JonBenet Ramsey III (authorities, alive, homicide, evidence)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If, as I suspect, someone in the family hit her "accidentally" in a fit of rage then it's obvious why they tried to cover this up.
While there was later debate over whether the blunt object or the strangulation was the actual cause of death, it's pretty clear that no one in her family hit her in a fit of rage, nor did she hit her head on a bathtub.
But how do you explain such a preposterous, elaborate cover-up by the family? It just doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't they simply say she slipped in the bathtub, or was jumping on the bed, or fell down the stairs, etc.?
how do you explain the preposterous, elaborate "ransom" letter?
Easy. If, as I suspect, someone in the family hit her "accidentally" in a fit of rage then it's obvious why they tried to cover this up; if an autopsy was done, then it would show she died of someone hitting her rather than her falling & hitting her own head, falling down the stairs, etc. I'm not criminologist/forensic scientist, but I watch a lot of True Crime documentaries/TV series, and based on what I've seen on these shows (which is apparently true to life) there are ways to tell fairly specifically how someone died.
maybe she wet the bed one too many times, her bed sheets were in the washer/dryer when the police searched. (she was a chronic bed wetter)
While there was later debate over whether the blunt object or the strangulation was the actual cause of death, it's pretty clear that no one in her family hit her in a fit of rage, nor did she hit her head on a bathtub.
I don't understand this line of reasoning. If it was proven that she did suffer blunt force trauma, then how can it be "pretty clear" that no one in the family hit her?
Easy. If, as I suspect, someone in the family hit her "accidentally" in a fit of rage then it's obvious why they tried to cover this up; if an autopsy was done, then it would show she died of someone hitting her rather than her falling & hitting her own head, falling down the stairs, etc. I'm not criminologist/forensic scientist, but I watch a lot of True Crime documentaries/TV series, and based on what I've seen on these shows (which is apparently true to life) there are ways to tell fairly specifically how someone died.
I'm not a forensic pathologist either, but blunt force trauma injuries can be difficult to differentiate. But even if we assume the killer was savvy enough to consider this, why write the ransom note? Couldn't the perpetrator(s) have just said "we woke up, and our daughter's missing"?
I'm not a forensic pathologist either, but blunt force trauma injuries can be difficult to differentiate. But even if we assume the killer was savvy enough to consider this, why write the ransom note? Couldn't the perpetrator(s) have just said "we woke up, and our daughter's missing"?
Actually, it makes perfect sense for the parents to have written the ransom note - it was the red herring that diverted suspicion away from them. If they had just put JBR's body in the basement, then called the police in the morning & said that their daughter was missing they would have looked VERY guilty once the body was found.
So, by writing the ransom note (which is what I believe they did), they made it look like an outside person/persons had been in the house & that the horrible crime was a kidnapping that went bad.
Note that if genuine kidnappers had written the note, they would have removed the note prior to leaving the house. Obviously, JBR was dead so they wouldn't get any money. So, there would be no purpose to leaving the note, especially since it was an obvious clue that could be analyzed & possibly tied back to whoever wrote it.
The ransom note initially made the Boulder LE think that kidnappers did exist & were holding JBR for ransom. So, when the body of JBR was finally found (later that day) LE had already been thinking that this was a kidnapping - so, it wasn't that much of a stretch for them to believe that the would-be kidnappers had accidentally killed JBR, then left her body in the basement. Conversely, if there had been no note from the beginning, suspicion would have fallen DIRECTLY on the parents immediately.
So, why did Boulder LE buy that the note was real, when there were so many clues that it was fake? Well, some of them did think it was fake. I believe that the Ramsey's were never charged with anything re: this crime both because of their extreme wealth & because Boulder LE didn't want anyone to think such a horrific crime could happen in their fair city.
Last edited by The Big Lebowski Dude; 04-22-2016 at 06:27 PM..
If you still believe that the Ramsey’s murdered their little girl to cover up an accident or molestation, you must also believe the following:
1- The unknown DNA found in the child’s underwear belongs to a factory worker that handled the garment prior to purchase, and it stayed intact after washing and wearing.
If you still believe that the Ramsey’s murdered their little girl to cover up an accident or molestation, you must also believe the following
Well they both look pretty suspicious!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
