Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Jon Benet

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey Tesch
    No Justice for baby Jon Benet - I think this John Karr guy just wants to get out of Thailand. He wore makeup for that press conference. My wife has been
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 18, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      No Justice for baby Jon Benet – I think this John Karr guy just wants to get out of Thailand. He wore makeup for that press conference.

       

      My wife has been heckling me – we watched a Ramsey case recap on Court TV 2 weeks ago, and I told her it would never be solved.  But after the first flush of excitement with the arrest, even she agrees this dude is not credible.  DNA will tell the tale.

       

      But I owe Patsy (rest her soul) and John an apology - I believed for five years that they were guilty.  I’ve spent the last five backing the intruder theory – there’s just too much evidence to support it.  In all my years of true crime research, I‘ve never had a case that turned me completely around like this one.

       

      That ransom note is weird – a piece that doesn’t fit.  And am I the only one who realizes it was written by someone using their other hand?  I’ve never heard detectives or media speculate on this.  But if you look at the printing closely, it has that unmistakable line wavering of a right hander writing southpaw.

       

      Anyone else care to weigh in on this Classic Murder mystery?  And I do mean MYSTERY…

       

      Speaking of the Lindberg case, here’s a JT quiz:  What piece of evidence or information about the kidnap/murder of the Lindberg baby qualifies as the “prime constraint circumstance”?  By that I mean a fact that everything else must be filtered through – an immovable and irresistible condition that trumps all others.  Your response to any theory could be “yes, but what about __________”. 

       

      I’m still looking for the definitive Lizzie example for this – there are many potential candidates…

       

      JT

       

       

       

        

       

       

       

       

    • Rev COAL
      ... Ditto. Given the choice of a Thailand prison or a US prison, which would you choose? Considering that this guy s allegedly never been to Colorado, and his
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 19, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        jtesch@... wrote:

        >No Justice for baby Jon Benet - I think this John Karr guy just wants to
        >get out of Thailand.

        Ditto. Given the choice of a Thailand prison or a US prison, which would
        you choose?

        Considering that this guy's allegedly never been to Colorado, and his exwife
        says he was with her in Alabama that Christmas, it would seem that his story
        is falling apart....


        >But I owe Patsy (rest her soul) and John an apology - I believed for five
        >years that they were guilty. I've spent the last five backing the intruder
        >theory - there's just too much evidence to support it.

        Such as?

        I'm not letting the parents off the hook just yet; I just can't buy that an
        unknown intruder who had never been to the house before was able to get in
        undetected and wander around it for hours without being discovered....


        >That ransom note is weird - a piece that doesn't fit.

        It doesn't fit for anyone giving the parents a walk and hanging the case
        solely on an unknown intruder...

        How did the writer of that note know the exact amount of Ramsey's bonus?
        That throws the unknown stranger intruder theory out the window....


        >And am I the only one who realizes it was written by someone using their
        >other hand? I've never heard detectives or media >speculate on this.

        I know that they speculated that it was written by someone trying to
        disguise their own handwriting, but I don't know if they actually came right
        out and said that it was a right-handed person using their left
        hand...perhaps that was a detail they wanted to keep from the public for if
        and when they did get a viable suspect....


        >Speaking of the Lindberg case,

        We were?


        >here's a JT quiz: What piece of evidence or
        >information about the kidnap/murder of the Lindberg baby qualifies as the
        >"prime constraint circumstance"? By that I mean a fact that everything
        >else must be filtered through - an immovable and irresistible condition
        >that trumps all others.

        If I understand the question (and I'm not sure that I do) I'd make an
        educated guess that the fact is that the Lindbergs normally would not have
        been at their estate that night....they would normally have been back at
        their city house. Haupman wouldn't have known that....so whomever the perps
        were, they somehow knew that the Lindbergs were still at the estate that
        night.


        June
      • PatriciaLu@aol.com
        In a message dated 8/19/2006 10:22:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, ynrchyldzwylds_hobby@msn.com writes: How did the writer of that note know the exact amount of
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 19, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 8/19/2006 10:22:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, ynrchyldzwylds_hobby@... writes:
          How did the writer of that note know the exact amount of Ramsey's bonus? 
          That throws the unknown stranger intruder theory out the window....
          I heard on CNN that this is a myth about the case -- that his bonus was not $118,000 but this is just one of those rumors that got out that people started accepting as fact. However I also saw on CNN last night that the signature (initials) that signed the ransom note are the same initials that Karr used to sign a yearbook photo in high school.
           
          Of course when I heard Karr say that he was "with" Jon Benet when she died, the first thing that popped into my mind was "He believes he was there spiritually" and now this is what many are saying.
           
          It will be interesting to see what happens on this one.
           
          Pat
        • PatriciaLu@aol.com
          In a message dated 8/19/2006 2:40:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, jtesch@cinci.rr.com writes: I believed for five years that they were guilty. I stopped
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 19, 2006
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 8/19/2006 2:40:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, jtesch@... writes:
            I believed for five years that they were guilty.
            I stopped believing they were involved when FBI profiler John Douglas said they were innocent. John and Patsy had hired him and said find whatever you want. I never faulted the father for picking the girl up when he found her in the basement. I don't think any father would be able to just back off a "crime scene".
             
            I also never believed the "she wet her pants/the bed which threw Patsy into a fit" -- it just didn't jibe with Patsy's personality.
             
            Having said that, I still think the beauty pageant film of Jon Benet are creepy. I saw a clip of Patsy saying that anyone who saw anything other than a little girl "playing dress up" in those clips was sick... well, I think it definitely sexualizes a child.
             
            Pat
          • Jeffrey Tesch
            June wrote: I know that they speculated that it was written by someone trying to disguise their own handwriting, but I don t know if they actually came right
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 19, 2006
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              June wrote:

              I know that they speculated that it was written by someone trying to
              disguise their own handwriting, but I don't know if they actually came right

              out and said that it was a right-handed person using their left
              hand...perhaps that was a detail they wanted to keep from the public for if
              and when they did get a viable suspect....

              ***interesting thought... As with any case, I always wonder what the
              "polygraph keys" are - those pieces of information withheld from the media
              and used to ferret out false confessions.



              >here's a JT quiz: What piece of evidence or
              >information about the kidnap/murder of the Lindberg baby qualifies as the
              >"prime constraint circumstance"? By that I mean a fact that everything
              >else must be filtered through - an immovable and irresistible condition
              >that trumps all others.

              If I understand the question (and I'm not sure that I do) I'd make an
              educated guess that the fact is that the Lindbergs normally would not have
              been at their estate that night....they would normally have been back at
              their city house. Haupman wouldn't have known that....so whomever the perps

              were, they somehow knew that the Lindbergs were still at the estate that
              night.

              ***Brilliant deduction, June! You are absolutely correct...

              I wasn't sure if my explanation of constraint logic made sense, but you got
              it. The Lindberg's only stayed at Hopewell NJ on weekends - they were at
              the Morrow house in NY during the week.

              The only reason they were at Hopewell on a Tuesday night was young Charles
              had a cold and they decided not to travel during the cool early March
              temperatures. Only a handful of people knew this - certainly not Hauptmann,
              who was at work in the Bronx that day.

              This is the seminal fact of the case - they shouldn't have been there, so
              who knew that they still were?

              As we know, Lindbergh maid Viola Sharpe committed suicide rather than face
              another intense interrogation - this was one month after the kidnapping and
              2-1/2 years before Bruno Richard was arrested.

              And here's one of those little details that would have bedeviled Lt.
              Columbo: On that night his son was "kidnapped", Charles Lindbergh was the
              scheduled guest speaker at an NYU alumni dinner in downtown New York City.
              The always punctual and reliable Lindy blew off this function without the
              courtesy of a phone call - his "no show" status was considered weird by
              those who knew him. He instead drove the 3 plus hours to Hopewell NJ - his
              son went missing within an hour of his return.

              Charles Lindbergh was kind of an asshole, known to play weird practical
              jokes with his son. Just a month before the "kidnapping" he had hidden
              young Charles in a closet, forcing the servants to hunt for several hours
              before revealing his little "joke".

              What do you make of that, June?

              And the evidence of the Jon Benet intruder is well known - the DNA that
              matched no one and the shoe print that matched nothing are foremost. Do you
              need me to review the rest?

              JT







              ---WHODUNIT???---
              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • Patricia Stephenson
              Hi Group, Well when I read J.T. s original posting, I had my replies all ready. However, everyone beat me to the punch. June wrote exactly what I had planned
              Message 6 of 9 , Aug 19, 2006
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Group,
                Well when I read J.T.'s original posting, I had my replies all ready.  However, everyone beat me to the punch.  June wrote exactly what I had planned to write using almost the same wording I would have used.  I am speaking about the Lindbergh case.  I, too, had thought that if I understood the question correctly the only fact that you just couldn't get around was that the Lindberghs should not have been there. 
                 
                I also believe that Lindbergh was an "asshole" although for many other reasons.
                 
                I also planned on writing about the fact that I saw that clipping on Karr signing a high school yearbook with the same initials as the ransom note.  That's bizarre because everything else screams that he just wanted his 15 minutes in connection with JBR.
                 
                I had originally thought that the Ramsey's were guilty mostly because of their behavior and the fact that they didn't seem to be cooperating with the police.  However once I saw the interview with Patsy and she made the statment that having survived stage 4 ovarian cancer, Jon Benet wetting her bed would not have pushed her over the edge to kill her daughter.  Since I also have had ovarian cancer, I know that it takes a lot to ruffle my feathers since I am so grateful for every day.
                 
                Patsy
                 

                Jeffrey Tesch <jtesch@...> wrote:


                June wrote:

                I know that they speculated that it was written by someone trying to
                disguise their own handwriting, but I don't know if they actually came right

                out and said that it was a right-handed person using their left
                hand...perhaps that was a detail they wanted to keep from the public for if
                and when they did get a viable suspect....

                ***interesting thought... As with any case, I always wonder what the
                "polygraph keys" are - those pieces of information withheld from the media
                and used to ferret out false confessions.

                >here's a JT quiz: What piece of evidence or
                >information about the kidnap/murder of the Lindberg baby qualifies as the
                >"prime constraint circumstance" ? By that I mean a fact that everything
                >else must be filtered through - an immovable and irresistible condition
                >that trumps all others.

                If I understand the question (and I'm not sure that I do) I'd make an
                educated guess that the fact is that the Lindbergs normally would not have
                been at their estate that night....they would normally have been back at
                their city house. Haupman wouldn't have known that....so whomever the perps

                were, they somehow knew that the Lindbergs were still at the estate that
                night.

                ***Brilliant deduction, June! You are absolutely correct...

                I wasn't sure if my explanation of constraint logic made sense, but you got
                it. The Lindberg's only stayed at Hopewell NJ on weekends - they were at
                the Morrow house in NY during the week.

                The only reason they were at Hopewell on a Tuesday night was young Charles
                had a cold and they decided not to travel during the cool early March
                temperatures. Only a handful of people knew this - certainly not Hauptmann,
                who was at work in the Bronx that day.

                This is the seminal fact of the case - they shouldn't have been there, so
                who knew that they still were?

                As we know, Lindbergh maid Viola Sharpe committed suicide rather than face
                another intense interrogation - this was one month after the kidnapping and
                2-1/2 years before Bruno Richard was arrested.

                And here's one of those little details that would have bedeviled Lt.
                Columbo: On that night his son was "kidnapped", Charles Lindbergh was the
                scheduled guest speaker at an NYU alumni dinner in downtown New York City.
                The always punctual and reliable Lindy blew off this function without the
                courtesy of a phone call - his "no show" status was considered weird by
                those who knew him. He instead drove the 3 plus hours to Hopewell NJ - his
                son went missing within an hour of his return.

                Charles Lindbergh was kind of an asshole, known to play weird practical
                jokes with his son. Just a month before the "kidnapping" he had hidden
                young Charles in a closet, forcing the servants to hunt for several hours
                before revealing his little "joke".

                What do you make of that, June?

                And the evidence of the Jon Benet intruder is well known - the DNA that
                matched no one and the shoe print that matched nothing are foremost. Do you
                need me to review the rest?

                JT

                ---WHODUNIT? ??---
                Yahoo! Groups Links



                Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

              • PatriciaLu@aol.com
                The other connection with Karr is -- and this is one of those things that could prove to be unfounded, but it s creepy -- the parents found a stuffed Santa
                Message 7 of 9 , Aug 19, 2006
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  The other connection with Karr is -- and this is one of those things that could prove to be unfounded, but it's creepy -- the parents found a stuffed Santa teddy bear in Jon Benet's room that they were not familiar with. That, in itself, is scary... but now one of Karr's friends from Alabama is claiming that he (Karr) had that exact teddy bear.
                   
                  Has anyone else found it very "Silence of the Lambs" that the police went to search the cell of Polly Klass's killer too? When you think of these people corresponding with each other, it makes my flesh crawl.
                   
                  The other thing I find odd is how slowly the Karr business is developing. One of the pundits on TV last night asked "how long does it take to buy a plane ticket?" -- at the time, the answer was that it wasn't just getting the ticket, but making sure there is a secure place to hold him between flights (lets say from LAX to Denver) although you've got to believe that almost any major airport is going to have some sort of facility for prisoner transport.
                   
                  Today I heard a few times that the Jon Benet's DNA may have deteriorated over time, yet last night on Larry King... I can't remember his name... Henry Lee? Anyway he said the DNA is already preserved (my word) so time is not a factor.
                   
                  OK, one last thing I find weird about Karr... well, one for now... his ex-wife first said that he was with her that Christmas and when asked again are you sure?? She said she'd think about it and look at photos. Don't you think you'd know if your husband was with you at Christmas? According to her, he was "always" with the family at Christmas so that doesn't strike me as something you'd forget.
                   
                  Pat
                • Muriel Arnold
                  June: The main reason I believed that Hauptmann (spelling) may have been innocent was that no carpenter would have made or used such a ladder. Why hadn t the
                  Message 8 of 9 , Aug 19, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    June:
                    The main reason I believed that Hauptmann (spelling) may have been innocent
                    was that no carpenter would have made or used such a ladder.
                    Why hadn't the defense attorney check to see whether or not he had lumber
                    laying around fit to make rungs for that ladder. I never heard of a
                    carpenter who did not have odds and ends pieces of lumber laying around.
                    I aldso never heard of tearing up an attic floor just to make rungs.
                    Muriel

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Rev COAL" <ynrchyldzwylds_hobby@...>
                    To: <40Whacks@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 10:12 AM
                    Subject: RE: [40Whacks] Jon Benet


                    > jtesch@... wrote:
                    >
                    >>No Justice for baby Jon Benet - I think this John Karr guy just wants to
                    >>get out of Thailand.
                    >
                    > Ditto. Given the choice of a Thailand prison or a US prison, which would
                    > you choose?
                    >
                    > Considering that this guy's allegedly never been to Colorado, and his
                    > exwife
                    > says he was with her in Alabama that Christmas, it would seem that his
                    > story
                    > is falling apart....
                    >
                    >
                    >>But I owe Patsy (rest her soul) and John an apology - I believed for five
                    >>years that they were guilty. I've spent the last five backing the
                    >>intruder
                    >>theory - there's just too much evidence to support it.
                    >
                    > Such as?
                    >
                    > I'm not letting the parents off the hook just yet; I just can't buy that
                    > an
                    > unknown intruder who had never been to the house before was able to get in
                    > undetected and wander around it for hours without being discovered....
                    >
                    >
                    >>That ransom note is weird - a piece that doesn't fit.
                    >
                    > It doesn't fit for anyone giving the parents a walk and hanging the case
                    > solely on an unknown intruder...
                    >
                    > How did the writer of that note know the exact amount of Ramsey's bonus?
                    > That throws the unknown stranger intruder theory out the window....
                    >
                    >
                    >>And am I the only one who realizes it was written by someone using their
                    >>other hand? I've never heard detectives or media >speculate on this.
                    >
                    > I know that they speculated that it was written by someone trying to
                    > disguise their own handwriting, but I don't know if they actually came
                    > right
                    > out and said that it was a right-handed person using their left
                    > hand...perhaps that was a detail they wanted to keep from the public for
                    > if
                    > and when they did get a viable suspect....
                    >
                    >
                    >>Speaking of the Lindberg case,
                    >
                    > We were?
                    >
                    >
                    >>here's a JT quiz: What piece of evidence or
                    >>information about the kidnap/murder of the Lindberg baby qualifies as the
                    >>"prime constraint circumstance"? By that I mean a fact that everything
                    >>else must be filtered through - an immovable and irresistible condition
                    >>that trumps all others.
                    >
                    > If I understand the question (and I'm not sure that I do) I'd make an
                    > educated guess that the fact is that the Lindbergs normally would not have
                    > been at their estate that night....they would normally have been back at
                    > their city house. Haupman wouldn't have known that....so whomever the
                    > perps
                    > were, they somehow knew that the Lindbergs were still at the estate that
                    > night.
                    >
                    >
                    > June
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ---WHODUNIT???---
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Rev COAL
                    ... Hey, the only thing I know for a fact about Lindberg is that he: 1. made the first nonstop flight across the Atlantic; 2. he was a strong Nazi
                    Message 9 of 9 , Aug 20, 2006
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      JT wrote:

                      >Charles Lindbergh was kind of an asshole, known to play weird practical
                      >jokes with his son. Just a month before the "kidnapping" he had hidden
                      >young Charles in a closet, forcing the servants to hunt for several hours
                      >before revealing his little "joke".
                      >
                      >What do you make of that, June?

                      Hey, the only thing I know for a fact about Lindberg is that he:

                      1. made the first nonstop flight across the Atlantic;
                      2. he was a strong Nazi sympathizer/supporter
                      3. my father always claimed some vague connection to Lindberg, allegedly
                      thru both being Freemasons; but Dad made a lot of strange, vague claims that
                      we never believed... :P

                      If Lindberg did play those sort of "games", then it shows a sadistic streak.
                      He obviously enjoyed freaking out the house staff, and where was his wife
                      during this little escapade? And wouldn't the kid have been freaking out,
                      being locked in a dark closet for hours (shades of "Jane Eyre")....

                      One would imagine the kid would have been screaming and shrieking bloody
                      murder, why couldn't anyone hear him?

                      I'd almost say that it sounds as if Lindberg was setting the scene for the
                      eventual kidnapping/murder...did he plan to kill his own kid all along, or
                      was that an accident that happened during his staging of the alleged
                      kidnapping...?

                      What was the purpose of the "kidnapping"...if he just wanted to play another
                      joke on the staff (and his wife?), he just needed to hide the kid in a
                      closet again, open the bedroom window, prop a ladder outside it, and then
                      yell "Hey, someone's stolen Junior!"

                      He had to have known that the police would eventually arrest someone -- was
                      he really looking to have a kidnapping and murder rap (and resulting
                      execution) pinned on someone else?

                      If he "accidently" dropped the kid while staging a hoax kidnapping, it begs
                      the question as to why he'd even risk the kid's safety by bringing him to
                      the window, let alone try to carry him down the ladder. Like I said, he
                      could have just hidden the kid in another closet and then staged everything
                      else if it was just another practical joke he was attempting...

                      And I find it hard to believe that he would:

                      a. blow off a speaking engagement to rush 3 hours to the NJ estate just to
                      stage a practical joke involving the house staff, and

                      b. that he felt so compelled to play a practical joke that he just had to
                      do it that night, when his son was sick....couldn't it have waited until the
                      next weekend, when the kid presumably would have been feeling better?


                      >And the evidence of the Jon Benet intruder is well known - the DNA that
                      >matched no one and the shoe print that matched nothing are foremost.

                      They just point to someone unknown to authorities possibly being there --
                      doesn't say one thing or another whether the Ramseys let that person into
                      the house themselves. I'd like to know how a complete stranger could have
                      allegedly broken into the house and then traipsed around inside for hours
                      without either one or both parents knowing.


                      >Do you need me to review the rest?

                      Sure, knock yourself out. It's not a case I've morbidly fixated on for the
                      past decade, and I know how much you like pontificating...


                      June
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.