JONBENET RAMSEY: Found dead in Boulder, Colorado on Christmas Day 1996 - Age 6

Regina said:
At about 19 minutes into the video, the YouTuber mentions the pineapple, that he thinks it's the most crucial piece of evidence, which is actually amusing to me because I don't read anything into it at all. My only thought about it is that since I understand that the victim advocates brought food, I wonder what their knowledge is about it.
He goes on to address the flashlight on the kitchen counter and says that besides the Ramsey's, it could possibly be the perp's or a police officer's. I agree with all of that, but I think it's most likely the latter and specifically, French's (lol!) Seriously, when was it first observed, I'd like to know.
He says he agrees with Spitz that the flashlight caused the skull fracture and I disagree mainly and simply because I'd expect there to have been a laceration to the scalp and as the YouTuber pointed out, there wasn't one.
(I'll have to stop there where I left off and watch the rest at some other time.)
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised what can cause a serious skull fracture in a child and leave no laceration on the outside but destroy inside. I know personally so I'll leave it at that.
 
MamaDee943 said:
I agree that the case will never be solved and that it had to be someone in the house that night.
Re: the ransom note. I just cannot believe that Patsy or John would be stupid enough to write such a weird note. It sounds like something a grade schooler would do..
I also do not think Burke could have done this alone,.. he would have had to have had some help. This was a 9 yr old. The actual killing, yes, but not the staging.
I won't go into the botched investigation itself, it was all just strange, but I think somebody greased some palms of some higher-ups just to keep them from formally charging one or both the parents.
What I keep thinking is... there was just no reason to kill this little girl..... unless she threatened to tell authorities what was going on... the sexual abuse, etc. IF that was the case. I've read a lot on a lot of different websites and it's amazing what some others have put together through the years. Makes me wonder... WHY??
Click to expand...
I would most closely agree with you. It was someone in the home.

I think higher ups were definitely influenced or greased.

This was a totally botched up mess and NOT just on day one.

The parents knew/know the who, what and why IF one or the other or both aren't the ones that did it. Imo. It became at some point right after a lie and cover up at minimum. Yet I lean towards a parent.

I somewhat disagree about neither being stupid enough to write the note. I tend to believe Patsy wrote it. Desperate times call for desperate measures and I also think she or whoever truly thought with the family's status and more it would be believed or send the. I don't know that she was any brainiac (was she?), no offense that way towards her intended, but even if she was, it is amazing how naive some can be or living in a different kind of universe or life as to how others think and normal logic.

I think many of us have through the years looked at and READ a TON about this case.

I can't be sure of anything but I don't buy the intruder theory unless it was an "intruder" well known to them that was normally in their home or welcome in it.
 
GrandmaBear said:
You'd be surprised what can cause a serious skull fracture in a child and leave no laceration on the outside but destroy inside. I know personally so I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...
Since I'd expect that the sharp edge on the head of a flashlight would cause a laceration, I'd be surprised if it was a flashlight that caused the skull fracture.
 
Regina said:
Since I'd expect that the sharp edge on the head of a flashlight would cause a laceration, I'd be surprised if it was a flashlight that caused the skull fracture.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it was the flashlight but am saying it is entirely possible to not cause one. Could have come from the butt of it, the bulk of it without the edge having that kind of contact, etc. No I am not sold on the flashlight causing it but am saying a skull fracture can occur with little to no outward signs. Serious ones.
 
GrandmaBear said:
I'm not saying it was the flashlight but am saying it is entirely possible to not cause one. Could have come from the butt of it, the bulk of it without the edge having that kind of contact, etc. No I am not sold on the flashlight causing it but am saying a skull fracture can occur with little to no outward signs. Serious ones.
Click to expand...
Well, I was specifically referring to the head of a flashlight. You know, Spitz said something like the head of a/the flashlight fit the hole in the skull caused by the bone fractures but to my knowledge, he failed to address that there was no injury to the scalp despite the sharp edge.
 
I don't have an opinion on the flash light but I do have one of whether a cut, etc. would be necessarily present to cause a skull fracture or even any much outward sign.

It allegedly had no prints on it nor DNA so that's odd, wouldn't the handler of the light have left some?

Not sure what you mean about a sharp edge. It's a flashlight, not something that cuts although I'm sure a number of people have been clocked with one and I wouldn't expect that to leave a cut.

I get what you mean in the sense there isn't a real reason to think the flashlight caused the fracture because there isn't much to be sure of that at all BUT it is another oddity in a case full of them, and things that make no sense.
 
GrandmaBear said:
I don't have an opinion on the flash light but I do have one of whether a cut, etc. would be necessarily present to cause a skull fracture or even any much outward sign.
Click to expand...
Well it's not an opinion but a fact that skull fracture can occur with no outward sign.

GrandmaBear said:
It allegedly had no prints on it nor DNA so that's odd, wouldn't the handler of the light have left some?
Click to expand...
I don't know that they didn't. I mean, I don't know when they'd have tested for DNA but to my knowledge, the process of extracting DNA from skin cells didn't exist until about 2006 or '07 or so.

GrandmaBear said:
It's a flashlight, not something that cuts although I'm sure a number of people have been clocked with one and I wouldn't expect that to leave a cut.
Click to expand...
You're right, people have been clocked and yes, it does cause lacerations.

GrandmaBear said:
I get what you mean in the sense there isn't a real reason to think the flashlight caused the fracture because there isn't much to be sure of that at all BUT it is another oddity in a case full of them, and things that make no sense.
Click to expand...
What doesn't make sense to me is that this large flashlight would be on a kitchen counter and nobody noticed. I mean, if it had been there the entire time, I think it would have been noticed and that the Ramsey's would have been asked about it.
 
Regina said:
Well it's not an opinion but a fact that skull fracture can occur with no outward sign.


I don't know that they didn't. I mean, I don't know when they'd have tested for DNA but to my knowledge, the process of extracting DNA from skin cells didn't exist until about 2006 or '07 or so.


You're right, people have been clocked and yes, it does cause lacerations.


What doesn't make sense to me is that this large flashlight would be on a kitchen counter and nobody noticed. I mean, if it had been there the entire time, I think it would have been noticed and that the Ramsey's would have been asked about it.
Click to expand...
Again, I don't really have an opinion about the flashlight.

I am talking more fingerprints or ANYTHING on the flashlight. If there was absolutely NOTHING it means or would seem to it was wiped clean.

People have been clocked and it can cause lacerations but no, it doesn't always. Or thrown hard against something and no, it doesn't always but can still cause a severe skull fracture.

Again, I don't have a real opinion on the flashlight other than like all else in this case it is odd or shows that the scene was far from secure and that one I think most would agree on.
 
Thanks GrandmaBear. I meant that surely both parents had some common sense, but if Patsy wrote that note..... well, guess her common sense flew out the window. But we will never know the answers and that is very sad. This is kind of like the killing of JFK... Some things are just not meant to be known in our lifetimes.
 
MamaDee943 said:
Thanks GrandmaBear. I meant that surely both parents had some common sense, but if Patsy wrote that note..... well, guess her common sense flew out the window. But we will never know the answers and that is very sad. This is kind of like the killing of JFK... Some things are just not meant to be known in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...
I don't know if she didn't or did but I sure lean that way. If someone else wrote it while sitting in their house on her notebook or however that went, and knew the details they knew, well then I see her right there with them...

I don't think this one will ever have an answer in our lifetimes and if it ever does, I am not sure I would believe it anyhow at this point. Same with a couple of other cases.

I suspect the truth is known about JFK and yet they won't release it to this day. It clearly goes beyond parties in politics as one tried and then changed his tune probably based on what he came to find out the truth to be and the reason for it. Makes it even bigger imo....
 
GrandmaBear said:
I am talking more fingerprints or ANYTHING on the flashlight. If there was absolutely NOTHING it means or would seem to it was wiped clean.
Click to expand...
Please understand my perspective which is that you're saying "if" and then speculating further and for me, that just isn't the way to go about forming conclusions.
 
Regina said:
Please understand my perspective which is that you're saying "if" and then speculating further and for me, that just isn't the way to go about forming conclusions.
Click to expand...
It is me that said IF, what I read said there WERE NONE.

I don't have a solid conclusion and I don't think anyone can in this case. I have the ways I lean based on all of it but in no way would I say it is a certainty. If you can say that, then you've solved it.

I don't mean that you think that either so please understand me. This case isn't solved because of a totally botched investigation and then a thousand things that can be interpreted in many different ways.

When one gets rid of all of the extra stuff, I come right back to it was someone in the household. Or someone they knowingly had in the household.

I entirely do not believe the intruder theory unless the parents made their home and their daughter vulnerable to such with something else going on in their lives/her life.
 
GrandmaBear said:
It is me that said IF, what I read said there WERE NONE.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I understand that you read there were no prints nor DNA. Well, if they didn't get prints I wouldn't find it odd because I wouldn't be surprised. As for DNA, I'm not aware there was even an attempt to collect DNA from the flashlight.
 
Regina said:
Yeah, I understand that you read there were no prints nor DNA. Well, if they didn't get prints I wouldn't find it odd because I wouldn't be surprised. As for DNA, I'm not aware there was even an attempt to collect DNA from the flashlight.
Click to expand...
Why would you not expect prints if anyone ever touched it? Not even on the batteries? I am not stuck on the flashlight one way or the other, it is one of MANY things in this case, many of which were messed up, not documented when they should have been and more.

Read a few recaps and I like most of us have read a TON on this case about every year or so looking at it again.

Not a soul can say they know the truth of what happened.

It is a mystery I get caught up in every so often and will continue to here and there but not now. I think it is a mystery unlikely to have all the answers ever because it was botched, people messed with things and/or corruption played in, egos played in and more. BOTCHED. It's why it is so unlikely to be solved because even knowing what is pertinent and what isn't is fuzzy due to the fact they never did what they should have done in the first day(s).
 
Regina said:
No, because I know that they they don't always get prints, even from an item they know must have been recently touched, they might not get prints.
Click to expand...
So you mean they tested it for prints and didn't get any but are saying none were tested for?

I think it is very odd. Yes they often can't get a clear print or they get a partial or a palm, etc., wiped clean on all parts of light and batteries would be a very different story.
 
GrandmaBear said:
So you mean they tested it for prints and didn't get any but are saying none were tested for?

I think it is very odd. Yes they often can't get a clear print or they get a partial or a palm, etc., wiped clean on all parts of light and batteries would be a very different story.
Click to expand...
Or if gloves were worn
 
GrandmaBear said:
So you mean they tested it for prints and didn't get any but are saying none were tested for?
Click to expand...
No, I'm not saying that they didn't try to get prints, I'm saying that despite trying to get prints, they apparently didn't but so what since such can be the result for whatever reason.
GrandmaBear said:
I think it is very odd. Yes they often can't get a clear print or they get a partial or a palm, etc., wiped clean on all parts of light and batteries would be a very different story.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't conclude that that's the reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
3,039
Messages
246,169
Members
985
Latest member
teatalkswiththeresa
Back
Top Bottom