion, these things are the most important evidence and have not been linked to anyone inside the house. Who brings cord, tape, and breaks a nearby paintbrush to form a ligature to restrain and kill their own kid? That would be unprecedented if true. The blow on the head was also noted to likely be post-mortem as the hemmoraging in the eyelids and no bleeding from the head injury indicate JonBenet died from strangulation. There was also bruising in the vaginal area as the autopsy report states. So explain to me how either one of these parents who clearly fawn all over their precious kid would "lose it" as theories have put forth enough to pick her up out of her bed, feed her pineapple, then sexually assualt her, strangle her, hit her over the head and then write a ransome note?! Sorry, not buying it.
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that can be swayed in either direction thanks to the media. For instance, the BPD did not treat the scene as a crime scene until late in the morning - plenty of time for a spider to spin a web over the window. Of the 6 or 8 handwriting analysis experts, only one said they "could not eliminate" Patsy as the author of the note while the others did. There are more similarities in John Karr's yearbook writing than Patsy's handwriting, for Christ's sake.
I agree with the fact that the real tragedy here is the grandiose media attention this case gets when so many other children lose their lives every day. But the second tragedy is that the Boulder Police Department was, and is totally incompetent to solve this murder. JonBenet's murder in 1996 was the only one that year and the BPD just didn't have the know-how or experience to track the leads down when they were hot. Instead, they put all their eggs in one basket - to convict the parents and all that precious time and energy let the real killer get away. I don't blame the Ramseys for lawyering up one bit, else they would be sitting in jail for a murder they didn't commit.
Here's the bit on the federal judge (not Grand Jury) agreeing with the new D.A. that an intruder more likely killed JonBenet than the parents: http://www.courttv.com/news/ramsey/040803_parents_ap.html
I *do* believe the parents killed her but that it was an accident. It's my belief that there was a bedwetting/bed defecation incident (by the way there were fresh sheets on her bed and the police discovered a lot of laundry had been done that night. [Must be the intruder doing laundry again - wonder why that is?] The housekeeper also talked about the comforter and somebody familiar with it had taken it off to do the laundry or they would have ruined the comforter in taking the sheeets off. Not to mention the change of clothes on JonBonet and her body being wiped down) I think one of the parents accidentally strangled her in a rage and then at first used the blunt head trauma to cover it up I've also heard there is belief she was struck with the flashlight first. I'll ask again. Why would an intruder wipe the batteries? The intruder didn't bring the flashlight - it was the Ramsey's! Why wipe the batteries down then? If they didn't realize she wasn't dead from the flashlight the strangulation could have been used to cover up the death.
I believe she was fed the pineapple when she came home which means the parents lied about her being asleep and being put to bed asleep. I think the paintbrush and other items were used to cover-up what really happened. By the way - how does the intruder manage to only leave a partial palmprint, 1 boot print, and the DNA in her underwear and under her fingernails? That's pretty amazing.
The cord and tape (not found in the house) were tied to reciepts from the Ramsey's from a local (McGuckin) hardware store but they couldn't prove it was the same one because they no longer had the items. If you're an intruder, why use Patsey's paintbrush, pen, and paper and leave them there, but then bother to take the tape and cord with you? Why would the intruder take these items? The cord and tape were not unusual items to have in a house - what's unusual is that if they didn't come from the house why bring just that and not the ransom note. If it did come from the house why take it with you? The ransom note too indicates the parents involvement. Why bother to write the ransom note if the child was killed? Why do you think the ransom note was written? I think it was to cover up the real cause of death. Nobody's been able to adequately explain the Ransom Note to me or the fact it was left on the back stairs which Patsey *never* used to come down.
How would the intruder get in and out after hours without disturbing the cobweb at the only point of entry?
I don't know why JonBenet was killed and can only guess, but like you, I'm not buying it. But what I'm not buying is the innocence of the Ramsey's.
The fact is that there WAS foreign DNA found on JonBenet and in the house, no matter how small that is, it's there. I've seen cases solved on one fiber of hair. So in the scenerio posed, Patsy Ramsey would have accidently killed her daughter with a bash to her head, and then cover it up by staging a strangling - to the depths of fashioning a ligature with a dowell twist (which also would had to cause significant bruising post mortem), then use something to bruise her vagina, and then find some foreign DNA to put under her fingernails and in her underwear. Just where do you find foreign DNA in the middle of the night?
The flashlight has not been proven to be the murder weapon, or the thing that hit her on the head - any number of blunt things could have been used. The rope, cord, and ligature are signs of an organized killer - most of whom bring these things to the scene with the intent of using them and do not leave behind.
As for the ransom note, that is puzzling to me, but does indicate that part was not planned - hence why everything was used within the house to write it. The mind of a person so sick and psychotic enough to commit this crime is not one that will always make sense. I dare not venture a guess as to what this person was thinking when writing the note, but I will say that killers in history such as the Zodiac do like to leave taunting notes and in a way, take credit for the crime.
- It is in fact a corrupted crime scene, but still: a spider spinning a web in late December? Maybe that's where the gloves come into play.
- Speculation on anyone's motive seems to be a guessing game. The simplest explanation, though, seems to be it wasn't done by someone who knew what they were doing or about to do. The clues left seem to suggest a lot of panicked afterthought.
- Maybe I just wasn't tuning in at the right time, but are there no first-hand accounts of JonBenet's interactions with her family or parents?
- I don't think the Ramseys perpetrated the murder. I do think there's some other patch of information that cannot afford to have disclosed.
- The BPD were ignorant enough to botch the crime scene, so who interviewed Patsy Ramsey? I think it was a freshly-promoted truant officer, judging by the tapes. This guy was no threat, and I think Patsy quit it out of exasperation, not fear.
- Lawyering up to protect yourself from clueless law enforcement? This is white, affluent Boulder, not West Memphis. The Ramseys had considerable means and adequate counsel at their disposal. I think there's some other explanation, and whatever it is, massive public scorn must be better than revealing whatever it is.
- Either that, or this was simply the most grossly mismanaged lawyering ever, anywhere. No lawyer should be allowed to be so stupid as to permit a client to be tried in the court of public opinion as the Ramseys have been. Again, I can't imagine, but I allow for the plausibility of it.
Secondly, did you know Henry Lee, who was consulted on this case, bought a pair of girls panties, opened it up, and tested for DNA and got positive results for foreign DNA? This happens - sometimes DNA doesn't implicate somebody.
To your point on the soiled bed, if the parents cleaned it up, why lie about it to the police? The police reports from the initial interviews (not interrogations) claimed the Ramseys said she was put to bed asleep and that was the last they saw of her. The soiled bed implication (along with a late night pineapple snack) imply otherwise.
By the way - there's a great piece written for Vanity Fair that covers a lot of this. Here's the link:
http://www.bardachreports.com/articles/v_19971000.html
The article also talks about the attorneys (it looks like they were hired within 24 hours of the discovery of JonBenet's body) and the media consultants and PR team. You say it's good they lawyered up, but I find it interesting that in no other case I have heard of did they not do the kind of investigative interview that other victim's families has done but managed to go on to CNN. People who think the Ramsey's are innocent claim the Boulder PD didn't investigate other avenues but they did actually check out over a hundred suspects and went through thousands of letters and tips. Ramsey accused a few people personally of this crime, including an employee of Access Graphics, his former friends Fleet & Prescilla White, and even the guy who played Santa Claus at a party they had. If you read the article the number of people who are accused is amazing. What's interesting was all of these people were investigated and interviewed by the police, but the Ramsey's weren't. Even Alex Hunter, who worked hand-in-hand with the Ramsey's legal team, even giving them incredible access to police evidence admits that the Ramsey's behavior is odd and unlike any other victim.
You find it hard to believe the parents accidentally killed their child and covered it up. Here's what I find strange. If this was a kidnapper who brought cord and tape, why not bring a ransom note. If they carried off the cord and tape, why not the practice version of the ransom note? Why leave that in the trash? Why take the precious time to write another version when it could endanger your escape? How can the intruder be so cold and calculating not to leave enough physical evidence to be caught, but so stupid to write two versions of a ransom note (probably after the child was dead?) If as you say, the note was written at the last minute, why bother if the child is dead? If it was written before the child was dead, why not bring it with you and why bother to write mulitple versions at the scene? If you want the money, why not take the child's body with you and dump it somewhere else so it wouldn't be discovered? I think the reason the child's body wasn't taken was because it wasn't an intruder. In the Lindbergh case the baby was discarded and ferile dogs savaged the body. I think parents wouldn't and couldn't do that that to their child which is why the body was still there. Why compliment John Ramsey and say you like him but not the country he serves? Does an intruder hate John Ramsey? If so why be nice to him? You said Patsey wasn't identified as the author, but according to the Vanity Fair article she was the only one who's writing set off alarm bells and I've heard a few people talk about her being positively identified as the author. Even the CBI (Colorado Bureau of Investigation) report concludes "There are indications that the author of the ransom note is Patricia Ramsey, but the evidence falls short to support that definitive conclusion."
The flashlight was owned by the Ramseys. If it wasn't the weapon used to bash her skull (and nobody can prove that it was), why were there no fingerprints on the flashlight or the batteries? If it was a weapon and the intruder wiped down the outside I would understand. But if you're an intruder and the flashlight is owned by the Ramseys (which it was) why wipe down the batteries? Even if the intruder used gloves, why wipe the batteries that the intruder never would have touched. It's not like the intruder would have brought some extra D-Cells and borrowed the Ramsey's flashlight when the alleged intruder was so calculating that they brought cord and rope for the crime. Why bring cord and rope, but not the paintstick?
On a tangential note - why bother to re-dress the body? She was put to bed in one set of pajamas according to the Ramseys, but found in another pair. Why would an intruder take the time to change her clothes after killing her? Why not just cut & run and not do any of these time consuming activities which could lead to your capture?
Let's make an assumption that the ransom note was legitimate. I don't believe it was, but let's go with that for just a second. Why didn't the parents do anything the ransom note said? The articles I've read talked about the parents immediately called the police. If you knew your daughter was kidnapped, wouldn't you be concerned at all about following the instructions on the note so you could recover your daughter? Why not call the bank and arrange to get the money for the drop? The call was supposed to come between 8:00 AM and 10:00 AM - why were they not concerned when there was no call? Ramsey went and got the mail between 10:30 - Noon. There seemed to be no concern that the kidnappers would call. If the note was real, why didn't they treat it as such? I suspect it's because they wrote the note and they knew their child was dead.
When the detective asked Ramsey to search the house with Fleet White, he went directly to a broken window and pointed it out. The window would only allow somebody the size of a child or midget in the room, but why walk directly to it at that point? Then after that John Ramsey walked directly to the room where JonBenet was. I find it odd that during the search he didn't start at the nearest room but went right to where the body was.
There's also physical evidence that Dr. Wecht talked about indicating digital penetration and potential molestation. If there is no intruder, and I don't believe there is, then that would mean one of the parents did that and it's my belief it was John Ramsey. FBI experts that I've seen quoted talk about 11 / 12 of these type of cases indicate a family member or somebody close to the family being the perpetrator. I think it's no different in this case.
After watching it, I understood the actions of the Ramseys and why they only cooperated with the BPD through legal counsel - after it was abundantly clear that they were not going to do anything about finding the real killer. Any one of these leads in the story makes a helluva lot more sense than any "Patsy over-reacting and John covering for her" theory, yet the BPD ignored these leads when they were hot. I'm not sure that this case will ever be solved now but one thing is for sure - the Ramseys' lives were ruined because of an incompetent police department and an unjust media circus.
By the way - I agree the BPD screwed this case up (with the Ramsey's help - since they invited everybody over and tainted the scene by bringing her body upstairs) but did you know that the BPD investigated 160 suspects, spent $2 million on this case, collected at least 1,200 pieces of evidence and followed up on thousands of tips? In my opinion, the junk about them 'not investigating' other leads is apologist crap spewed only by those who think the Ramseys are innocent and I suspect think the Ramseys should never have been investigated.
I agree with you - the Ramsey's lives have been ruined just like OJ's and I'm sure that the hot-lines the Ramseys set-up will be just as successful as OJ's in finding the 'real' killer. I have zero sympathy for the Ramseys and think they should thank their lucky stars for the incompentency of the BPD because they would have been prosecuted if it weren't for that.
I never believed the case would be prosecuted, but now that Mary Lacey dragged a pedophile back to Boulder without a shred of corroborating evidence (only going on what she admittedly says is in the public record) the case can never be prosecuted. Maybe that was her plan in the first place.
The fact is, John is proven to be a very intelligent man who built his company from the ground up. Why would either one of the parents leave any kind of pointers back to them such as mention a sum of money close to John's bonus in the ransom note, or that they are from the south, or to leave such an elaborate note in the first place, knowing that they will be the prime suspects. Also, John did in fact call his bank to have the money transferred to an account where he could go get it. When the call never came from the would-be kidnappers, that's when they searched the house again and found JonBenet.
The BPD did start to follow up on leads, but not until years later. It is the number one thing that the Daily Camera and other publications of Boulder have been scrutinizing for years about the BPD. The fact that another little girl in the Ramsey neighborhood was attacked in her home 9 months after JonBenet and this little girl went to the same dance school as JonBenet, and it was never investigated by the BPD at the time for any connection should give you a clue as to how incompetent the BPD are. The parents of the second little girl went to the media to try and get some attention so that the BPD would do something because they felt it was such a strong connection. By the time the BPD did look into it, years had passed.
Sure, you can string together some kind of plot based on circumstantial evidence that makes the Ramseys look guilty, if you are trying that hard. But if you just look at the facts, once again, nothing points to the Ramseys. By the way, the DNA in the underwear was mixed with JonBenet's blood - even Mr. Lee would conclude that whomever's DNA that is, was there that night. Besides, the DNA in the undies is the same underneath her fingernail so that was not acquired at Target. Find the DNA match, and you find the killer. That's why John Karr was let go after no match.
As for speculation outside the facts, most experts agree (aside from Steve Thomas who had never investigated a homicide prior to this) that JonBenet was subdued by a stun gun, most believe the blow to the head was caused by something like the side of a bathtub or sink (not a flashlight), and that she did not die from that (but might have had she not been strangled too). Most profilers say that the killer(s) is that of a repeat sex offender who probably graduated from robbing houses to sexual assault. They were clearly in the house for a few hours before the Ramseys arrived home so that they were comfortable with their surroundings.
I used to think the Ramseys were guilty, back when it happened because of the information that got to the media, the statistics, and the published books such as Steve Thomas'. But when I started to read everything from both sides, and all the gray areas in between, then I was able to form an opinion based on facts. If you haven't read anything from the Ramsey perspective such as their book, you should, before you continue on. If you're a parent, you will be horrified when you read their book as you journey through months and months, and years and years, of being slandered, with false accusations that have never been proven with one bit of evidence - everying from habitually molesting your own child to murdering them.
I do think the BPD screwed up - but again the Ramsey behavior is different than any other crime victim ever and them calling up all their friends (which the BPD should have stopped) and bringing her upstairs did also contribute to the crime scene being tainted. I agree - the BPD should have shut it down but Pat Arndt liked the Ramseys and treated them differently than they should have been.
I *still* don't know of a crime victim's family not only getting laywers, but getting his & her's attorneys, a PR team, and a Media Team and going on CNN before they ever talked to the police.
Maybe the Ramseys were panicked when they did it. You can't explain why the ransom note points to them - you just say they're too smart to do that. I still think it points to them and other investigators agreed. Can you come up with ANY other explanation why the amount would be so low for a kidnapper? Maybe you could explain to me why a kidnapper would take time to compliment John Ramsey twice in the ranson note? The intruder must have had plenty of time after the murder to hang out and write a couple of ransom notes, leave one at the scene, and compliment your victim when you killed their child. If the note was written before the murder, why bother to not bring a ransom note with you? If it was after, why leave a hand writing sample to identify yourself when you've cleaned up the murder scene and hidden the body and taken the cord and tape with you?
What do you base your opinion that Ramsey called the bank on? All of the accounts I have read said he *never* called the bank. Is that from their book? Because the bank doesn't actually corroborate that.
The BPD did investigate others right away because I remember John Ramsey accusing a former colleague, the Whites, the guy who played Santa Clause, another guy (Chris Webb?) and a few others. Patsey accused the maid. These people were investigated early on - not years later.
You say nothing points to the Ramseys - I think nothing points to anybody BUT the Ramseys. I just find it amazing that the people think the Ramseys are innocent have absolutely no explanation how the intruder could have gotten into the house without leaving significant DNA and somebody is such a genius that they would bring tape and cord to the scene would take the time to write two ransom notes and would leave one behind. Either your intruder is stupid or brilliant - not both. Which is it? If the intruder is brilliant why do they make stupid mistakes? If they're stupid, how can they not leave enough trace evidence of their visit?
Where did Mr. Lee conclude that whomever's DNA that is was there that night? That's not true from my understanding of the case. By the way - the DNA under the fingernails was contaminated - and was not ever proven to be the same as the DNA in the underwear. Nowhere have I seen proof that the DNA couldn't have been there before.
Steve Thomas was a highly decorated detective - he just came up with an answer that the FOR (Friends of Ramseys) like the DA and assistant DA did not want to hear.
By the way - there is no definitive proof of the Stun Gun. There were two marks that Lou Smit thought *might* have been made by a stun gun - but there is no proof and experts differ on this - they do not agree with Lou Smit's assessment. Lou Smit is the same guy who is best friends with the Ramseys and would never think they did it. He also claimed the kidnapper specified $118K because that's a million pesos in Mexico. I think he's just about as wrong as you can be on this.
Could you please tell me if the blow to the head was caused by bathtub, why was it cleaned up? Because the murderer respected the Ramseys? It's crazy. The intruder cleans up some things but not others? The neighbors reported that the lights were on all night and that they heard a scream. I don't see how an intruder could be hanging out for so incredibly long (including laundering her clothes, cleaning up the bathroom, writing a couple of ransom notes, changing the victims clothes, finding her favorite dress and putting it with her body in the basement) and not be caught and not have any signs of their presence except for the one room in the basement where Jon Benet was found.
Concerning your theory that "Most profilers" (I disagree - there's only one that I remember putting this out) say it's a repeat sex offender. Then why have there been zero repeats of this crime? Why have there been zero copy-cats? You say another girl was assaulted, but it wasn't the same exact thing as this crime.
I have no desire to read the Ramsey's point of view just as the posters that are Pro-Ramsey have not addressed many of the points I have brought up about specific circumstantial evidence or some of the specific admittedly odd behavior (even by friend DA Alex Hunter's standards) of the Ramseys.
I do have a correction about something. My comments concerning the comforter need to be clarified. What happened was that she was found wrapped in a white blanket that was underneath the comforter. The criminal had to un-make the bed to wrap her in the blanket, then make the bed again to put the comforter back on.
I just believe you have to have an incredible leap of faith to believe that a midget sized intruder (the broken window was very small) broke into this house bringing with them some of the things they needed, but not bringing a ransom note. Then the intruder takes the time to write TWO ransom notes (before or after the crime - most likely after) and leaves one behind but takes with them other evidence of the crime. Then as mentioned above the intruder takes time to do the laundry, change the victim's clothes, take the white blanket off the bed, leaves the lights on, finds her special dress, cleans the bathroom, etc. without getting caught even though there was a scream heard by a neighbor coming from the Ramsey house in the middle of the night.