General Discussion /Post Karr [Archive] - Crime Library Message Boards

chatwuann

07-25-2005, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by koldkase
I did a search of the whole board yesterday and couldn't find it either. My guess is it got culled to free up bandwidth.

It's sad, but a case doesn't get any colder than hers. The DA's Office has firmly decided to bury this case forever to cover their own butts, IMO. I requested some files from them over a year ago, and you wouldn't believe the lame law they practice there. The correspondences from them and excuses for subverting the FOIA were pathetic. The files I requested have already been released to a private citizen years ago and publicly aired on TV across the world. Yet the Boulder DA said no, they belong to Lou Smit, who was paid by the people of Boulder to compile them from evidence gathered by Boulder LE, and then Smit stole them, to boot, when he quit working for Hunter. Next he blackmailed Hunter into getting them legally freed for Smit's private use and distribution during his propaganda shill programs with Michael Tracey. If they actually believe the crap they spin, then why not let everyone see the whole PowerPoint? "Let the chips fall where they may," as someone loves to say.

However, Colorado apparently doesn't believe in the FOIA. They pick and choose which private citizens get access to government files, it seems. Propaganda is the name of their game, after all, and they have no love for the truth, so damn it and bury it and move on to the next hot tub party.

So the case continues to lay dead in the water, which is what the DA wants and will have. I fully expect these case files to disappear through the years. By the time anyone outside the DA's Office gets close enough to figure that out in about 20 or 30 years, it'll be too late and still business as usual. They're not going to open up the Hunter can of worms, exposing how corrupt their office is and has been for probably ever. The DA has the cloak of Colorado law giving them the right to hide their misdeeds for eternity. It's a criminals' paradise.

It's sad but true: whoever you believe molested, beat and murdered this six year old little girl on Christmas night in 1996, the Boulder DA's Office set them free long ago. Colorado law and politics shut the door and locked it for them.

Just my opinion, of course. Maybe Coldwater will let you start a new thread for JonBenet. All we can do now is remember her, that she lived a short life, was a sweet little child who died a terrible death and has NO ONE to speak for her in this world now, since her own family wants her death buried as deeply and completely as the DA's Office does.

Shame on them all.

I heard from the cl mod and she is looking into it. She didn't delete that thread. She is going to try to put it back. I don't want the memory of JonBenet to die. She deserves to be remembered.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

07-25-2005, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by chatwuann

I heard from the cl mod and she is looking into it. She didn't delete that thread. She is going to try to put it back. I don't want the memory of JonBenet to die. She deserves to be remembered.
armchair detective/trucrmbuf

Someone needs to remember "That child", it sure is not going to be her parents.

I wonder how that charity they had for JonBenet is working out? :rolleyes:

chatwuann

07-25-2005, 09:04 PM

Under what context did the Ramseys refer to JonBenet as "That Child" and in what form transcript or interview? I have heard it mentioned before by posters but I haven't heard where.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

07-25-2005, 09:13 PM

I decided to look up SBTC on the internet. The website for the Small Business Technology Council came up. Just thought that was interesting. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

07-26-2005, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by chatwuann
Under what context did the Ramseys refer to JonBenet as "That Child" and in what form transcript or interview? I have heard it mentioned before by posters but I haven't heard where.
armchair detective/trucrmbuf

I'll have to find a link, but I think it was during the police interview (the one they actually showed up for) and Patsy referred to JonBenet as "that child". I'll find it for you. It may take a while.

07-26-2005, 01:39 PM

Here is Patsy, in her own voice, calling JonBenet "that child" while claiming she loved her daughter. (Yet, we have never heard Patsy refer to John as "that man" or Burke as "that boy.")

http://www.cnn.com/US/9705/01/ramsey/patsy.didnot.30sec.313k.wav

07-26-2005, 03:16 PM

This case will haunt me forever.

No one wants to talk about it.

I think it is dangerous if they don't pursue the case. I think her brother did it.

because during police interview in Atlanta Ga, more than a year after her death, he told detectives he had been shocked on the White's electric deer fence the night of the murder.

The police ignored this statement.

If he says he was burned on the white's electric deer fence the night of the murder, this means that both children received electrical burns on the same night.

this is bizaare and needed to be investigated.

07-27-2005, 12:33 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jojokitoma
This case will haunt me forever.

No one wants to talk about it.

I think it is dangerous if they don't pursue the case. I think her brother did it.

because during police interview in Atlanta Ga, more than a year after her death, he told detectives he had been shocked on the White's electric deer fence the night of the murder.

The police ignored this statement.

If he says he was burned on the white's electric deer fence the night of the murder, this means that both children received electrical burns on the same night.

this is bizaare and needed to be investigated. [/QUOTE} I feel the parents may have done it. I feel the father was may have molested and the mother jealous of her. I think the mom did bebecause she missed herself no longer getting the attention from when she used to be a model, her husband may have lost some interest since she had been sick several times and she might have know that he was molesting her and killed her for these reasons and he helped cover it because he blamed himself for what she did. Have you ever seen the movie about this? This was so terrible and I still can't believe it has not been solved. I thought for sure they would have made a arrest. It makes me so sick to my stomach when children are murdered. I guess it is always possible that Birk could have done it because he himself may have been jealous of her getting so much attention, but my first guess was Patsy.

07-27-2005, 08:42 AM

I've never referred to any of my children as "That Child." It really shows her state of mind, doesn't it? Her child is murdered and Patsy calls her daughter, "That child."

Speaks loudly- doesn't it.

chatwuann

07-27-2005, 06:59 PM

Thanks for answering my question about Patsy referring to JonBenet as "that child." Who knows why Patsy said that but it doesn't point to her guilt imo. It sounds bad but the Ramseys can't win for losing because everything they do looks and sounds bad to people. They were either involved or it just looks that way. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

07-28-2005, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Huntress1
I've never referred to any of my children as "That Child." It really shows her state of mind, doesn't it? Her child is murdered and Patsy calls her daughter, "That child."

Speaks loudly- doesn't it.

Calling JonBenet "that child" may speak loudly to you but it doesn't to me. I think it has been blown out of proportion and has been given greater significance than it deserves. I asked the question because I was curious under what circumstances that child was used but it seems now that this is a sore point for a lot of people who lean toward the guilt of the Ramseys. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

07-28-2005, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by chatwuann

Calling JonBenet "that child" may speak loudly to you but it doesn't to me. I think it has been blown out of proportion and has been given greater significance than it deserves. I asked the question because I was curious under what circumstances that child was used but it seems now that this is a sore point for a lot of people who lean toward the guilt of the Ramseys. AAJMO
armchair detective/trucrmbuf

Would you refer to your dead child as "that child"??? I sure wouldn't. While I think that is completely abnormal and innapropriate, its your right to think the Ramsey's are innocent. :patriot:

seawolf4

07-28-2005, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Huntress1

Would you refer to your dead child as "that child"??? I sure wouldn't. While I think that is completely abnormal and innapropriate, its your right to think the Ramsey's are innocent. :patriot:

I have never formed an opinion about the Ramseys but as far as the "that child" references it was not so long ago that some posters were hanging Steve Groene (sp) for refering to his children as "these kids" or "those kids". It does not speak guilt to me.
However my knowledge of the whole Ramsey case is fairly skimpy so I ofer no opinion as to their quilt. JMO

Icefog

07-29-2005, 07:51 PM

liz-marie

07-30-2005, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by girl_without_fe
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jojokitoma
This case will haunt me forever.

No one wants to talk about it.

I think it is dangerous if they don't pursue the case. I think her brother did it.

because during police interview in Atlanta Ga, more than a year after her death, he told detectives he had been shocked on the White's electric deer fence the night of the murder.

The police ignored this statement.

If he says he was burned on the white's electric deer fence the night of the murder, this means that both children received electrical burns on the same night.

this is bizaare and needed to be investigated. [/QUOTE} I feel the parents may have done it. I feel the father was may have molested and the mother jealous of her. I think the mom did bebecause she missed herself no longer getting the attention from when she used to be a model, her husband may have lost some interest since she had been sick several times and she might have know that he was molesting her and killed her for these reasons and he helped cover it because he blamed himself for what she did. Have you ever seen the movie about this? This was so terrible and I still can't believe it has not been solved. I thought for sure they would have made a arrest. It makes me so sick to my stomach when children are murdered. I guess it is always possible that Birk could have done it because he himself may have been jealous of her getting so much attention, but my first guess was Patsy.
what a load of rubbish...

07-30-2005, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Icefog

I think it is extremely disturbing that ppl are actually taking the Nation Enquirer stuff seriously and blaming that poor little boy. Shame Shame :no:

I believe it's more disturbing to see two parents give a rats arse less about their murdered daughter. Of course, they killed her, so as long as people are looking the other way and not at them, they are happy campers.

They can't believe anyone is still following this case. They moved on, why shouldn't the rest of the country?

:flamemad:

chatwuann

07-30-2005, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Huntress1

Would you refer to your dead child as "that child"??? I sure wouldn't. While I think that is completely abnormal and innapropriate, its your right to think the Ramsey's are innocent. :patriot:

Of course I wouldn't refer to my dead child or any dead relative in that way. This is an abnormal case. People have different standards as to what is and isn't apropriate. Thank you for acknowledging that it is my right to think the Ramseys are innocent. Everybody has the right to be thought of as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

liz-marie

07-30-2005, 02:21 PM

chatwuann

07-30-2005, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Huntress1

I believe it's more disturbing to see two parents give a rats arse less about their murdered daughter. Of course, they killed her, so as long as people are looking the other way and not at them, they are happy campers.

They can't believe anyone is still following this case. They moved on, why shouldn't the rest of the country?

:flamemad:

If the Ramseys are guilty of killing JonBenet why haven't they been indicted by the present DA in Boulder? And why didn't Alex Hunter indict them? And why is it that 2 Grand Juries didn't hand down an indictment against them? These are people who know the evidence that the BPD had on the Ramseys and none of them indicted them. If they had real hard evidence on the Ramseys they would have been indicted in a heartbeat. But they weren't. Answer me that.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

07-30-2005, 03:57 PM

I think this case is still unsolved because it was dead in the water from the very beginning. They had no clear-cut evidence that it was the parents or that it was an intruder. And how can you trust a crime scene that was contaminated by the many people who traipsed through it that morning. I am afraid we will never know who killed JonBenet Ramsey. IMO if they try at some point the Ramseys for this they will be trying the wrong people. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

07-30-2005, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by liz-marie

evidence was found that points to someone else committing this crime-I doubt the parents will ever be able to'move on ' and get over losing their daughter.

The best evidence pointing to someone else is the house itself and the arrangement of the rooms. Not to mention the already broken window and the doors that were unlocked which meant he or they didn't have to break in. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

07-30-2005, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by seawolf4

I have never formed an opinion about the Ramseys but as far as the "that child" references it was not so long ago that some posters were hanging Steve Groene (sp) for refering to his children as "these kids" or "those kids". It does not speak guilt to me.
However my knowledge of the whole Ramsey case is fairly skimpy so I ofer no opinion as to their quilt. JMO

I didn't think too much of it when Steve Groene referred to Shasta & Dylan as "these kids". or "those kids" It was just a figure of speech.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

07-30-2005, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Huntress1

I believe it's more disturbing to see two parents give a rats arse less about their murdered daughter. Of course, they killed her, so as long as people are looking the other way and not at them, they are happy campers.

They can't believe anyone is still following this case. They moved on, why shouldn't the rest of the country?

:flamemad:

Moving on and forgetting are two different things. They still had to live life even though JonBenet was gone. They all still raising Burke and there were bills to pay and food to buy. Not to mention grand children. And Patsy's cancer came out of remission and had to be treated. Just because the Ramseys aren't wearing sackcloth and ashes and walking around with doleful faces doesn't mean they still aren't dealing with JonBenet's death and feeling sad about it. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

07-30-2005, 05:21 PM

07-31-2005, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by chatwuann

If the Ramseys are guilty of killing JonBenet why haven't they been indicted by the present DA in Boulder? And why didn't Alex Hunter indict them? And why is it that 2 Grand Juries didn't hand down an indictment against them? These are people who know the evidence that the BPD had on the Ramseys and none of them indicted them. If they had real hard evidence on the Ramseys they would have been indicted in a heartbeat. But they weren't. Answer me that.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf These are influential people this is a big part of peoples decision. It is sad but very true. Look at all of the other cases where a person goes to trial based on no evidence, but yet they are found guilty. Have you ever seen some of these profiles? The are sickening. Statistics show......a person poor person is more likely to kill before a rich person......a tatooed person is more likely to commit a crime before a person with no tatoo.....a person of a divorced home is more likely to commit a crime before a person with both parent still together. Them not being indicted means nothing to me. The reason these stastics are so because they focus on all of the other ones and how many rich do you have sitting in prison for crimes you know they did but got away with. One of the first questions ask in a case is where do you work? What the heck does your job have to do with anything? If that is where it took place then maybe, but c'mon. My house was robbed, they asked me how much insurance I had. I said thank God I had none. No finger prints were taken, no photos of my back door being busted in with glass all over the floor, how much money did you have invested in your jewelry? This was the only thing that was taklen. I had several $1000.00 I could not believe this. I called a friend of mine from another town and told him what was going on. He is a police officer. He told me they should have taken prints and have questioned neighbors, and then he told me it sounded like they just didn't want to do anythin. I did.....he told me of some pond shops, I went to them and guess what? Not all, but some of it was there./ I contacted the police and got chewed out for having gone there that it was not in thier jurisdiction, but it was because it was state because I did not live in the city limits. They finally went and saw the signature on the sales slip and got what jewelry they had, but guess what? No charges were ever filed. Don't tell me there are not crooked cops, pros. det. jurors, etc. because there are. The Ramseys had money. Money talks, b.s walks.

07-31-2005, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by chatwuann

Moving on and forgetting are two different things. They still had to live life even though JonBenet was gone. They all still raising Burke and there were bills to pay and food to buy. Not to mention grand children. And Patsy's cancer came out of remission and had to be treated. Just because the Ramseys aren't wearing sackcloth and ashes and walking around with doleful faces doesn't mean they still aren't dealing with JonBenet's death and feeling sad about it. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf Moving on? They left Boulder before she was even to be buried. This is not moving on, this is getting out of dodge. They had to feed Birk, they had maids and friends to help with this. At least Patsy had only cancer and it is sad, but still she had a little baby girl murdered. They don't need to go to work almost immediately because I am sure they had enoough money to get by until they were able to get back to work and it does not take every day of the month to pay one. He said he took a milagram of meletonin. !2 miligrams don't even knock most children out, so how is it 1 knocked him out and not able to wake? Whatever! I feel sorry for Patsy for the cancer, but the only thing that would prevent me from helping my child is if I was dying or just not able to get out of bed. Thats is what thishas been about from the start. Get those sympathy wheels a rolling. All about her.

chatwuann

07-31-2005, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Huntress1

Here is the answer: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The Ramsey's hired an attorney from the beginning of this case. They refused to meet with the police, they lied and said they'd start a foundation in the name of their murdered daughter and didn't...and- what are they doing to find the "real killer?"

A good site for info on this case is: www.acandyrose.com

I know about the website you mentioned and I have been there occassionally. It is a good source for transcripts and such, I don't know what the chat is like. i don't know if it's participants think the Ramseys are guilty though. The Ramseys were only sticking up for their civil rights which is a gift for every american citizen. It is unfortuneate that for some american citizens it doesn't always work that way. IMO lack of evidence and not money or attorneys is what kept 2 grand juries, DA Hunter, and DA Keenan Lacy from indicting the Ramseys for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. I am sure if my opinion is wrong someone will let me know. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

07-31-2005, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by girl_without_fe
These are influential people this is a big part of peoples decision. It is sad but very true. Look at all of the other cases where a person goes to trial based on no evidence, but yet they are found guilty. Have you ever seen some of these profiles? The are sickening. Statistics show......a person poor person is more likely to kill before a rich person......a tatooed person is more likely to commit a crime before a person with no tatoo.....a person of a divorced home is more likely to commit a crime before a person with both parent still together. Them not being indicted means nothing to me. The reason these stastics are so because they focus on all of the other ones and how many rich do you have sitting in prison for crimes you know they did but got away with. One of the first questions ask in a case is where do you work? What the heck does your job have to do with anything? If that is where it took place then maybe, but c'mon. My house was robbed, they asked me how much insurance I had. I said thank God I had none. No finger prints were taken, no photos of my back door being busted in with glass all over the floor, how much money did you have invested in your jewelry? This was the only thing that was taklen. I had several $1000.00 I could not believe this. I called a friend of mine from another town and told him what was going on. He is a police officer. He told me they should have taken prints and have questioned neighbors, and then he told me it sounded like they just didn't want to do anythin. I did.....he told me of some pond shops, I went to them and guess what? Not all, but some of it was there./ I contacted the police and got chewed out for having gone there that it was not in thier jurisdiction, but it was because it was state because I did not live in the city limits. They finally went and saw the signature on the sales slip and got what jewelry they had, but guess what? No charges were ever filed. Don't tell me there are not crooked cops, pros. det. jurors, etc. because there are. The Ramseys had money. Money talks, b.s walks.

The fact that the Ramseys weren't indicted tells me a lot. It tells me the evidence just isn't there. I don't buy it that the Ramseys are influential. Who knew the Ramsey family existed except those living in Boulder until their daughter was murdered. Only one person knew and that was the one who murdered their daughter. I know there are crooked cops pros det, jurors, etc in this country. But there is no evidence that there was corruption in this investigationon the part of any public or elected official or 24 jurors who sat on 2 grand juries. That would have to be a pretty large conspiracy. No grand jury or DA will ever indict the Ramseys because the people of Boulder don't want to pay for a trial. I think they want this case to go away. The evidence against O.J. Simpson was overwhelming and he walked anyway and they have no evidence on the Ramseys and people are upset they aren't in prison. Go figure.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

07-31-2005, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by girl_without_fe
Moving on? They left Boulder before she was even to be buried. This is not moving on, this is getting out of dodge. They had to feed Birk, they had maids and friends to help with this. At least Patsy had only cancer and it is sad, but still she had a little baby girl murdered. They don't need to go to work almost immediately because I am sure they had enoough money to get by until they were able to get back to work and it does not take every day of the month to pay one. He said he took a milagram of meletonin. !2 miligrams don't even knock most children out, so how is it 1 knocked him out and not able to wake? Whatever! I feel sorry for Patsy for the cancer, but the only thing that would prevent me from helping my child is if I was dying or just not able to get out of bed. Thats is what thishas been about from the start. Get those sympathy wheels a rolling. All about her.

Would you be able to sleep another night in the house your daughter was murdered in? I wouldn't. And if I was afraid that the people who killed my daughter would come after my other child I would get the heck out of the state.As far as the Ramseys going back to work is concerned work can be cathartic for some people and better than sitting around having time to think.

When you are in rem sleep nothing will wake you but the sound of a shrill alram. People are under the impression that a parent will instinctively know their child is in danger and will wake up and I don't know of any cases where that has happened.That is why it is recommended that you have smoke detectors in your home in case of a fire at night because not even the smell of smoke will wake you if you are sound asleep. And the Ramseys bedrooms weren't on the same floor as that of JonBenet and Burke which is the way homes are built nowadays so parents can have privacy. If I had children I would want their bedrooms to be on the same floor as mine. Jessica Lunsfords parents didn't wake up when she was removed from her bedroom. Neither did the Van Dams or the Smarts or the DeWallabes,(Quite sure I didn't spell that right) or the Crowes. And Stephanie Crowe was stabbed to death in her home.

I feel sympathy for Patsy because she has been wrongly accused of killing her child. I would feel sympathey for any mother or father or any person who has been wrongly accused. And JonBenet is in heaven where she will never suffer the suffering she suffered when she was killed. Her mother is still alive and fighting cancer so I feel sorry for her as I would anyone who had to go through cancer treatment or suffer any illness. IMO the Ramseys are just as much victims as JonBenet was. I am sure there are posters who will disagree with me as is their right. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

Mandymax

08-02-2005, 11:29 AM

It's always bothered me that one of the first people they hired after the murder was an "image consultant." What on earth would they even need an "image consultant" for? And how could their minds possible have been on how they were going to come off to the public??

If my child were brutally murdered in my own home, I would care less how I looked. Danielle Van Dam's mother, before the trial, gave an interview in which she said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Let them say what they want about us. Let them tear our lives to shreds. We want justice for our daughter." And they certainly went through hell, but they got justice. That would've been me.

Just that "image consultant" bit has always made me look at the Ramseys with some degree of skepticism.

chatwuann

08-02-2005, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by koldkase
You have all hit the highs and lows of many of the arguments about who murdered JonBenet. I'm tired of arguing about this now, because it's always the same answer in the end: no one will ever be arrested or convicted for this murder. Blame or thank whomever you please, but NEVAH expect Boulder to give a rip again.

An opinion is an opinion, and by its nature, subjective. Your points about the debate are based in interpretation of untried evidence, gossip, and almost 9 years of a media frenzy only matched by OJ. Much has been corroborated, twisted, and/or spun by LE, lawyers, private detectives, "reliable sources," "insiders," and whackos full of manure, and lots of actual evidence in the way of pictures and testimony, evidence like the ransom note and expert opinions galore can be found online and in many documentaries, books and articles--all open to interpretation, never tested in a court of law, as I said..

Most discussion on this case today is chock full of either misinformation, disinformation, or mistakes, pure and simple. A few steadfast case followers who have the information and do the work, some who are pros in related fields, can straighten the facts from fiction when the mood strikes them, but it's really a cold case that won't ever warm up again, so most have left or only drift in and out from time to time.

I used to know a good bit about the case, collected a boatload of info and research, but now I'm too old and tired to remember it all off the top of my head.

Which brings me to my question for you, Chatwuann:

I don't remember two grand juries in Boulder who investigated this case. My mind isn't what it used to be, that's for sure, so could you refresh it? The only grand jury I remember is the one Hunter finally called which ended in 1999, I believe. It ended in October or November of that year with Hunter announcing he would not indict anyone. When and where was the second grand jury? I am completely blanking on any other being called.

A very oft repeated piece of misinformation, by the way, put out by the Ramsey spin team, headed by Lin Wood, is that the Grand Jury in Boulder voted for "no indictment" in this case. That is not true. Wood is telling tales or he should be arrested for revealing the grand jury results, because Hunter has repeated that anyone involved in the grand jury who revealed its actions would be arrested. It's against Colorado law to do so. How would Wood know? Gossip? The Ramsey's lawyers? Neither of those parties was in the Grand Jury, so how did they know? Gossip? Neither of those parties is unbiased, either. They have professional reason to spread misinformation that can't be rebutted because IT'S AGAINST COLORADO LAW for us to know the truth. Hence, Wood can lie and spin all he chooses, and no one WHO KNOWS FIRSTHAND can stand up and say Yeah, the Grand Jury did indict! Also, the Grand Jury might not have even voted, as Hunter could have told them not to even write a report--his choice.

All we can say is Wood may well be lying through his teeth. Because what we do know is this: the Grand Jury had three options: vote to indict; vote not to indict; no vote. Hunter made the final decision, and Dr. Lee is on record in his very own book stating he advised Hunter not to indict at the time. The only conclusion anyone can draw from that is that Hunter had the option to indict. That means the Grand Jury did NOT vote "no indictment." If they had, Hunter wouldn't have been contemplating whether to indict and asking Dr. Lee for advice.

All that leaves is either the Grand Jury voted to indict or did not vote. Since the Ramseys have been the only prime suspects LE has had in all these 9 years, it's easy to reason they would have had their names on that Grand Jury indictment, not some unknown subject with no name to put on an indictment.

In my opinion, there is plenty of evidence against the Ramseys. No point in picking at it anymore, but if it was any blue collar family and the exact same evidence in their home...they'd be making licence plates today in my state.

JMO

My mind is full of little facts that I have heard and read. I don't always remember where I heard or read it. My posts are my opinion and I pick up little facts from other posters who know more than I do. I didn't know that I had to thoroughly research this case before I could express an opinion on it. When I have actual facts I put them in. I believe the Ramseys are innocent and you don't and that is okay. Differences of opinion is what makes this world as interesting as it is. Maybe I am wrong about a second grand jury. I will have to do some research and see if I can find an article on the internet about it.

I wish you well in this journey we call life.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

08-02-2005, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Mandymax
It's always bothered me that one of the first people they hired after the murder was an "image consultant." What on earth would they even need an "image consultant" for? And how could their minds possible have been on how they were going to come off to the public??

If my child were brutally murdered in my own home, I would care less how I looked. Danielle Van Dam's mother, before the trial, gave an interview in which she said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Let them say what they want about us. Let them tear our lives to shreds. We want justice for our daughter." And they certainly went through hell, but they got justice. That would've been me.

Just that "image consultant" bit has always made me look at the Ramseys with some degree of skepticism.

Different Parents, Different Personalities, Different Reactions, and Different PD's, Different Perpetrators, Different Case. The only common denominator is that both parents lost a female child.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

Jayelles

08-03-2005, 09:14 AM

I always thought your posts seemed "familiar". Now the penny has dropped!

Koldkase - good post above (as always). I'd like to add that contrary to what someone posted above, it is precisely due to the lack of conclusive evidence of an intruder that the parents have not been cleared. The Boulder DA made a statement last year to say that they had not been excluded from investigation.

There was a second Grand Jury thing but it wasn't to decide whether to indict someone for the murder. I cannot recall the precise details but I think a second GJ were asked to consider some other aspect of the investigation - was it perhaps to decide whether a Special Prosecutor should be appointed? I just can't remember but I'm sure it was something *like* that.

chatwuann

08-03-2005, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles
I always thought your posts seemed "familiar". Now the penny has dropped!

Koldkase - good post above (as always). I'd like to add that contrary to what someone posted above, it is precisely due to the lack of conclusive evidence of an intruder that the parents have not been cleared. The Boulder DA made a statement last year to say that they had not been excluded from investigation.

There was a second Grand Jury thing but it wasn't to decide whether to indict someone for the murder. I cannot recall the precise details but I think a second GJ were asked to consider some other aspect of the investigation - was it perhaps to decide whether a Special Prosecutor should be appointed? I just can't remember but I'm sure it was something *like* that.

LOL You make it sound like I copy others posts word for word. You better pick up that proverbial penny before a toddler chokes on it. No one can say with absolute certainty that an intruder wasn't in the Ramsey house that Christmas night in 1996. Or visa versa. And the crime scene was compromised by all the people traipsing in and out and around the house that morning that valuable evidence of an intruder might have been destroyed.

I was pretty sure that there was a second Grand Jury. I wonder if it was the one that Michael Kane tried to barr Lou Smit from because he didn't want the jury to hear about the intruder evidence.

DA Keenan Lacy is in politics and it is the politically safe thing to make a statement that the parents haven't been excluded from the investigation. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

08-03-2005, 08:47 PM

Chatwuan- Jayelles is the most fair poster involved in the JBR case. And, she thinks that the Ramsey's could be innocent.

Jayelles. :rose: Hugs.

chatwuann

08-03-2005, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Huntress1
Chatwuan- Jayelles is the most fair poster involved in the JBR case. And, she thinks that the Ramsey's could be innocent.

Jayelles. :rose: Hugs.

Huntress1 I wasn't attacking Jayelles. Jayelles made a reference to my posts seeming familiar and I was responding in a sarcastic way which is the way my sense of humor works. I know Jayelles is fair and even though I don't always agree with the opinion he or she expresses I respect it as I do everyone elses on this board.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

08-04-2005, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by chatwuann
Huntress1 I wasn't attacking Jayelles. Jayelles made a reference to my posts seeming familiar and I was responding in a sarcastic way which is the way my sense of humor works. I know Jayelles is fair and even though I don't always agree with the opinion he or she expresses I respect it as I do everyone elses on this board.
armchair detective/trucrmbuf

Crikes. I didn't mean for it to sound like I thought you were attacking Jayelles. I simply meant that she rocks!

Jayelles

08-04-2005, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Huntress1

Crikes. I didn't mean for it to sound like I thought you were attacking Jayelles. I simply meant that she rocks!

Now you've got me blushing....

I seem to have touched a nerve but the fact is that I just realised where I know Chatwuann from (under a different hat of course).

chatwuann

08-04-2005, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Huntress1

Crikes. I didn't mean for it to sound like I thought you were attacking Jayelles. I simply meant that she rocks!

Just wanted to set the record straight in case you did. Jayelles certainly is a good source of information on the Ramsey case since she is so well read on it. You're not the only one that likes her other posters have mentioned that they like her as well. :)

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

08-04-2005, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles

Now you've got me blushing....

I seem to have touched a nerve but the fact is that I just realised where I know Chatwuann from (under a different hat of course).

No you really didn't. I was just trying to be funny. PM me with what you think the different hat is and I will tell you if it belongs to me. You might have me mixed up with someone else.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

08-04-2005, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles
Now you've got me blushing....
I seem to have touched a nerve but the fact is that I just realised where I know Chatwuann from (under a different hat of course).

;) I'm one of your biggest fans and have been for a really long time. I haven't seen your posts for over a year, I hope all is well in Scotland. Don't worry, I'm not a stalker. I'm RiverSelah.

08-10-2005, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Jojokitoma
This case will haunt me forever.

No one wants to talk about it.

I think it is dangerous if they don't pursue the case. I think her brother did it.

because during police interview in Atlanta Ga, more than a year after her death, he told detectives he had been shocked on the White's electric deer fence the night of the murder.

The police ignored this statement.

If he says he was burned on the white's electric deer fence the night of the murder, this means that both children received electrical burns on the same night.

this is bizaare and needed to be investigated.

I think her brother killed her it too but it was not abuse or a hit or shove meant to be fatal. I am also haunted by JonBenet's murder. It changed my life as I lost my job when I put up this website a few years ago.

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44

JonBenet turned 15 over the weekend. I looked, but found most of the forums from the past few years had vanished or become inactive or changed their focus to the flavor of the week. Even here she's been moved from cold cases to notorious crimes.

I thought there would be something when Burke turned 18, like a tabloid staking him out to get a story but they have duct tape on their mouths. I think there will still be a story from him but more likely when he's forty as John Ramsey predicted. He'll probably kill himself, his boss, or maybe even his psychiatrist. By then the public will be saying JonBenet who?

The only occasional news is of Patsy Ramsey's deteriorating health. She's been dying from cancer for 12 years now. It sounds like there was a marital split of some sort as Patsy spent the winter and spring in Atlanta allegedly receiving cancer treatments. The longer her disease plays out the less likely it is she had stage four ovarian cancer in the first place.

It's just a crutch she's used to evade facing the unpleasant truth that her beautiful innocent daughter is dead and she was helpless to protect her and even went so far as to conspire to pervert the truth about what did happen. As though receiving a traumatic brain injury at the hands of a brother wasn't good enough or was so shameful for her little princess that she fabricated this illusion of kidnapping to elevate JonBenet's death into some preverted higher way to have died.

chatwuann

08-14-2005, 06:25 PM

The idea of Burke being the one that caused the head injury in JonBenet is absurd. Noone has presented any proof that he felt any anger toward her at all especially not enough to strike her with a heavy blunt object. And how would scrawny 9 year old Burke get JonBenet down to that room the Ramseys referred to as a wine cellar. Oh yeah his parents took over and did the rest. I don't believe that of course but that is my opinion. All the so-called evidence in the world can't and shouldn't make the Ramseys guiltyif they are in fact innocent.Until we know otherwise Patsy is having treatment for stage 4 ovarian cancer. Maybe Patsy didn't want John and Burke to take care of her and that is why she left Michigan to go to Georgia.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

08-18-2005, 05:10 AM

You apparently think JonBenet's head was made of steel and that instantly eliminates her brother Burke as responsible for her brain injury. Holidays are stressful and he could have been mad, just bickering, tired, or actually happily playing with her when he shoved her or hit her with whatever. The skull is fragile, kids die from falling three feet off bikes and trikes and the preverbial dropping the baby and having it's head hit the coffee table causing massive damage isn't an old wive's tale.

Just like the Ramsey spin to turn the little old string tied around her neck into a sinister intriguing garotte (JonBenet wasn't garotted, that is a device that snaps the spinal cord and her's was intact.) John Ramsey put spin out there that it was the force of a three hundred pound man that dented Jonbenet's skull. Not only was Burke Ramsey physically able to have inflicted the head trauma on JonBenet but JonBenet was physically able to have inflicted the same injury on Burke.

Statiscally, Burke Ramsey is more likey than an other person to have caused physical injury to his sister. Siblings squabble day and night. Burke Ramsey would have been JonBenet's closest relationship. Burke Ramsey had a history of hitting JonBenet in the head with a golf club and she had to go to the emergency room. Patsy Ramsey admitted to other fights over legos and toys. TOYS? Isn'nt that another word for Christmas?

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44

The Today show will have something or other about notorious cases on 8/18 and the secrets behind them that nobody knows... probably just a tease.

Patsy Ramsey is reportedly on her death bed, again. I'll believe it when I hear it.

chatwuann

08-20-2005, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by jahazafat
You apparently think JonBenet's head was made of steel and that instantly eliminates her brother Burke as responsible for her brain injury. Holidays are stressful and he could have been mad, just bickering, tired, or actually happily playing with her when he shoved her or hit her with whatever. The skull is fragile, kids die from falling three feet off bikes and trikes and the preverbial dropping the baby and having it's head hit the coffee table causing massive damage isn't an old wive's tale.

Just like the Ramsey spin to turn the little old string tied around her neck into a sinister intriguing garotte (JonBenet wasn't garotted, that is a device that snaps the spinal cord and her's was intact.) John Ramsey put spin out there that it was the force of a three hundred pound man that dented Jonbenet's skull. Not only was Burke Ramsey physically able to have inflicted the head trauma on JonBenet but JonBenet was physically able to have inflicted the same injury on Burke.

Statiscally, Burke Ramsey is more likey than an other person to have caused physical injury to his sister. Siblings squabble day and night. Burke Ramsey would have been JonBenet's closest relationship. Burke Ramsey had a history of hitting JonBenet in the head with a golf club and she had to go to the emergency room. Patsy Ramsey admitted to other fights over legos and toys. TOYS? Isn'nt that another word for Christmas?

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44

The Today show will have something or other about notorious cases on 8/18 and the secrets behind them that nobody knows... probably just a tease.

Patsy Ramsey is reportedly on her death bed, again. I'll believe it when I hear it.

No I believe that it is absurd to think Burke inflicted the skull fracture on JonBenet just because it it more likely statisticly that he was the perpetrator of the skull fracture JonBenet suffered. And I have heard how easily head injuries can occur in small children so i dont think JonBenet's skull was made of steel.

The experts can't pinpoint when the head injury occured. Some say it was before death and some say after. Experts are given a lot of weight because they are supposed to know more than we do.But sometimes the experts get it wrong. Like one expert did in the local case I followed. This case got a lot of media coverage. It involved bloody footprints in a home. The one expert who was trying to make a name for himself said the bloody footprints meant the victims had tried to get out of the house to escape the killer. In truth as told by another expert the victims had stepped in the blood and were running around the house trying to evade the killer. After following this local case I look at the popular experts especially the blood experts with less credibility than I did before. And if JonBenet's skull fracture occured after death than the Ramseys staging this to protect Burke is a mute point and carries no weight. Sinister things happen in this world we don't need to llook for them.

As far as siblings fighting are concerned siblings have been fighting since the dawn of time and I bet there has been some cracked skulls or minor head injuries along the way which have been deemed as simple accidents with no litigation. The golf club incident could have been an accident and nothing more. It does not necessarily imply to me that Burke had any malice toward JonBenet. it could have been a case of JonBenet walking up to Burke just as he swung to hit a golf ball. And JonBenet seemed to suffer no permanent injury after the that. It has no bearing on her death unless it happened that Christmas night in 1996.

I guess you will believe it if and when it is announced that Patsy has succumbed after a 12 year battle with ovarian cancer. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

08-27-2005, 07:22 AM

I guess you will believe it if and when it is announced that Patsy has succumbed after a 12 year battle with ovarian cancer.

I find it more than coincidental Patsy Ramsey was said to be at death's door the same time the Boulder DA appointed a new head to it's JBR investigation. An investigator who has close ties to Steve Thomas no less. Patsy looked good enough on the recent cover of The Globe and was healthy enough to help Burke move into a dorm. John Ramsey was no where to be seen so she must have been healthy enough to drive home alone too. Did she head to Atlanta or Charlevoix? I think she and John split and the treatment scenario in Atlanta was a cover.

Nothing is as it appears in the death of JonBenet.

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44

chatwuann

08-28-2005, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by jahazafat

I find it more than coincidental Patsy Ramsey was said to be at death's door the same time the Boulder DA appointed a new head to it's JBR investigation. An investigator who has close ties to Steve Thomas no less. Patsy looked good enough on the recent cover of The Globe and was healthy enough to help Burke move into a dorm. John Ramsey was no where to be seen so she must have been healthy enough to drive home alone too. Did she head to Atlanta or Charlevoix? I think she and John split and the treatment scenario in Atlanta was a cover.

Nothing is as it appears in the death of JonBenet.

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44

Patsy Ramsey to me looked like she would rather be in bed resting but it was a special day for Burke so she made an effort to be with him and help him in any way she could the day he moved into his college dorm. I am not suspicious of every move the Ramseys make but when someone with close ties to Steve Thomas is put in charge of a high profile on going investigation the hairs on the back of my neck go up. I think it was a political move to include someone who was once with the BPD. Yea you're right that nothing is as it appears in the death of JonBenet Ramsey it only appears that the Ramseys are guilty. AAJMO

chatwuann

08-28-2005, 11:15 AM

The case is essentially back in the hands of the BPD now with Jim Kolar in charge of the investigation. To coin a phrase "There is something rotten in the State of Colorado"And it isn't an unsolved case either.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

specialonetoo

09-16-2005, 03:28 PM

First of all the BPD did a poor job on the scene. Secondly, why did Jon-Bonet's Father find her in the basement while the police were there? Why didn't the police search the basement? Third, the note that was found..... how absurb! My thoughts... big brother was jealous of all the attention that little sister got all the time. Afterall, look at the pictures of her! She was a baby dressed up like a grown woman for crying out loud!! Anyway, I think that the brother killed her, whether it be intentionally or not. And both parents covered for him because if they didn't, they would have lost both children instead of one. And I'm sorry, but I have a friend that lost her only daughter, and the reaction and emotions that didn't come out from Mrs. Ramsey at the funeral just proved to me without doubt that she is part of a coverup. How many of you would be smiling and chatting while they carried your baby past you in a casket? :flamemad: Why have the parents not been indicted you ask? Money, money, money. How many of the Boulder politicians did they support? How many police benefits did they contribute to? How many close friends did they have that were detectives, attorneys, police officers, government/state officials, etc? The 'elite' have a different set of laws, I don't care what anyone says. If you are wealthy, your chances of getting away with something is far higher than if you were a nobody. And if any of the Ramseys pass on, they will be waving to little Jon-Bonet from hell, not from outside heavens gates.

nad121

09-26-2005, 08:51 AM

I think it's a disgrace to know that nobody could acctually bothered at the time... that crime scene was completly mistreated... :( To think that police can completley ignore evidence, and even worse tamper with it is so shamefull.

It is sad to know that a innocent child has to go through something like that... she must have been terrified!

09-27-2005, 07:16 AM

There's no forensic evidence JonBenet was terrified at the time of her death. No tear stained cheeks or clothing, No tear irritation to her eyes, and no mouth gapping open in a silent scream for life. This gives credence to the accidental head trauma theory that knocked her out rendering her uncounscious and mimicking death to the point the strangulation was staged to cover up the head injury. Had she been fully alert and terrified when the strangulation occured there would have been subtle differences noticed at autopsy. In particular, the status of the musculature in her oral cavity.

It's a good point to bring up the Ninetendo again. It was set up in Burke's room because that's where he took it from the next morning. If he was put to bed at ten with his parents sleeping on another floor they have no way to verify if he actually fell asleep and hadn't stayed up playing. Playing and making noise that may have awakened JonBenet. I don't believe Burke's room was ever scrutinized as the crime scene but it should have been. He had opportunity and ability.

There's no forensic evidence JonBenet was terrified at the time of her death, as a matter of fact she was likely clutching a doll for comfort. A doll that holds vital evidence and a doll the Ramseys removed from the crime scene while the body was still warm.

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44

chatwuann

10-01-2005, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by jahazafat
There's no forensic evidence JonBenet was terrified at the time of her death. No tear stained cheeks or clothing, No tear irritation to her eyes, and no mouth gapping open in a silent scream for life. This gives credence to the accidental head trauma theory that knocked her out rendering her uncounscious and mimicking death to the point the strangulation was staged to cover up the head injury. Had she been fully alert and terrified when the strangulation occured there would have been subtle differences noticed at autopsy. In particular, the status of the musculature in her oral cavity.

It's a good point to bring up the Ninetendo again. It was set up in Burke's room because that's where he took it from the next morning. If he was put to bed at ten with his parents sleeping on another floor they have no way to verify if he actually fell asleep and hadn't stayed up playing. Playing and making noise that may have awakened JonBenet. I don't believe Burke's room was ever scrutinized as the crime scene but it should have been. He had opportunity and ability.

There's no forensic evidence JonBenet was terrified at the time of her death, as a matter of fact she was likely clutching a doll for comfort. A doll that holds vital evidence and a doll the Ramseys removed from the crime scene while the body was still warm.

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44

Your post is logical and well thought out. The evidence seems to indicate that JonBenet was unconscious when she was strangled. An intruder ( an intruder meaning anyone who was in the house without the Ramseys permission be it friend or acquaintance) could have hit her hard on the head so that he could get her down in the basement without her running to her parents. I can imagine that JonBenet at some point did try to get to her parents but was prevented by doing that by being struck hard on the head by the intruder. My personal opinion is that JonBenet did try to run to her parents room because she was terrified and the intruder hit her on the head and knocked her out to prevent that. I remember a neighbor said she heard a terrified child's scream at 1or2 in the morning. I know she later chalked it up to her imagination. But if JonBenet did scream imo it probably was when she was in the basement since a scream would have been heard by the Ramseys if it had taken place on the second or main floor of the house. Of course the Ramseys could have heard the scream subconsciously but were too sound asleep. A scream in the basement would have woken a neighbor because of the vent that led to the outside but might not have woken the Ramseys on the top floor of the house. I know I got off on a tangent which I sometimes do when I post so be patient because I am now going to get to my point, which is that if JonBenet did scream that would mean that at some point of the attack she was terrified. Also strangulation wouldn't mask a head injury so the point that the strangualtion was done to prevent LE from finding out that JonBenet had been struck hard on the head hard enough to cause a skull fracture doesn't make sense to me. We have the skull fracture but we don't have the who, where, why, and what weapon was used. As for the initial attack happening in Burke's room there is no forensic evidence to support that theory and what would Burke have struck her with. One would think if he was playing nintendo that the controller would be the obvious weapon but those controllers are pretty light and I don't think one would do the damage that a heavier object would. The forensic guys said a blunt object caused the head injury and after examining the fracture came to the conclusion that one of those large mag flashlights was the weapon used. And I read that one of those mag flashlights was kept on the kitchen counter, pretty convienant for an intruder I might add. Like Alice said curiouser and curiouser. I don't think this case is as cut and dried and some think. I know this post is long but your post got me thinking and the thoughts just kept flowing. Not to mention the fact that I woke up long before it was light and couldn't go back to sleep. I knew doing this would help me relax and make me sleepy. I thank you for your patience that is if you were able to get through this rambling post. I hope I didn't bore you. Good night. AAJMO

10-03-2005, 07:21 AM

There's an interesting discussion on another forum speculating Burke's involvement in the death of JonBenet with his new Nintendo 64 as part of the equation. The coroner suggested the possibility of a double/second strangualtion with the macramed noose only added later as a staged decoration.

The cord of the game console could easily have strangled JonBenet. Also look at the protrubing buttons and controls and they look the size to match abraisons on her body. Especially the one that plugs in, it would have been 'hot 'and able to slightly burn her neck.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00005AC5L.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

John Ramsey claims to have put Burke to bed after playing with a 'model' of some sort but gives no description or name as in it was a toy that popped into his head. The BPD probably didn't even check to find evidence that a model existed...

BUT

There is always the video tape shot while JonBenet's little body laid dead under the Christmas tree. That video can be used as a reference but has never been publicly discussed. Where was this model kit John and Burke claimed to have worked on? If it existed it's in that video.

That video is thee key piece of evidence. How long will it be before scenes and stills of that video are scrutinzed? What location were the dolls the Ramseys removed in the video? Is the only reason why that video is never even mentioned a conspiracy in Colorado? What other possibilites are there?

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44

There's been a sudden burst of viewing of my webpage from emailed links and that gives me hope that something is happening behind the scenes. The death of JonBenet needs to be publicly accounted for by LE so it never happens again. I will never forget JonBenet.

:rose:

chatwuann

10-09-2005, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by jahazafat
There's an interesting discussion on another forum speculating Burke's involvement in the death of JonBenet with his new Nintendo 64 as part of the equation. The coroner suggested the possibility of a double/second strangualtion with the macramed noose only added later as a staged decoration.

The cord of the <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.qklinkserver.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=35&k=game%20console&st=0" onmouseover="window.status='game console'">game console</a> could easily have strangled JonBenet. Also look at the protrubing buttons and controls and they look the size to match abraisons on her body. Especially the one that plugs in, it would have been 'hot 'and able to slightly burn her neck.

http://images-eu.<a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.qklinkserver.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=35&k=amazon%20com&st=0" onmouseover="window.status='amazon.com'">amazon.com</a>/images/P/B00005AC5L.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

John Ramsey claims to have put Burke to bed after playing with a 'model' of some sort but gives no description or name as in it was a toy that popped into his head. The BPD probably didn't even check to find evidence that a model existed...

BUT

There is always the <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.qklinkserver.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=35&k=video%20tape&st=0" onmouseover="window.status='video tape'">video tape</a> shot while JonBenet's little body laid dead under the Christmas tree. That video can be used as a reference but has never been publicly discussed. Where was this model kit John and Burke claimed to have worked on? If it existed it's in that video.

That video is thee key piece of evidence. How long will it be before scenes and stills of that video are scrutinzed? What location were the dolls the Ramseys removed in the video? Is the only reason why that video is never even mentioned a conspiracy in Colorado? What other possibilites are there?

http://www.geocities.com/pinker44

There's been a sudden burst of viewing of my webpage from emailed links and that gives me hope that something is happening behind the scenes. The death of JonBenet needs to be publicly accounted for by LE so it never happens again. I will never forget JonBenet.

:rose:

Where would this forum be? Is it public or private? It might be interesting to read these posts even though I believe more in someone other than a Ramsey killing JonBenet. I opened your link and looked at the picture but thought it would be hard to tell without the actual controller and JonBenet's body to compare the marks to see if that controller was indeed the source of those marks found on JonBenet's body. So it appears that we have the stun gun argument all over again without the definitive proof to back it up.

I am not so sure that I would believe a videotape that would be introduced in this case at trial after seeing the video footage that was obviously slowed down that the different news channels showed over and over. You know the one where JonBenet is walking across the stage. I would be more inclined to believe it if the videotape had been authenticated and proven not to have been tampered with and edited. Prosecutors and defense alike have the tendency to show only the portions of a videotape that will sway the jury for either guilt or innocence. But still videotape can turn a case around and on it's ear as we have seen in the past.

It could be that the video has been checked and it does show the model that John Ramsey says he and Burke were working on.

If there is something interesting going on behind the scenes in this case we will know soon enough. I too will never forget JonBenet Ramsey and hope the right person or persons are convicted of this heinous crime inflicted on her. If not now then in the afterlife JonBenet will get justice.
AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

10-11-2005, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by ANGRYWOLF
because Jon Benet was also raped and DNA from another male, not a Ramsey male was found...:lol:

I know Burke didn't do it. I was just discussing the possibility that Burke did it for the sake of argument and I thought it would be interesting to read the discussion on this forum. I thought it would be interesting to read the discussions on this forum.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

10-12-2005, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by ANGRYWOLF
I liked the CBS 48 hours mystery movie on the Jon Benet Killing..and the theory there is a sexual predator who also is a burglar on the loose in the area of Boulder who has commited other rapes and murders...:flamemad:

It sounds like that kind of guy who would have done what the killer of JonBenet did all right. I wonder if I have seen this 48 hours mystery movie. Can you give me more details?

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

10-15-2005, 09:24 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ANGRYWOLF
talked to some PIs who are investigating Jon Benet's killing pro bono..for free.and that's their theory...they have looked into the murder of another burglar..they believe he and a partner were the ones who entered Jon Benet's house and tried the extortion scheme..the partner is the guy who they believe raped and murdered Jon Benet..then murdered the other burglar to keep him from talking...They also believe this burglar/sexual predator is responsible for the murder of a woman whose killing is a cold case..and also for the assault of another child whose house was entered and she was assaulted while she was in bed...This all took place in Colorado of course...
You can go to CBS NEWS/48 HOURS and see a video clip of the episode I just mentioned...you have to go there and do a search for it..Here it is..just play it on your <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.qklinkserver.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=35&k=media%20player&st=0" onmouseover="window.status='media player'">media player</a>...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/26/search/main886284.shtml?searchString=jon+benet+ramsey&type=any&num=10&offset=10&sort=1&section=&source=cbsvideos&xargs=12KPjg1hNSqoGmmvmnF9y1WeGHwS9Syd%252Dh8b9vGp N%255FZosFtC0wCEZNLPCBqfB4WO5hrF%252DOlkum%255Fbhj HPOsqu6IFNe3FBO%255FRdUv7ij8nbknbp4EbdADtYFZjru62j p1jEpaQnbJSVmKi%252DzKOK7JCyAWvJoAuRy4zcE%252E%0A

good luck.............

:rose: [/QUOTE/]

Thanks ANGRYWOLF for looking up the link to this 48 hours program. I know it took a lot of work. I will definitely try the link and watch the program. I will get back to you later.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

dancingsheba

10-25-2005, 01:13 AM

I don't think an intruder did it, that is a total stranger. I think it was someone close to the Ramsey's who knew the dog was not going to be there. The Ramsey's took their dog to a neighbors to be looked after for a couple of days. Only someone close to them would have known this. I suspect the single guy who lived in the basement suite of one of the friends of the Ramseys. Can't remember his name. Sounds creepy and suspicious. Lone wolf living on his own in basement suite, no solid explanation as to where he was the night of the murder. Said he "was at home watching t.v." Is that all it takes to allude the police. They just left it at that!!!!!!! Seems pretty daft to me. I would have been on his trail beating him down. Also the D.N.A. in her panties could have been planted there to distract the police to someone other than the real perp. This has actually taken place in real murder cases. The devil is in the details.

ANGELDUMPLIN

10-26-2005, 01:14 PM

sharpar

10-27-2005, 12:16 PM

Holgoth was his name IIRC . He was looked at. He committed suicide or was murdered a few years ago. He did NOT commit the crime. There is little believable evidence of a intruder. There is alot of evidence that the ramseys are guilty of murdering their
daughter and staging the scene, contaminating the remaining evidence that is there, lawyering up, hiring a PR firm, and trying to leave Boulder within an hour of the discovery of her body in the basement. The Ramseys have changed their stories multiple times over the years or had selective memory loss over important events and details. The changes arent just variations over time as anyone would do but completely different versions of events.
The ransom note was 3 pages long ...... it says over and over again if you talk to anyone or contact authorities she dies. Yet they call police, summon friends to the house and have Burke leave with another friend and go to their home. None of the Ramseys have been cleared by investigators.
There was no intruder.

JuneinJuly

10-27-2005, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by dancingsheba
I don't think an intruder did it, that is a total stranger. I think it was someone close to the Ramsey's who knew the dog was not going to be there. The Ramsey's took their dog to a neighbors to be looked after for a couple of days. Only someone close to them would have known this. I suspect the single guy who lived in the basement suite of one of the friends of the Ramseys. Can't remember his name. Sounds creepy and suspicious. Lone wolf living on his own in basement suite, no solid explanation as to where he was the night of the murder. Said he "was at home watching t.v." Is that all it takes to allude the police. They just left it at that!!!!!!! Seems pretty daft to me. I would have been on his trail beating him down. Also the D.N.A. in her panties could have been planted there to distract the police to someone other than the real perp. This has actually taken place in real murder cases. The devil is in the details.

A person is creepy and suspicious because they live in a basement apartment?? Because they were home alone watching TV??
I do not know the world you live in, but where I am from housing is very expensive and there is a shortage of rental. Many people convert their basements into apartments to make their ends meet and a renter finds an apartment.
There was nothing to suggest this person committed this murder, but hey he rents a basement apartment so he must have done it.
Oh wait a minute I rented a basement apartment at one time. I was working and going to school, rarely went out, definetly a lone wolf. By your reasoning the police should have been beating me down for every crime committed in my area.
Someone elses DNA in her underwear? he probably planted it. He lives in a basement he must have done it. Your reasoning is scary

chatwuann

10-28-2005, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by sharpar
Holgoth was his name IIRC . He was looked at. He committed suicide or was murdered a few years ago. He did NOT commit the crime. There is little believable evidence of a intruder. There is alot of evidence that the ramseys are guilty of murdering their
daughter and staging the scene, contaminating the remaining evidence that is there, lawyering up, hiring a PR firm, and trying to leave Boulder within an hour of the discovery of her body in the basement. The Ramseys have changed their stories multiple times over the years or had selective memory loss over important events and details. The changes arent just variations over time as anyone would do but completely different versions of events.
The ransom note was 3 pages long ...... it says over and over again if you talk to anyone or contact authorities she dies. Yet they call police, summon friends to the house and have Burke leave with another friend and go to their home. None of the Ramseys have been cleared by investigators.
There was no intruder.

I can see why all this behavior of the Ramseys seems suspicious especially with JonBenet's body found in the house after the ransom note was found. I too thought at first that the Ramseys wre guilty of this when I found out that their daughters body was found in the house but then I started thinking really thinking and I realised that the Ramseys could not have done this. For one thing the Ramseys would have been too shaken up by the events of the night if they were involved to think straight or stage an elaborate crime scene and try to act innocent. They would have had to be familiar with LE techniques and there is no evidence that they had such knowledge. And staging a crime scene is difficult because it has to be convincing and this staging if it was staged and I don't believe it was didn't convince the BPD or the majority of people that an intruder had committed this crime. A flashlight devoid of prints screams intruder to me because the Ramseys wouldn't have had to wipe their fingerprints off a flashlight they used on a regular or semi regular basis. The evidence against the Ramseys is ambiguous and a good defence atty. could have have shot it down quite easily. And don't you think JR & PR would have created a specific and obvious point of entry other than a broken window with a suitcase underneath it with a piece of glas sitting on top. I think if the Ramseys had staged this they would have done a better job and LE would have been looking for this intruder instead of looking only at the Ramseys. I have no problem with the BPD checking out the Ramseys but at the same time they should have been seriously looking for the intruder as well. I know this post was long but I couldn't express myself in just a few sentences. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

10-28-2005, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by DEATHBIRD
are dreaming..the Ramseys did not do it...even the investigators in Boulder no longer believe they did it..they aren't saying so officially..but they are looking in other directions...at least the DA investigator who was appointed a few months back supposedly is... ..the police there have proven to be incompetent...:rolleyes:

I couldn't agree with you more. It is obvious the Ramseys are innocent of this crime. Anyone that believes otherwise wants to.
AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

JuneinJuly

10-28-2005, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by chatwuann

I couldn't agree with you more. It is obvious the Ramseys are innocent of this crime. Anyone that believes otherwise wants to.
AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

I have never formed an opinion on who killed JonBonet. I really just don't know. Many of the things said about the Ramseys did not seem significant to me.
But I did feel very insulted about the basement apartment comments. LOL Could you tell? LOL

Icculus

10-28-2005, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by DEATHBIRD
people come here and make statements that aren't rational....

Jon Benet was raped...there was DNA found that does not match either her father or her brother, or any Ramsey for that matter....

The Boulder police failed to investigate an active buglary ring that was robbing houses in that area..or to interview a convicted sex offender that also lived in that area...they failed to investigate a burglar who some suspect had knowledge of the crime..he was later murdered....and they failed to investigate a home invasion attemped rape where the culprit ran out the door of the house past the child's startled mom and see if there was anything in common with that crime and what happened to Jon Benet....

John Douglas..the former FBI profiler..testified during the grand jury hearing in Boulder that he did not believe the Ramseys were involved..as you recalll the grand jury refused to indict the Ramseys...

so I would suggest you study the crime , perhaps go to Douglas' website and read what he has posted about it...and go to CBS News 48 hours and read what they say about it...:read:

Sorry to burst your bubble, deathbird, but I believe it is YOU who needs to do further research on this case, not just buying the illogical, incomplete theories promoted by the Ramsey spin money machine.

JonBenet was not raped, she was sexually assaulted with the painbrush handle which was attached to the poorly staged "garrote". The DNA found in her underwear which you cling to as clearing the Ramsey's has been proven to have originated at the factory they were produced in, being no more DNA matter than would be found in say, a sneeze. The same amount and type of DNA has been found in other freshly opened packages of underwear from this factory. Besides, if she were raped or sexually assualted by an intruder, there would be more than trace DNA, and more evidence...it simply doesn't fit your story.

However, there were plenty of fibers and DNA from her parents all over her. There is no logical evidence that an intruder committed this crime. There ARE mountains of factual, logical evidence indicating a Ramsey was responsible for her death and cover-up.

I suggest you check out other, less-biased sources of information on this crime before chastising others who have, and have come to the ONLY logical conclusion. A Ramsey (either Patsy, Burke or John IMO) murdered JonBenet, and Patsy and John covered it up. Patsy wrote the "ransom" note (have you ever seen the note compared to Patsy's left-handed writing samples?). John already knew where the body was when he "found" it. And so much more...read up :read: . I think you'll be shocked at how misled you've been thus far.
JMO of course

sharpar

10-28-2005, 05:49 PM

You are entitled to your opinion as am I . After reading extensively there is no way I believe they are innocent.

Once again we have a family claiming to be perfect. That alone
should raise the hinky factor. If they are perfect then I am
Paris Hilton .

They only had to do enough to create doubt of their involvement
and they have successfully done so . At leastenough to avoid arrest .

The girl was abused finally sexually abused to death by someone in her immediate family and the staging was to point
the finger away from them.

Monsters never look like what they are, that is the damn trouble
with them.

MOO

Icculus

10-30-2005, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by DEATHBIRD
has already been reviewed by experts including John Douglas and discarded..so you would be the one who is shocked...the Ramseys did not kill Jon Benet...:lol:

You seem to listen to "experts" selectively. There are numerous others who disagree. Try refuting one of my points YOURSELF. Your last statement was far from convincing. It's a pretty weak argument IMO. Address the actual issues instead of referencing someone else without even explaining the logic behind it. Otherwise, you appear to lack credibility.

JMO of course

And I think it's sad you find this so funny :no:

Eagle1

11-02-2005, 05:15 AM

I know the basement boarder across the street was Glen something, possibly Myars. He came over and knocked on the door looking for the people who owned the house, said something about dogs barking and he got worried. I forget if it was the Barnhills he rented from, who were keeping the Ramsey dog during the holidays and if he said it was barking.

Helgoth lived farther away.

Eagle1

11-02-2005, 05:31 AM

Most of the evidence was said to be "staging", meant to point to Ramsey guilt, so that's "evidence of an intruder". They just would not stage the crime scene to point to themselves.

Obviously they were way too friendly and trusting, probably because John was away a lot and PR was lonely. There's no proof that only 4 people were in the house that night. No-telling how many may have been there.

margiej

11-02-2005, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by Eagle1
Most of the evidence was said to be "staging", meant to point to Ramsey guilt, so that's "evidence of an intruder". They just would not stage the crime scene to point to themselves.

Obviously they were way too friendly and trusting, probably because John was away a lot and PR was lonely. There's no proof that only 4 people were in the house that night. No-telling how many may have been there.

We definitely know the murderer and accomplice were there. One taking the little girl to the basement while the other one whittled out a ransom note, twice. The evidence in this case is like a boomarang, turning and returning back to John and Patsy. JMO

hw1411

11-02-2005, 08:34 PM

This case reminds me of the Sam Shepard case.Shepard was an odd man in an unhappy marriage. His wife turns up dead and he has a wild story about a bushy haired stranger. His guilt was assumed by nearly everyone, including a jury. After his life is utterly destroyed, 30 plus years later we find DNA evidence supporting his story and he is all but proven innocent.

I can’t help but wonder if this case will turn out the same way. Long after the Ramsey’s lives have been destroyed will we find out they really were innocent?

Like most I assumed they were guilty at first, but I have since seen many reports by experts connected to the case who seem to believe that there significant circumstantial evidence pointing to an intruder. I don’t pretend to know any better than them one way or another, I just hope one day we learn the truth whatever it is.

Icculus

11-04-2005, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by DEATHBIRD
that was not an impression I wanted to give...as someone who ..as a child..walked into the kitchen where my uncle was stabbed to death a few hours earlier after the police and ME had left...and was sent home as there was still some evidence..blood on the floor...I don't think murder is very funny..thank you Icculus.....

The Boulder police did a terrible job investigating the crime..only the Greenwich police did a worse job...in the Skakel case...so I tend to discard their views and start from scratch...and there's no motive for the Ramseys to have murdered Jon Benet....:flamemad:

If you didn't mean to give that impression, then perhaps you should re-think using the "laughing" icon, because that's how you came across.

Just because you see no motive for a Ramsey (either Patsy, John, or Burke) to have murdered JonBenet, doesn't mean there wasn't one. Nor is that even relevant if this were an accidental death, as is highly probable. Besides, it doesn't matter if there is or isn't a detectable motive, especially when the proof is in the evidence. As James Blackburn said during Jeffrey MacDonald's trial..."If I can prove he did it, I don't need to prove WHY he did it." The evidence in this case indicates a family member. There IS no evidence of an intruder. All speculation of this theory has been de-bunked by actual facts.

JMO but of course

Boxing Helena

11-05-2005, 01:54 PM

I tell you for a long time I felt her family was innocent. I now feel they are behind it.

It appears Patsy is dying for her sin...

JMO

chatwuann

11-05-2005, 02:13 PM

the evidence against the Ramseys is ambiguous and a savy defence attorney would be able to shoot it down faster than you can say reasonable doubt. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

11-05-2005, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by DEATHBIRD
indicating anyone except someone you want to believe is guilty..You're making the same mistake some of the Boulder police did..and they ended up disgracing themselves...
........................as far as laughing...a person can laugh for a lot of reasons.............not necessarily because they see something funny in a situation........but something ironic in a situation...:read:

How right you are DEATHBIRD.

chatwuann

11-05-2005, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Icculus

If you didn't mean to give that impression, then perhaps you should re-think using the "laughing" icon, because that's how you came across.

Just because you see no motive for a Ramsey (either Patsy, John, or Burke) to have murdered JonBenet, doesn't mean there wasn't one. Nor is that even relevant if this were an accidental death, as is highly probable. Besides, it doesn't matter if there is or isn't a detectable motive, especially when the proof is in the evidence. As James Blackburn said during Jeffrey MacDonald's trial..."If I can prove he did it, I don't need to prove WHY he did it." The evidence in this case indicates a family member. There IS no evidence of an intruder. All speculation of this theory has been de-bunked by actual facts.

JMO but of course

Part of the proving part by the prosecutor would be that the duct tape that was on JonBenet's mouth came from the Ramsey home and had been in their possession. And what about the rest of the cord that was never found in the Ramsey home despite the BPD best efforts in searching for it even going to the extreme of ripping out the plumbing in case it had been flushed down the toilet. I believe they even ripped off the walls or at least ex-rayed them to see if the duct tape roll and cord roll had been thrown behind. I am surprised they didn't search the local landfill as well. To prove the Ramseys did this the prosecutor would have to produce a videotape of the Ramseys committing this crime to show to a jury. Good Luck to them. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

Boxing Helena

11-05-2005, 02:30 PM

For a long time I felt Burke may have accidently done it but I'm just not sure. It was either Burke or Patsy because I think if it had been John Patsy would have rated him out. I think she only cares about protecting herself or her son.

Wonder what they have to say about Burke being heard in that infamous 911 call. You know, they said Burke was in bed the ENTIRE time and he was not awaken until the police got him up. He is heard in that 911 tape unless John reverted to a child like voice at that time... :rolleyes: MOO

Boxing Helena

11-05-2005, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

I agree with you, but I think that they would (the parents) do anything to preserve their way of life. JMO

BB

It's a shame that celebs and wealthy people usually get away with EVEN murder! :cuss:

Icculus

11-05-2005, 04:02 PM

The evidence against the Ramsey's may be largely (although not completely) circumstantial, but so was the case against Scott Peterson. Circumstantial evidence, although considered by many to be a lesser form, can be incredibly strong and incontrevertible, especially as it builds and compounds as in the Ramsey case. Besides, there's NO evidence of an intruder AT ALL.

DEATHBIRD, how silly of you to suggest that I "want" to find a Ramsey guilty. My only want is to know the truth, and I'm willing to see it for what it is, regardless of how ugly or horrifying that truth may be.

What about the ransom note? What about the pineapple in her stomach? What about the changing stories of the evasive Ramsey's? What about the separate lawyers? What about the Ramsey's ignoring the ransom demands? What about JonBenet being found in the house? What about John finding her immediately, obviously already knowing where she was after disappearing for almost two hours earlier that morning and returning visibly shaken and changed in demeanor? What about the way he carried her up the stairs? What about appearance-conscious Patsy wearing the same clothes and full make-up as the night before, obviously not having gone to bed that night? What about Burke changing his story? What about the Ramsey's lying about Burke's presence during the 911 call? What about Pam's list of items to remove from the house? What about Patsy changing her account of JonBenet's clothing, then the originally stated Red Turtleneck being crumpled near the washer? What about the poorly-staged scene, including a garrotte that wasn't really a garrotte? What about all instruments used in the murder being Patsy's, including the pen and notepad the ransom was written on, including the practice note in Patsy's left-handed scrawl and writing and vocabulary style? What about the fact that this extensive, rambling note was written in the house that night...did the "intruder" feel comfortable hanging around to compose this 3 page essay without worry of being discovered? What about John trying to get his family out-of-state secretly, immediately after the body was found? What about no evidence of an intruder? What about the evidence found during the autopsy of prior, chronic sexual abuse? What about the amount asked for in the note equaling John's bonus, and given his wealth, being relatively small? What about the Ramsey's continuing to lie about their involvement in the ongoing investigation? What about the date on JonBenet's gravestone?....and trust me, I could go on and on and on.

I can't explain these things away. Can you? Can you erase all these indications somehow with the nonexisting evidence of an intruder? I can't see it. I want to see the truth. And the Ramsey's involvement is obvious to anyone who chooses to see it for what it is, not for what they wish it were. It's alot safer and easier to imagine some deranged psycho committed this crime, but it is not supported by the evidence. I choose to see the scary, ugly truth instead of deluding myself.

JMO as always

chatwuann

11-06-2005, 09:33 AM

Nobody should be put away for life or executed on circumstancial evidence you have to have hard proof. Such as blood etc.All of these circumstancial items that have been mentioned before are not evidence of guilt. The coroner didn't come right out and say that what was in JonBenet's digestive track was pineapple. I think the word used was suggestive of pineapple and inconsistent statements in any case are to be expected. Now if none of the Ramseys statements were inconsistent and their statements were the same every time and John and Patsys stories matched word for word that would raise my suspicions. Patsy answering the door dressed in the same clothes that she had worn to the Whites party and wearing full makeup isn't evidence of guilt. I like to wear the same clothes 2 days in a row if they are clean just because I don't have very many clothes. But that wouldn't mean if they thought I had murdered somebody that I had done it.ne.Since it was the day after Christmas Patsy probably decided to wear the same outfit. As to Patsy being in full makeup means she decided to put it on since she was still getting ready for the trip the family was going to take a couple of hours later. Patsy made a statemant that she had put makeup on. And innocent people need lawyers because they are not wise to the games LE plays in these interviews and investigations. The BPD had already made up their minds the Ramsey were guilty so it is a good thing the Ramseys had their lawyers.People don't always tell the facts the same way every time in a case so the statements are inconsistent. When a crime takes place with a vehicle involved the witnesses will give different descriptions of the vehicle. It is scarier for people to believe in an intruder who was cunning and knew not to leave forensic evidence behind than it is to believe the parents did it. and if this intruder was cunning he would use items from the home. That way these items couldn't be traced back to him. And it hasn't been proven conclusively that a Ramsey wrote the note. And lastly JonBenet was killed in a sadistic evil way and there is no evidence that the Ramseys are evil and sadistic. There is no evidence that they abused their children in any way. Patsy didn't even discipline JonBenet and Burke at all and let them cut paper up and didn't make them clean up the mess. If they had hard proof JR & PR were guilty of the death of their daughter they would be sitting in jail right now. The Ramsey have been proven guilty in the court of public opinion and it is good that the court of public's opinion verdict isn't legal and binding. People have a right to think the Ramseys are guilty but they shouldn't state it as fact because their guilt hasn't been established in a court of law. Until that happens they should be thought of as innocent of this crime. End of diatribe.AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

Talking Tina

11-06-2005, 02:07 PM

I think one of the parents did it...killed her and the other one.....covered up. Money talks and the rich walk. There aren't any millionaires on death row.

The killers are known......they'll never pay though.

Jon Benet......now an ANGEL. :rose:

Icculus

11-06-2005, 10:53 PM

It's not any one piece of circumstantial evidence alone. It's all of it, culminating and corroborating itself and one scenario of Ramsey guilt and cover-up. I do believe this was an accidental death turned into a deliberate cover-up. If you don;t believe parents capable, simply look at recent history. And the stomach contents have been stated as fact to be pineapple...the same pineapple as was found in a bowl in the kitchen. And if any of you can look at the ransom note compared to Patsy's left-handed sample and compare the language to her own and STILL can't see she wrote the note, then I can't help you from the depths of your own delusional ignorance. It's TOO OBVIOUS. Can you seriously, with a straight face tell me an intruder sat down to compose this 3 page monstrosity while fearing being discovered? Please.

And sure, DEATHBIRD, at FIRST people may have suspected Klaas, but as time and evidence proved otherwise, that changed. Time and evidence have not changed how guilty the Ramsey's are since 1996. There are numerous reasons why a grand jury fails. Did I ever claim our legal system without flaw? It's simply FULL of flaws IMO.

If the Ramsey's were poor and didn't have such influence in the "right" places, I believe they would be sitting in jail right now. Money and power can often buy freedom. That's the screwed-up society we have to live in. But we don't have to buy into it. And I don't.

Someone please explain to me how you feel any evidence points to anyone OTHER than a Ramsey. And please, not that tired old DNA song again...it's already been successfully refuted.

JMO as always

mrman

11-07-2005, 03:06 PM

I have always thought the brother accidently killed her. No proof, no link, just a feeling.

Bush4Prez

11-07-2005, 04:35 PM

I thoroughly believe that the parents (and Burke) are completely INNOCENT. I feel that an intruder killed JonBenet. I have followed everything, and I mean everything, about this case for years and there is absolutely no way the Ramsey's had anything to do with her murder.

JMO

chatwuann

11-09-2005, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Icculus
It's not any one piece of circumstantial evidence alone. It's all of it, culminating and corroborating itself and one scenario of Ramsey guilt and cover-up. I do believe this was an accidental death turned into a deliberate cover-up. If you don;t believe parents capable, simply look at recent history. And the stomach contents have been stated as fact to be pineapple...the same pineapple as was found in a bowl in the kitchen. And if any of you can look at the ransom note compared to Patsy's <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.qklinkserver.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=35&k=left%20handed&st=0" onmouseover="window.status='left-handed'">left-handed</a> sample and compare the language to her own and STILL can't see she wrote the note, then I can't help you from the depths of your own delusional ignorance. It's TOO OBVIOUS. Can you seriously, with a straight face tell me an intruder sat down to compose this 3 page monstrosity while fearing being discovered? Please.

And sure, DEATHBIRD, at FIRST people may have suspected Klaas, but as time and evidence proved otherwise, that changed. Time and evidence have not changed how guilty the Ramsey's are since 1996. There are numerous reasons why a grand jury fails. Did I ever claim our legal system without flaw? It's simply FULL of flaws IMO.

If the Ramsey's were poor and didn't have such influence in the "right" places, I believe they would be sitting in jail right now. Money and power can often buy freedom. That's the screwed-up society we have to live in. But we don't have to buy into it. And I don't.

Someone please explain to me how you feel any evidence points to anyone OTHER than a Ramsey. And please, not that tired old DNA song again...it's already been successfully refuted.

JMO as always

Saying this with a straight face. Yes an intruder did write the 3 page montrocity ransom note and the fear of discovery was worth the risk to him. You have the right to believe otherwise if you so choose and I won't take that right from you. I don't think we will ever find out who was wrong and who was right about this case. The intruder made sure he didn't leave forensic evidence behind to point to him. Darnit. As far as being referred to as delusional, that isn't worth a childish comment from someone as adult as I. AAJMO.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

chatwuann

11-09-2005, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by DEATHBIRD
I say again..why weren't the Ramsey's indicted ?...and if all other theories have been refuted and it's so obvious the Ramsey's did it..that Patsy wrote that note..then they should have been indicted..handwriting experts..if I remember correctly..couldn't say conclusively that it was her handwriting..if they could have done that she would have been arrested...and the DNA has not been refuted by anybody..show me a link where the police say it was a plant or a red herring...You can't do that because you have this theory the Ramsey's are guilty guilty guilty and you won't listen to anything else......just like the Boulder pd that wanted to arrest them without even looking at anyone else..not the burglary ring..not the local sex offenders..not looking at anybody but the Ramseys because they wanted the Ramseys to be guilty..case closed...:no:

Not only did the BPD want the Ramseys to be guilty but they were counting on it as well. When the investigation didn't go the way they wanted it to (for instance John & Patsy confessing)the BPD got desperate and they had to convict the Ramseys to save face. And then different investigators egos got in the way and they were falling all over each other to solve this case so they could write a book about it and make lots of money and be known as the detective that solved what some thought was an unsolvable case. And in the process the real killer got away with murder. If you want to get away with murder do it in Boulder Colorado. The BPD and their ineptness will help you succeed. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

Icculus

11-10-2005, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by chatwuann

Saying this with a straight face. Yes an intruder did write the 3 page montrocity ransom note and the fear of discovery was worth the risk to him. You have the right to believe otherwise if you so choose and I won't take that right from you. I don't think we will ever find out who was wrong and who was right about this case. The intruder made sure he didn't leave forensic evidence behind to point to him. Darnit. As far as being referred to as delusional, that isn't worth a childish comment from someone as adult as I. AAJMO.

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

I feel that defies common sense and logic. What makes sense is that Patsy wrote the note. It matches her sample almost exactly, and no I don't believe that to be a coincidence. It also matches her way of speaking. It makes no sense that an intruder wrote that note and then killed her and left her in the house. The note is a staged red herring IMO. I can't fathom how you imagine an intruder writing this. And as far as the trace DNA, if it were really from an intruder who raped and murdered her, there WOULD be more forensic evidence. Again I say, the intruder theory defies common sense and doesn't match the crime scene or evidence, both circumstantial and forensic.

Sorry if I offended you by my strong opinions, but that's truly how I feel. If being adult is refraining from expressing oneself, then may I never grow up.

JMO as always

Icculus

11-10-2005, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by DEATHBIRD
I say again..why weren't the Ramsey's indicted ?...and if all other theories have been refuted and it's so obvious the Ramsey's did it..that Patsy wrote that note..then they should have been indicted..handwriting experts..if I remember correctly..couldn't say conclusively that it was her handwriting..if they could have done that she would have been arrested...and the DNA has not been refuted by anybody..show me a link where the police say it was a plant or a red herring...You can't do that because you have this theory the Ramsey's are guilty guilty guilty and you won't listen to anything else......just like the Boulder pd that wanted to arrest them without even looking at anyone else..not the burglary ring..not the local sex offenders..not looking at anybody but the Ramseys because they wanted the Ramseys to be guilty..case closed...:no:

Did you even bother to read my response to you? I already addressed your issue...I do not believe our justice system to be perfect, and I feel it failed completely in this case, due mostly to the Ramsey's wealth and influence.

The DNA was not planted, it was trace DNA which originated at the factory the panties were produced at, the equivalent of a sneeze, similar types and amounts having been found in other freshly opened packages. Not to mention the fact that JonBenet was also known to have asked whomever was around to help her wipe after using the bathroom.

Many other avenues HAVE been pursued, but they have not fit the evidence as perfectly and logically as the Ramsey's guilt in her death and cover-up. And I AM open to all sources of information, it's how I came to the conclusion of their guilt. Nothing else makes sense to me. But I continue to be open.

But seriously, if you're not even going to bother addressing the issues I point out, instead conveniently skipping over irrefutable evidence to again reiterate your own points and saying "case closed" as if not having even read what anyone else has posted, then I hardly see the point in continuing to debate with you.

JMO of course

Icculus

11-10-2005, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by DEATHBIRD
in legal lingo..it was not persuasive...You say I don't read what you wrote ..I have..and it says nothing other than you are convinced the Ramseys did it...there is no "proof"...when I say that you dismiss it by saying.."oh the grand jury made a mistake..they make them sometimes"..or words to that effect..a dismiss that ignores the possibility the grandjury may have been right not to indict...you dismiss the dna by saying it could have been left from the factory..I am sure defense attorneys will use that argument in future cases when their clients are on trial....they'll say the dna is not relevant...when dna has been found to be relevant is most cases where it has been found...so you're just skewing the situation to support your view...and not being objective at all...I will try to be...obviously you cannot..so I will ask you to provide me a motive if the Ramseys did it..when there is no past evidence of sexual abuse of Jon Benet..and no reason for the Ramseys to have killed her that you have tried to establish.........:read:

Jeez, talk about rambling...

From what I could make out of your post...You asked the same question twice and I answered it twice. I don;t see how my answer is any less persuasive than your rhetoric? Grand juries make mistakes all the time, it's not persuasive enough to think that the Ramsey's are innocent because they weren't indicted, it's naive. Our system works well for people of wealth and influence...or have you forgotten about OJ? I don't dismiss the DNA evidence because it "could" have come from the factory, I do because it most likely did, or some other irrelevant source. If the DNA was from an intruder who raped and killed JonBenet, there would simply be more of it, as well as other corroborating evidence (of which there is NONE) I am in no way skewing the evidence, I am seeing it clearly and following the rules of logic and common sense, unlike you grasping at fine threads to support the unlikely intruder theory.

As I've said again and AGAIN...there need be no motive if the death was accidental, but that does provide a motive to cover up. And if not, the motive isn;t always clear...but evidence is. You seem to be the one closed to options differing from the intruder theory. I'm always open, but have seen nothing convincing other than Ramsey guilt.

JMO as always

chatwuann

11-10-2005, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Icculus

I feel that defies common sense and logic. What makes sense is that Patsy wrote the note. It matches her sample almost exactly, and no I don't believe that to be a coincidence. It also matches her way of speaking. It makes no sense that an intruder wrote that note and then killed her and left her in the house. The note is a staged red herring IMO. I can't fathom how you imagine an intruder writing this. And as far as the trace DNA, if it were really from an intruder who raped and murdered her, there WOULD be more forensic evidence. Again I say, the intruder theory defies common sense and doesn't match the crime scene or evidence, both circumstantial and forensic.

Sorry if I offended you by my strong opinions, but that's truly how I feel. If being adult is refraining from expressing oneself, then may I never grow up.

JMO as always

You didn't offend me so no worries on that count. I'm sorry my comment came off that way. I don't offend easily because I have a good self image and I think it is useless to respond to people's comments about me. Like I said before you have a right to believe the Ramseys are guilty and the right to express that belief. I believe the intruder that entered the Ramsey home was not the run of the mill intruder and so what he did defies common sense guidelines. And here is why. An intruder broke into a local home while the family was out and when they arrived home he stayed hidden in basement until 3:00 am at which point he entered the parents teenage girls room and tried to assault her. She screamed and woke her parents and her father kept the intruder from leaving until LE arrived. What this intruder did imo defied common sense and I believe that intruders are capable of just about anything now even writing a phony ransom note. If the Ramsey intruder knew enough about forensics not to leave forensic evidence behind then it is no surprise LE didn't find any.

And I am skeptical of handwriting analysis so I don't believe the experts that say Patsy wrote the note. I think I read that in Colorado Handwriting analysis evidence isn't allowed in a trial. But don't quote me because I am not sure that is the case.
Keep expressing your opinion about this case and I will do the same. Here's to opinions and expressing them. AAJMO

armchair detective/ trucrmbuf

mopardog

11-16-2005, 10:37 PM

Christmas is coming and that always makes me sad because i lived near boulder that year, worked at the hospital there. i used by drive by the ramsey house fairly often as a short cut to work when the traffic was bad. my son (age 10 at the time) and i went to the candlelight vigil a year later.

many people at the hospital knew patsy. the general consensus there was that it was impossible for her to have done it.

i also have always wondered about burke. i hope that someday this will be resolved no matter which way it goes, for jonbenet's sake if nothing else. resolutio, maybe not justice.:rose:

mopardog

11-17-2005, 04:51 PM

Never really heard him mentioned

Aame

11-18-2005, 10:31 AM

I've always thought it was Patsy. She was jealous of JonBenet.

She no longer had the eye of the beauty circuit. Now it was her child, and Patsy was sick enough with the cancer, she wasn't show stuff anymore. JMO

11-18-2005, 05:12 PM

Isn't there an article on this site that claims a DNA sample was obtained on site that was male and didn't match Johns?

spanky

11-19-2005, 03:10 PM

i think it is unforturnate...but i don't think the killer will ever be found...i think that LE screwed this up from day one...

i keep hoping though that with advancments in dna research that they will be able to find the killer and punish him....but my hope is fading quickly:(

SilSal

11-19-2005, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by MyrDawn

The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood that was found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name. A small amount of matching DNA was found under JonBenet's fingernails. Whoever that DNA belongs to is the killer. It doesn't belong to any of the Ramseys.

The only have degraded DNA. They do NOT know it is male who is the killer. Imagine what DNA your kids have under their nails after playing all day with their friends.

a33record

11-21-2005, 07:14 PM

There is so MUCH to this case. So many unanswered questions. Books have been written, things have been said and implied.
My thoughts...
This family knows what happened. Yes...they DO know... No, they will never tell. Ever.

chatwuann

11-22-2005, 09:06 AM

One thing I have learned from studying this case if that you can't use logic and common sense to solve it. That only works in fiction. Whoever killed JonBenet went beyond logic and common sense. If an intruder did this, and I believe it was an intruder, then this intruder went to the extreme. Inflicting a head wound when the garrotting would have killed JonBenet or garrotting when the head wound would have killed her. And why the posing of the body. He was willing to go to the extreme but took steps to make sure that he didn't leave forensic evidence behind so that he would be caught. He made sure to assault JonBenet with a paint brush handle so he wouldn't leave semen behind or pubic hair. The RN I believe was an afterthought and expressed what he couldn't say to John Ramseys face. I don't believe they ever will solve this case or catch the intruder because to pin this on anybody you have to have hard solid proof and this is lacking in this case. Circumstancial evidence isn't enough to convict anyone of this crime. And that my friends is why this case will never be solved. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

lucielle

11-22-2005, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by chatwuann
He made sure to assault JonBenet with a paint brush handle so he wouldn't leave semen behind or pubic hair.

I don't believe that is why the paintbrush was used. There are many offenders that use objects becuase they are not emotionally or physically mature enough to use the penis, thus the object is the penis. Besdies he could have left plenty of forensic evidence on the paintbrush handle, skin cells & hair could have easily transferred to the paintbrush or anywhere around it.

I also believe the garrote was used because the extent of the head would was not known. It isn't like she was bleeding out, the ME did not recognize that there was such a wound until they peeled her skin back on her skull. So the garrote could have been "overkill" or it could have been a way to make sure she was dead. (From an accident or intentional)

There is wayyyyy too much staging here---for really no reason whatsoever. There was no purpose to the amount of staging. If you wanted to make it look like the parents did it, why use such obvious tools that parents do not usually turn to when killing a child?

Jayelles

11-22-2005, 02:38 PM

It's while since I visited this thread and I have to say that it's interesting to see that some posters are making statements like (paraphased)

"I KNOW Burke didn't do this"
"The Ramseys are innocent"
"The Ramseys did not write the ransom note"

Common sense and logic tells us all that unless one was in the Ramsey house that fateful night, one has no way of knowing for sure if these are valid statements.

The fact is that the ramseys haven't been indicted. Nor has an intruder. However, the ramseys have not been cleared either and remain under an umbrella of suspicion.

The DNA may not match a Ramsey but it's been entered onto the FBI database and it doesn't match any other criminals either. An interesting FACT about the DNA is that it is e subject of the ONLY official statement about the case made by the DA's office since they took over the case. They broke a TWO YEAR silence to state that the DNA may not be the killer's - that it is microscopic and could come from a cough or a sneeze - possibly deposited at the time of manufacture.

Yet Ramsey-fans cling to this DNA - except when it's inconvenient to do so - like when they want to accuse Fleet White, Mervin Pugh and Santa McReynolds - both of whose DNA did not match.

It is silly to suggest that the ramsey are innocent because they weren't indicted. That would mean no-one was guilty of this crime since no-one has been indicted.

Jayelles

11-23-2005, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:read: Are you smarter than John Douglas or the detectives who are working on the case now(Lou Smit and others)? There is nothing that ties the Ramsey's to the death of their daughter. They were only scapegoats for the real killer(s). Lou Smit said there was no way this was a parent murder of their child. So did Douglas and others. Patsy's own sister said the handwriting on the note was not Patsy's. Also the Ramsey's did give interviews, but finally a friend told them to stop, because they were being misled and attacked at a time they were obviously in deep grief over their young child's death. Anyone would resent the fact that in addition to their child's death to cope with, they were being treated as tho they had committed the horrible act. I think what they were put thru was horrible. The simple truth is that they did not kill their daughter.

"The simple truth is that they did not kill their daughter."

... were you there?

It makes no sense to state things as facts when you cannot possibly know unless you were there.

No, I do not claim to be smarter than anyone else. John Douglas was hired by the Ramseys and he did not follow his own procedures for profiling. The chapter in his book about the case is inaccurate.

Lou Smit is a decent man but he also went on tv and claimed that a blue line on JonBenet's skin was caused by the blue arc of electricity sparking across her skin! In fact it was a vein underneath her skin. Electricity does not leave blue marks on skin!

If it could be proved that the ramseys were not involved in their daughter's death, then they would have been cleared - for political reasons as much as anything else. It cannot and they have not.

You say there is nothing that ties them to the murder....not true. WHat about the notebook which was patsy's, the pen which was patsy's... the fact that even Patsy's own hired handwriting analysts cannot eliminate her as the writer of the note... Patsy's jacket fibres in the paint tote where the garotte stick came from, Patsy's jacket fibres in the knot of the garotte...the FACT that the DNA is not exculpatory and that those inside the investigation say may not be the killer's....

There is plenty of evidence to link them to their daughter's murder but there are alternative explanations for these too. However, you cannot simply dismiss the evidence and claim that the parents didn't do it because they say they didn't. That cannot happen until the killer is found.

In fact, Lou Smit has never said that they didn't do this. Like me, he has the intelligence to say that he "does not believe" they did it - big difference. When you go around claiming your opinions as facts, people will not take you seriously.

Jayelles

11-23-2005, 12:50 PM

Jayelles

11-23-2005, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:( I consider the Ramsey's good parents overall. I believe they doted on Jon Benet...she came across to me as a very much beloved child. I will say too...I have seen many attractive children...but little Jon Benet was one of the most beautiful children I have ever seen, and appeared to have a sweet loving nature about her. This may also be a facor in her being allowed to participate in pageants. I think when it comes to being "good" parents...we all fall short in some areas.

Have you seen the state of her grave? The Ramseys are such good parents that her grave lies in a state of disrepair and is left to strangers to tend. I contrast, Beth's grave is well tended and has regular fresh flowers.

The photos of her grave are online. It is very unusual for the grave of a child to be neglected.

This includes the period of time when the Ramseys lived in Atlanta.

lucielle

11-28-2005, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
[BThey are obviously intelligent people by any standards. [/B]

But are they criminally intelligent? No. Which is exactly why most people fail when staging---they don't know how a crime scene is supposec to look. They only know how it looks on TV.

Grotofray

11-29-2005, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Boxing Helena
I tell you for a long time I felt her family was innocent. I now feel they are behind it.

It appears Patsy is dying for her sin...

JMO

I feel Patsy killed Jon Benet, but I think it was an accident...and she covered up by making it appear to be a sex crime.
Patsy Ramsey appears to be the kind who will not accept responsibility for anything--not even an accident!

I think it was an accident because I can find no reason why Patsy (or anyone in their family) would kill her. An accident, yes, but deliberate murder, no!

BTW, Since "intent" can be formed in a second, what then is murder without "intent?" I am really curious about this. None of the THs have ever explained unintentional murder! If there is "intent" than there is "unintentional!" TIA

I don't feel Patsy is dying for her "sin." Innocent people get cancer. Cancer is not a punishment, IMO. My father died of lung cancer...and he didn't kill anyone.

my opinion only

DuelingAngels

11-30-2005, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by hohum

That note was more like a letter it was so long. Too long IMO to be a ransom note. I mean if an intruder came in and accidentally killed JonBenet in a sex act how hard would it be to remove that little body from the house and dispose of it? However I don't think tying a garrote around her neck was accidental. How cruel was that? Don't you think if either of the parents were guilty and the other suspected don't you think they would be divorced by now, could they actually stay together? This is the one thing that gives me pause about the guilt of the parents. Plus JonBenet was really Patsy's whole life, she lived through that child and the contests. On the other hand, I do think the note points toward them. Remember the amount of money was John's bonus that year. Very odd indeed. I waffle back and forth on this one. Does anyone think John Ramsey, the father, killed her?

I too have these same nagging issues , however that IMO is where Burke comes in. I can't believe two ppl would stay together if one killed there child. But if Burke did it and the parents were despirate not to loose both their children in one night, they went and set up a 'kidnapping' gone wrong. I remember once when I was a little girl I did something wrong and asked my mom "do you still love me?" Her answer was " I'd love you even if you were an ax murderer." Every time I hear JonBenet's name I can hear my mom's words and I think of Patsy.
As always .... Just my Opinion

DuelingAngels

11-30-2005, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by nomi21

:flamemad: You are totally wrong. The parents did not do this crime. AND Patsy's illness has nothing to do with what she has done right or wrong.

Yeah Boxing Helena , you are totally wrong for "Feeling the parents could be involved." if you're going to have a feeling it should be that of nomi21's. For her/his feelings are the only right ones to have. As far as paying for her sins, IMO who knows, Karma comes in many shades and sizes. :shrug:

as always JMO

Jayelles

12-01-2005, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by nomi21

:rolleyes: Not feelings.....the facts prove it. Absolutely nothing points to the parents as killers. AND don't say the note....it was not Patsy who wrote it. Her own sister said it was not her handwriting. So many people on here are too fast to point fingers and accuse. Who made you all judge and jury?

You think Pam Paugh's say so about the fake ransom note with the disguised handwriting is proof that Patsy didn't write the note? LOL

For anyone interested in an expert analysis of the ransom note written in layman's terms read here:-

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=91629#post91629

ntheloop

12-01-2005, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles

You think Pam Paugh's say so about the fake ransom note with the disguised handwriting is proof that Patsy didn't write the note? LOL

For anyone interested in an expert analysis of the ransom note written in layman's terms read here:-

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=91629#post91629

Excellent resource, thanks. :read:

Jayelles

12-01-2005, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by nomi21
:rolleyes: Yes, I believe Patsy's sister. She would know her sister's handwriting as well, or better than anyone.

Well I suppose that if my sister disguised her handwriting, I'd probably say it didn't look like hers either and I'd be correct.

Jayelles

12-02-2005, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
The Ramseys have been cleared but not in the public mind.

The thought that the DNA in the JonBenet case could come from an Asian sneeze is to my mind wild speculation. It's utterly ridiculous. Where is the supporting evidence for that theory without facts?

The thought has occurred to me in the past that there may be inaccuracies in the DNA analysis in the JonBenet case. The public assumes that DNA labs are infallible and that forensic lab errors are never made. This is not always the case, even at the FBI forensic lab.

There was a second DNA spot in the JonBenet case which was called DNAX in the court cases. This seems to have been covered up for several years by the Boulder cops.

The only explanation I have for that is that the Boulder cops know it isn't Ramsey DNA. They didn't want that fact made public when they were trying to prosecute the innocent Ramseys.

Zat you Toth?

Paul Beese

12-03-2005, 09:46 AM

smellypirate

12-05-2005, 09:06 AM

I was just young when JonBennet was murdered, and the case has never left me. That poor little girl. I belive that the parents didn't do it, and that it was an intruder, or two. I think that the police and investigators on this case have screwed it up royally, and that it will never be solved. All they have to work with, is what they've had scince the begining, and it's all been comprimised.

12-05-2005, 11:06 AM

The tide is set to turn with Schiller's new documentary. he has the goods.

Will the dolls be prominent and will Patsy's stage 4 ovarian cancer be exposed as a sham?

Jayelles

12-05-2005, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by jahazafat
The tide is set to turn with Schiller's new documentary. he has the goods.

Will the dolls be prominent and will Patsy's stage 4 ovarian cancer be exposed as a sham?

What do you mean "he has the goods"?

cami

12-06-2005, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by ArthurThorp
I agree with Nomi.

In reply to Candace, John Ramsey's elder son John Andrew Ramsey was thoroughly investigated. John Andrew was definitely in Georgia on the night of JonBenet's murder. Georgia is quite a long way from Colorado.

Boulder cop Steve Thomas is on record in a Ramsey police interview as saying that he checked all the flights between Georgia and Colorado. There was no way John Andrew was in Boulder on the night of the murder.

As far as I know John Ramsey and Burke were both eliminated as the writer of the ransom note. I'm not so sure about Fleet or Priscilla White.

With regard to Patsy Ramsey and the ransom note, document analyst for the United States Secret Service, Dusak, said there was no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material on the ransom note.

Edwin Alford Jr. police expert, with regard to examination of the questioned handwriting said the comparison of handwriting specimens has failed to provide a basis for identifying Patsy Ramsey as the writer of the letter.

Leonrd A Speckin said he found no evidence that Patsy Ramsey disguised her handwriting examplars.

Alex Hunter ( former Boulder DA) said that the handwriting experts in the case in fact put Patsy Ramsey somewhere around a 4.5 on a one to five scale where five is elimination.

Get a grip Albie. Neither Fleet nor Priscilla White murdered JonBenet and you know it. They loved her as if she were their own and they were devastated by her death.

12-09-2005, 09:15 PM

what a sad family. to KILL your own daughter !! how else would the ransom note say $118,000 in ranson money? that was the same amount as john's bonus, no? they probably botched it up at the last minute. but it still does'nt explain the stun gun marks.... NONE OF THIS ADDS UP.:read:

chatwuann

12-14-2005, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Tracian

I think it was shameful that the Ramsys took so long to talk to the police. I think it is completely odd that these intruders came into a house, sat down and wrote the ransome note not once but threw one copy away, to start again from a note pad and pen in the house.

I think it is odd that JonBenet had undigested pineapple in her small intestines, when her mother says that the last thing she ate was cracked crab.

I think it is odd that with the ransom note; they leave the dead child wrapped in her favorite blanket in a room so obsure that the police missed it; and it was John that found her...

There is a lot in this case does not make sense; but I am not willing to make the leap that the Ramseys are completely innocent.

It is odd that intruder/intruders would would come into the house sit down and write a ransom note not once but throw one copy away to start again from a note pad and pen in the house but stranger things have happened and who knows what criminals are capable of when they get the idea to do something. I don't think even the best of profilers or investigators can figure that out. AAJMO

armchair detective/trucrmbuf

This of course is JMO

BB

cami

12-20-2005, 02:15 PM

rashomon

12-21-2005, 04:06 PM

how else would the ransom note say $118,000 in ranson money? that was the same amount as john's bonus, no?

This is indeed extremely damaging evidence pointing to the Ramseys. In addition, the sum is far to small considering that John Ramsey was a millionaire several times over.
These are typical mistakes made by someone who was under extreme pressure and had to concoct a ransom note in a hurry.

rashomon

12-22-2005, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

Okay then....wonderful...these 'intruders' felt comfortable enough in the house to come in with no weapons, no paper, no pen, they just decided to 'wing it' sit at a table write a note, and leave a dead child in the house....okay, even a complete moron would not think that would work....and it is a bit odd they asked for exactly the bonus Mr. Ramsey received that Xmas...but that I am sure was just one of those weird coincidences.

The fact that JonBenet still wet her bed....a sign of abuse..sorry just a fact. The fact that JonBenet's last meal was not what her mother (six months later, under all kinds of conditions she gave the interview) claimed she ate...so let me guess this intruder fed this child, waited until the food partially digested, then killed her, but wait...have to write a note and hide the body IN THE HOUSE...too much makes no sense...

Even the police will not eliminate them as suspects...and IMO they way they acted about submitting to an interview is not consistent with other parents such as Mark Klass, etc that have had things happen like this.

The whole case stinks, from the investigation to the way the parents have behaved.

Great post, Tracian!

cami

12-22-2005, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by nomi21

:rolleyes: Gosh, I didn't know you were there. Great, now we know who the real killer is(not).....I can't believe you said that. Patsy is a smart, savvy lady who dearly loved her daughter......as does John, and the rest of their faimly.....Geesh, Noone with any sense at all would trade places with the Ramseys, and suffer all they have gone thru.

NOmi, the actions of the Ramseys as well as the evidence in this case keeps them under the "suspicion" umbrella. You don't know nor do any of us whether or not they killed JonBenet, you weren't there either. I'm quite confident the Ramseys loved JonBenet dearly. That doesn't preclude their killing her.

Who was molesting her? The sexual abuse was not a one time only leading to her death, someone was digitally molesting her. Answer that question and I'll bet you find your killer. Her death was not the usual mode of a pedophile or sex killer. They don't usually leave the body tucked up in it's own blanket, and write ransom notes after the death.

cami

12-22-2005, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by metaljaw
what a sad family. to KILL your own daughter !! how else would the ransom note say $118,000 in ranson money? that was the same amount as john's bonus, no? they probably botched it up at the last minute. but it still does'nt explain the stun gun marks.... NONE OF THIS ADDS UP.:read:

I don't think they were stun gun marks. I think they were abrasions, not burns from a stun gun. The coroner thinks so too. It's only Lou Smitt who put this stun gun theory to work.

taz2110

01-04-2006, 05:01 AM

Hi All, Happy New Year. Did anyone see the special last night on the JBR murder? A new group of 8 detectives have taken over the case and developed a lot of new evidence...some of it proving that the "parents" did not kill JB!

There was a lot of info given about the Bolder police and the absolute "tunnel vision" they suffered during the investigation of this case. There are boxes and boxes of tips, info and other items that were never followed up!! The new info the 8 detectives have uncovered is from those boxes of info!!

One of the new detectives said it is your sworn duty as a police officer to follow up every single item to determine it's credibility or not. The Bolder police did not do that!

The new investigative team went on to say that they may never get the approval to re open this case...due to the costs involved!! Can you believe that? These detectives went on to say that they are sure they know who the killer is, and they have DNA to prove it, but at present can not move forward.

How can this investgative travesty continue? My opinion is that if there is any possibility of solving a murder, there should not be any question that the investgation should continue, no matter what!

What do you think?

Postergeist

01-04-2006, 05:27 AM

I didn't see the special, but this week's Globe has an article about the case.

It mentioned something to the effect that once a week the DNA they have is run thru the data base and they still hope that it will match someone as new DNA is added to the database.

From what I could get from the article, the Boulder police are still working on the case, and have received a weaver's loom and a cassette tape in connection to the case.

I've never heard if the reward money has been revoked, but I think maybe that could be used to help fund any sort of further investigation.

I understand they do have DNA samples that do not match the parents, but do not have a suspect to match it to.

I think more and more police depts are using staff to work cold cases.

Did the show mention anything about that peculiar ransom letter?

IRRC, several handwriting analysis experts could not rule Mrs. Ramsey out on that.

JMO

ohtootie

01-04-2006, 07:17 AM

I feel so bad for the parents and the brother. I can't imagine what it would be like to have a daughter murdered and then be accused by most of the people in the country when you really didn't do it. It's all just so very sad.:rose:

general_tso

01-04-2006, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by ohtootie
I feel so bad for the parents and the brother. I can't imagine what it would be like to have a daughter murdered and then be accused by most of the people in the country when you really didn't do it. It's all just so very sad.:rose:

It really IS sad........and the fact that people (some) still think poor Burke had something to do with it:confused:

Former Juror

01-04-2006, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by taz2110

SNIP

What do you think?

What do I think? I think Patsy did it, and John helped cover it up.

IMO

MOO

IMOOC

general_tso

01-04-2006, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Former Juror

What do I think? I think Patsy did it, and John helped cover it up.

IMO

MOO

IMOOC

Initially that is what I thought..........do you really think a husband could or WOULD cover for his wife? I don't think my hubby would cover for me at all......what is his motivation? I have jumped back and forth during this case...........as of now, I am set on the fact it wasn't the parents, but I certainly could be wrong.:shrug:

Former Juror

01-04-2006, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by general_tso

Initially that is what I thought..........do you really think a husband could or WOULD cover for his wife? I don't think my hubby would cover for me at all......what is his motivation? I have jumped back and forth during this case...........as of now, I am set on the fact it wasn't the parents, but I certainly could be wrong.:shrug:

Yes, I think a husband would cover up for his wife and vice versa. In my world, it wouldn't happen, but it does happen all of the time.

I think it was an accident. And, I think that Patsy made financial threats to John as well as threatened to blame him for it or for abuse and those made him opt for helping in a cover up. He had too much to lose, in his mind, to tell the truth. She would have turned on him, and they both would have gone down.

Patsy is the ONLY person tested that has not been excluded as a possible writer of the ransom note. I have seen the samples of her other writings, and I have no doubt she wrote it.

EVERTYHING ABOVE IS IMO!

BJames

01-04-2006, 08:28 AM

Wow thanks for the heads up, I followed this case for a long time after it happened but I hadn't heard anything new. As it was unfolding I really thought that Patsy had done it and John had covered for her, it really was the handwriting that sold me at the time.
No matter who actually did it I hope they figure it out, the child deserves justice and those whom aren't guilty deserve to have their name(s) cleared.

Thanks again, I'll keep my eyes open for updates.

sarasun

01-04-2006, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by general_tso

It really IS sad........and the fact that people (some) still think poor Burke had something to do with it:confused:

I agree with your belief that Burke had nothing to do with and do not believe either Patsy or John had anything to do with it.

The note was strange - I will agree with that.

There was a TV show on some time ago about another young girl in the neighborhood and an attempted abduction and reports of many burglaries and such in that wealthy neighborhood that the police did not make public. I believe it was connected with that activity.

MOO

SilSal

01-04-2006, 10:15 AM

and there are not 8 detectives working on this case.

I'm with Former Juror on this one. There was no intruder...

Been following this case for 9 years....the parents are guilty of this crime/accident/coverup.

The Ramsey's spin team promotes this crap to make them look innocent....

jmo

01-04-2006, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by sarasun

I agree with your belief that Burke had nothing to do with and do not believe either Patsy or John had anything to do with it.

The note was strange - I will agree with that.

There was a TV show on some time ago about another young girl in the neighborhood and an attempted abduction and reports of many burglaries and such in that wealthy neighborhood that the police did not make public. I believe it was connected with that activity.

MOO

So was the note written before or after Jon Benet was murdered? You expect me to believe that some intruder snuck into the house went upstairs and plucked little sleeping Jon Benet out of her bed took her into the basement killed her then went upstairs to write a ransom note for a child that was already dead? Ludicrous....

sarasun

01-04-2006, 10:22 AM

darkpaint -

How would I know all that stuff! That's what detectives do, not posters on a message board.

:confused:

Edit: How many high-profile cases are there in which the sleeping child is "plucked" from their beds! Many...too many!!

Katt2

01-04-2006, 10:22 AM

I guess I belong in the "sad category" because I have always had suspicions about Burke and that his parents covered for him or at least Patsy did.

01-04-2006, 10:26 AM

I followed this case in the beginning and always thought that Patsy had something to do with it. No matter what else they present, they never seem to get past the ransom note. What intruder knew exactly what Johns bonus was that year? And then asked for that exact and odd amount as a ransom.

For those of you that continued to follow the case, did they ever explain how Burkes voice was on the 911 call thought the parents claimed he NEVER woke?

:shrug:

01-04-2006, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Who said it was written AFTER she was dead? The "ludicrous" reports with NO proof? :rolleyes: The intruder had a lot of time to write a note and a lot of other things before the Ramseys' got home.

If it was written before Jon Benet was killed-then why was she killed instead of being abducted?

01-04-2006, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by darkpaint

If it was written before Jon Benet was killed-then why was she killed instead of being abducted?

And another thing are you saying the intruder was hiding in the house BEFORE the Ramseys got home from the Christmas party?

01-04-2006, 10:31 AM

Sorry... I have one more question. The Ramsey's stated that the last thing JB had eaten, was crab at the Party they attended and that JB had NOTHING else to eat that night.

However, the coroner found pineapple (or some fruit in her stomach) and that fruit on the counter. Was that ever explained?

Katt2

01-04-2006, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

VERY sad. WHERE is the evidence? Whose DNA was in her panties? ALL of the Ramseys were eliminated as it being their DNA.

There is no evidence, I said I had suspicions, I never outright accused him and still don't.

01-04-2006, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by A-ROD
Sorry... I have one more question. The Ramsey's stated that the last thing JB had eaten, was crab at the Party they attended and that JB had NOTHING else to eat that night.

However, the coroner found pineapple (or some fruit in her stomach) and that fruit on the counter. Was that ever explained?

The last thing she ate was crab but apparently not the only thing. Couldn't tracking dogs track the movements of the intruder if there had really been an intruder?

01-04-2006, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Yes IMO.

How did he get in. There was no sign of forced entry was there? Also why wasn't the intruder at his own family's holiday gathering rather than lurking in the Ramsey's house that night? Are you saying the intruder was single or a non-Christian?

Cyndi

01-04-2006, 10:44 AM

SNIP
Edit: How many high-profile cases are there in which the sleeping child is "plucked" from their beds! Many...too many!! [/B][/QUOTE]

That's true many sleeping children have been plucked from their beds and taken OUT of the house. That's the problem I have with believing the Ramsey's are innocent. IMO I think it's incredulous to believe some perp managed to get in the house, get JB out of her bed, then instead of heading out the nearest door, takes her to the basement, kills her, then hangs around for awhile and practiced and/or wrote the ransom note while still in the house.

Elizabeth Smart, Danielle Van Dam, Polly Klaas, were all snatched and the perp got the child and got the heck out of the house. No loafing around inside the residence......

All IMO

Citygirl

01-04-2006, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by hotlanta_dude
The "ransom note" had two misspelled words: possession, spelled with three s's, and business, spelled with four s's. If the Boulder police and had had enough sense to take the Ramseys into custody and take them down to the police station, put them in separate rooms and dictate that note to them one of them would've misspelled those words.

My money is on Patsy. That would have been enough evidence to get an indictment and probably a conviction. Instead of doing this, the Boulder police gave the note to the Associated Press. It was in every paper in the country the next day. It was too late then for the Boulder police to do it they should have done, because Patsy then knew how to spell those two words.

Dougie

We don't always agree Dougie, but when we do..it's dead on.
Parents said she was asleep when brought home..but pineapple was the fruit in her stomach. No pineapple at the party, only in their own kitchen, out on the counter. It was not digested yet, so it had to have been eaten late that night. Mom and Dad are the monsters in my opinion.

broken_angel

01-04-2006, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

I thought a detective that the Prosecution had personally asked to help in the case showed that a perp could have enter the basement area......even a suitcase propped by the window to help to exit the same area.

Thats what I thought also, plus fingerprints on the window sil didn't belong to anyone in the family. And was it ever proven that the Ramseys ever owned a stun gun?

01-04-2006, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

So with DNA that doesn't match any of the family, a number of other things that point away from the family.......you pick pineapple in the stomach to call a family monsters.........hmmmm......a grand juror wouldn't even come back with an indictment on any charge at least two times IIRC......but I guess they just overlooked the pineapple.

We can all speculate about who did what to whom. All I am sure of is that the Ramsey's are lying. The note, not checking the basement in their first frantic searches, cleaning off her body, the Dad's demeanor during interviews all add up to if they didn't do it themselves they know who did.

Citygirl

01-04-2006, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

So with DNA that doesn't match any of the family, a number of other things that point away from the family.......you pick pineapple in the stomach to call a family monsters.........hmmmm......a grand juror wouldn't even come back with an indictment on any charge at least two times IIRC......but I guess they just overlooked the pineapple.

I must be in good company then, many others find it easy to believe with all the circumstancial evidence weighing so heavy. Do you know of another case where the kidnapped person was left IN THE HOUSE? DEAD? Ransome note written on mom's stationery..with a weird, specific ransome amount..etc, etc, etc.
Plus, I like the fact that this is a message board where lots of discussion can take place. Maybe with enough conversation, I'll change my mind. I would love to see justice done, not just for the sake of being right.

onemilehigh

01-04-2006, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Citygirl

We don't always agree Dougie, but when we do..it's dead on.
Parents said she was asleep when brought home..but pineapple was the fruit in her stomach. No pineapple at the party, only in their own kitchen, out on the counter. It was not digested yet, so it had to have been eaten late that night. Mom and Dad are the monsters in my opinion. I'm surprised they haven't hoisted the blame onto the former CU coach's shoulders. Wait, he was still at NW, that won't fly.

The whole case is hinky. Unless someone confesses, we'll never know who did it.

01-04-2006, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

No it doesn't add up to what you claim.

well the intruder/snatcher/killer/note writer/escape artist doesn't add up to much either.

mystery101

01-04-2006, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

VERY sad. WHERE is the evidence? Whose DNA was in her panties? ALL of the Ramseys were eliminated as it being their DNA.
That DNA doesn't mean a thing. It could have came from a factory worker that made those panties. It probably belongs to some poor dude in China.

sarasun

01-04-2006, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Cyndi
SNIP
Edit: How many high-profile cases are there in which the sleeping child is "plucked" from their beds! Many...too many!!
That's true many sleeping children have been plucked from their beds and taken OUT of the house. That's the problem I have with believing the Ramsey's are innocent. IMO I think it's incredulous to believe some perp managed to get in the house, get JB out of her bed, then instead of heading out the nearest door, takes her to the basement, kills her, then hangs around for awhile and practiced and/or wrote the ransom note while still in the house.

Elizabeth Smart, Danielle Van Dam, Polly Klaas, were all snatched and the perp got the child and got the heck out of the house. No loafing around inside the residence......

All IMO

That is true, and until little Jessica Lunsford was taken from her home without the dog waking the gradparents; taken just across the street, held for 3 days though the police came and knocked on the perp's door. The police didn't rescue her :(

The police didn't even search that room downstairs in the Ramsey house - plenty of opportunity for the killer in this case to go through the papers and find out about that bonus, and hide and wait for them to get home from the party and put the children to bed.

Since the Lunsford case, I think a lot of things are possible. That case opened my eyes that unanswered questions and seeming ambiguities are not always obvious and do not point to the families.

Postergeist

01-04-2006, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Citygirl

<snip>
Parents said she was asleep when brought home..but pineapple was the fruit in her stomach. No pineapple at the party, only in their own kitchen, out on the counter. It was not digested yet, so it had to have been eaten late that night. Mom and Dad are the monsters in my opinion.

Hi ya Citygirl!

I remember that about the pineapple, from tv documentaries and from various articles. I believe that pineapple was one of her favorite foods....something the family would know, and maybe the brother, and/or someone very close to the family.

While it's possible the brother was awakened by her and he gave her the fruit, one of the tv segments mentioned that the intruder may have taken her to the kitchen to give her some...but then again, I would think it would have to be someone she was familiar with, or else I would hope a kid would scream their head off if an unknown person is moving them around the house.

I think some theories said she may have been stun-gunned in her bed.

Why would a parent use a stun gun tho....they could easily awake their child without a scene.

I think there was also a shoe print in the dust downstairs that didn't match anyone as well.

IRRC, one of the parents routinely took a sleeping pill at night. There was mention about Patsy's clothes being the same as she wore the night before.

Whoever did it, IMO knew the family/house quite well, whether by stalking or by having direct contact in the past.

Part of me thinks if the hub covered up for his wife, why then wouldn't he be scared she might snap and kill their son? But I can see parents covering up things for their child, whether minor age or not.

I think too ME reports said she had been struck pretty hard on the head with a golf club or some such item. Don't know if a child could weild that force.

It's been awhile, but I did read the book that the Ramseys wrote...some parts were just kinda odd, IMO. But I thought that as well about the book written by Elizabeth Smart's parents.

I vaguely recall that there was some forensic evidence inside that suitcase found downstairs as well.

Citygirl

01-04-2006, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

I would love for justice to be done, as I would imagine the Ramsey family for that matter........with all the circumstantial evidence, the grand jury failed to come back with any indictments on at least two separate occasions, so the circumstantial couldn't have been too very compelling unlike the misinformation spread by the BPD.

And since neither you nor I will solve this tragedy, it's kinda like noses..you've got yours and I have mine. And message boards are for opinions, both yours and mine.

mystery101

01-04-2006, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

ROFLMAO.......okay....so you find that a reasonable explanation? A significant amount that could be tested? I guess you have evidence that shows these were never once washed before they were worn?
I recall the panties were new, from the bag, and the wrong size to boot.
Yes, I think that is a very reasonable explanation.

cruiserchick

01-04-2006, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

So with DNA that doesn't match any of the family, a number of other things that point away from the family.......you pick pineapple in the stomach to call a family monsters.........hmmmm......a grand juror wouldn't even come back with an indictment on any charge at least two times IIRC......but I guess they just overlooked the pineapple.

Is to far fetched that JB got up in the middle of the night, went to the kitchen, ate some pineapple, suprised the intruder while writing the ransom note, and decided it would be best to kill her then instead of taking her? I don't think the parents did it.

mystery101

01-04-2006, 11:26 AM

mystery101

01-04-2006, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

:lol: Yep, ALL DNA "could be" from some poor dude in China. Let's toss it out as it means nothing. I guess the DNA under her fingernails came from some "poor dude in China" too.
It means nothing, unless they can match it to someone. It was in minute amounts. At first they claimed there wasn't even enough to test anything and it was too degraded. It's not like it came from semen. :rolleyes:

mystery101

01-04-2006, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Yes....that's right, skin found under her nails....kind of skin one might get some trying to scratch someone.......as in fighting off.
Maybe you should go and test what is under your nails.
There are probably tons of stuff you are completely un-ware of. The sample obviously had to be very small, at first they couldn't even test it.

mystery101

01-04-2006, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

LOL......so it means nothing as in you wouldn't look at that as a piece of evidence if conducting an investigation and in which direction it might lead you?
No, I would look into it. But it doesn't prove that the owner of DNA did it, and doesn't rule anyone out, IMO.

01-04-2006, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Yes....that's right, skin found under her nails....kind of skin one might get some trying to scratch someone.......as in fighting off.

What about the sadomasichism angle? Did that theory get thrown out?

Postergeist

01-04-2006, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by cruiserchick

Is to far fetched that JB got up in the middle of the night, went to the kitchen, ate some pineapple, suprised the intruder while writing the ransom note, and decided it would be best to kill her then instead of taking her? I don't think the parents did it.

I think in the Ramsey's book they felt that JB could not have gotten the pineapple out and fed herself, something about the kind of spoon used, and/or not easy access for her height to get the can, etc. so they think that the intruder fed her the pineapple.

If it was an intruder, it is feasible that the original intent was to kidnap and not kill, and the intruder snapped. But pretty diabolical IMO, the strangling, the beating about the head, etc.

But there were 3 other sleeping people in the house that were not harmed at all during that time, however long the intruder was in the home.

mystery101

01-04-2006, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Wrong, do some research.

LOU SMIT - "This crime can be solved. Our killer in this case left a lot of evidence behind. JonBenÃ©t, under fingernails, had foreign DNA. In her panties there is foreign DNA. It does not belong to anybody in this family. I think JonBenÃ©t got a piece of her killer. There is also a hair left at this scene. It was right on the blanket that was covering JonBenÃ©t. "
If they have so much evidence, why is that they didn't solve the crime? Based on a ransom note, it's rather obvious the killer wasn't a stranger to the Ramses. I think all their extra evidence is bogus, kind of like Scott Peterson and the brown van full of kidnappers.

Citygirl

01-04-2006, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

..........................snipped................. ............

JonBenÃ©t. "

OT, but I wish I knew how to do neat stuff like this.
Sorry, carry on.

sarasun

01-04-2006, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by mystery101

I recall the panties were new, from the bag, and the wrong size to boot.
Yes, I think that is a very reasonable explanation.

IIRC the wrong size was also said about Laci's undergarment or slacks.

Things don't always add up. One thing I do know...a DA can get his/her Grand Jury to indict anyone, anytime, on anything - or nothing - at all.

This Grand Jury voted a no-bill both times.

I remember the baby powder stuff and all the accusations against the parents and Burke. It was proven to be untrue.

O/T Breezy your fonts are messed up!

mystery101

01-04-2006, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Oh it amazes me, so if a person accused of a crime said......well they have my DNA under their fingernails.....but check around yours you'll find all kinds of stuff.....you would let that go as reasonable explanation......somehow I doubt that very much.....Hmmm?
It all depends on the situation.

mystery101

01-04-2006, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

BECAUSE they sets their sites on trying to prove it was the parents and didn't investigate other leads.................yep, the same tunnel vision of cops in the Peterson case.
If they actually have so much DNA that rules the parents out, why would they even think the parents were involved? It doesn't make sense, does it?
It's because that DNA sample is minute.

01-04-2006, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

BECAUSE they sets their sites on trying to prove it was the parents and didn't investigate other leads.................yep, the same tunnel vision of cops in the Peterson case.

Why would you call the police before searching the house? The first thing a normal person would do is search the house

cruiserchick

01-04-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by mystery101

You think JB wrote the ransom note, or what? Or intruder wrote the ransom note before kidnapping JB?
:rolleyes:

Did you not see where I put she suprised the intruder while they were writing the note? Okay so I didn't use that many words. But I would think that in most cases the note is written before the kidnapping. If the parents had to much to drink then why would they hear an intruder in the first place? As far as the note matching Patsy's handwriting.....like someone said earlier it was NOT compared to anybody else.

Postergeist

01-04-2006, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Got me......not sure where that led......I guess you can make up as many stories as it takes to try to fit the evidence into a nice story for people to buy.......maybe that one didn't quite work. There seemed to be many out there.

This story came out long after the insinuations about the Santa man....can't remember which rag mag it was in, but it was a long article on some young man from that area that had committed suicide and either his friends or a family member thought he was the one that killed JB.

Something about the deceased man having a stun gun in his home, photos or news articles about the case, had followed local beauty pageants...maybe leaving a weird message.

I hope someone else will recall reading this theory.

mystery101

01-04-2006, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by cruiserchick

Did you not see where I put she suprised the intruder while they were writing the note? Okay so I didn't use that many words. But I would think that in most cases the note is written before the kidnapping. If the parents had to much to drink then why would they hear an intruder in the first place? As far as the note matching Patsy's handwriting.....like someone said earlier it was NOT compared to anybody else.
So, intruder came in and wrote the ransom note before kidnapping anyone? Nice... How did he know he will be able to accomplish it? As for note, that is false that they only compared it to Patsy's. They have compared that writing to a lot of people, not just Patsy. For istance, the father of JB was ruled out. Patsy was not ruled out as a possible author of the note.

mystery101

01-04-2006, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Sorry to ask you, as I don't remember......but was the DNA under the nails and in the panties a match......I want to say yes, but I don't recall.......but if they were.....I wonder what Mystery101's explanation for that might be, if they are a match.
Either she had that DNA on her panties, and as she put them on it got on her hands. Or she had it on her hands and it got on the panties.
They got a tiny degraded sample. At first they couldn't even enter it in a database because there wasn't enough points.

MaybytheBay

01-04-2006, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Postergeist

.......sorry for the snip....
Whoever did it, IMO knew the family/house quite well, whether by stalking or by having direct contact in the past.

I always felt it was someone close to the family. Like an associate that worked with John........someone who was present in their home for parties or picnics........and was not a stranger to Jonbenet. Someone that would know John's business to a certain degree. Someone with a secret deep-rooted sexual desire for JonBenet. A person who seemed and was by all appearances successful, a good husband, maybe father, a friendly neighbour who always had a deep rooted sexual desire for young children but never acted upon it..........at least not successfully physically. JonBenet might have become to overwhelming a desire for him to ignore. He would never be suspected by friends or family.
The DNA is the key........I hope someday it will put a conclusion to this case.

mystery101

01-04-2006, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by MaybytheBay

I always felt it was someone close to the family. Like an associate that worked with John........someone who was present in their home for parties or picnics........and was not a stranger to Jonbenet. Someone that would know John's business to a certain degree. Someone with a secret deep-rooted sexual desire for JonBenet. A person who seemed and was by all appearances successful, a good husband, maybe father, a friendly neighbour who always had a deep rooted sexual desire for young children but never acted upon it..........at least not successfully physically. JonBenet might have become to overwhelming a desire for him to ignore. He would never be suspected by friends or family.
The DNA is the key........I hope someday it will put a conclusion to this case.
If it's not a stranger, then all they have to do is compare that DNA to the suspects? And all they got is zero. As I recall, they might have even used dirty nail clippers to cut her nails. Maybe that DNA you are all raving about came from their crime lab technician. Unless they can match it to someone, it doesn't mean nothing.

Postergeist

01-04-2006, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Yes I do recall that now, thanks to you.......nope, haven't heard anything more about that.

Glad I didn't imagine reading that! LOL

IRRC, this kid wasn't even on the radar during the main part of the investigation....and it's been quite a few years now that it may be hard to find any items of his that might have his DNA on it.

And also, I think that there were several people that had keys to the Ramseys house, and I think that neither of the parents could remember if all the doors/windows were locked that night.

That window in mention had been broken before by Mr. Ramsey himself at an earlier time.

JMO

mystery101

01-04-2006, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Not ruled out, but I have heard some say, it was highly unlikely that Patsy wrote it.........like on a scale of 1-10......as they do their scale, she was like a 3 or something like that...........IIRC IMO
That is not what I heard. I even saw a TV program about it. They couldn't rule her out, but couldn't say definitively that she wrote that note either. But then they have ruled a lot of people out, including JB's father.

sarasun

01-04-2006, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by mystery101

If it's not a stranger, then all they have to do is compare that DNA to the suspects? And all they got is zero. As I recall, they might have even used dirty nail clippers to cut her nails. Maybe that DNA you are all raving about came from their crime lab technician. Unless they can match it to someone, it doesn't mean nothing.

Dirty nail clippers? Don't they have kits that they use that are new and sealed in the packages like rape kits?

Postergeist

01-04-2006, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234
<snipping for length>

" But just two days later, the Boulder Sheriff's Department discovered a man by the name of Michael Helgoth, dead in his home, an apparent suicide.

Did he have anything to do with JonBenet's murder? "We were walking along at the end of the day, just as calm as can be. He just casually comes up and says, 'I wonder what it'd be like to crack a human skull,'" says John Kenady, who worked with Helgoth at an auto salvage yard outside of Boulder. "And I looked at him and I thought, 'Whoa, I don't want to have this conversation.'"

Just a few months before JonBenet's murder, Kenady says he noticed a change in Helgoth's attitude: "Mike was pretty happy around late November, about him and a partner making a killer deal, and they were each gonna make $50,000 or $60,000."

Kenady didn't think anything of it, until he read in newspapers about the ransom note found at the Ramsey home that demanded a curious $118,000. It was close to the amount Helgoth had said he and his unknown partner would make -– and it was a ransom that was never paid to anyone. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

While I read about this guy in a magazine, it must've had some credence if CBS mentioned it as well.

Now why wouldn't private investigators hired by the family not really look into this man with scrutiny? As I thought the family had hired some PI's besides having a few lawyers hired.

MaybytheBay

01-04-2006, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Postergeist

While I read about this guy in a magazine, it must've had some credence if CBS mentioned it as well.

Now why wouldn't private investigators hired by the family not really look into this man with scrutiny? As I thought the family had hired some PI's besides having a few lawyers hired.

There is a theory that the Ramseys did not want any legacy of brutal child pornography associated with their daughter and tried to steer clear of any of these allegations. Even under their scrutiny of assumed guilt.:shrug:

Postergeist

01-04-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Not sure.....and do we know they haven't done such?

Well we don't know, but I'm recalling reading about some story written by Bill McReynold's wife. Well, a play actually, based on the book The Basement...about a girl being tortured to death while held captive in a basement. She wrote it years before this happened.

Bill was the fella that played Santa, who passed away in 2002, and is one that both the Ramseys named as a suspect.

IMO

mystery101

01-04-2006, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Of course they do. The poster is dreaming. :rolleyes:
You owe me an apology.
I did not make that up.

"There's still testing going on and they still have a reasonable explanation for the foreign DNA," said Lee.
The foreign DNA under JonBenet's fingernails may be explained by contamination from the nail clippers used in the autopsy. But Lee still sees one key question remaining."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,25383,00.html
:punch:

Postergeist

01-04-2006, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Wow.....I mean.....that's an odd coincidence......it would be worth looking into and I can't say that they haven't......but from what little you have said, I would definitely look into it to be repetitive.......though I do believe that two things can occur, and seem related but in actuality have no relation whatsoever. :)

If you can get a chance to read any of the police interrogation transcripts, one of the LE does ask John about that play/book/story, and I think they mention it to Patsy as well.

When the story first broke I was first thinking some nut, then later thought it was possible that Patsy harmed JB, but it wasn't until I saw either an AE program or maybe one on CTV that I could see an intruder theory more likely and recall feeling bad that I had pointed the finger at the parents.

I'm just glad that don't have the job or the responsibility of ruling people in or out on this case, it is so puzzling, twisty turny in many ways.

01-04-2006, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Postergeist

If you can get a chance to read any of the police interrogation transcripts, one of the LE does ask John about that play/book/story, and I think they mention it to Patsy as well.

When the story first broke I was first thinking some nut, then later thought it was possible that Patsy harmed JB, but it wasn't until I saw either an AE program or maybe one on CTV that I could see an intruder theory more likely and recall feeling bad that I had pointed the finger at the parents.

I'm just glad that don't have the job or the responsibility of ruling people in or out on this case, it is so puzzling, twisty turny in many ways.

I assume there were no fingerprints found on the ransom note other than the ramseys. Do you know how hard it is to write a note with gloves on? Do you think the intruder had latex gloves on?

+

01-04-2006, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

It's really not that difficult.

maybe you're a suspect?

Adalena935

01-04-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by taz2110
Hi All, Happy New Year. Did anyone see the special last night on the JBR murder? A new group of 8 detectives have taken over the case and developed a lot of new evidence...some of it proving that the "parents" did not kill JB!

There was a lot of info given about the Bolder police and the absolute "tunnel vision" they suffered during the investigation of this case. There are boxes and boxes of tips, info and other items that were never followed up!! The new info the 8 detectives have uncovered is from those boxes of info!!

One of the new detectives said it is your sworn duty as a police officer to follow up every single item to determine it's credibility or not. The Bolder police did not do that!

The new investigative team went on to say that they may never get the approval to re open this case...due to the costs involved!! Can you believe that? These detectives went on to say that they are sure they know who the killer is, and they have DNA to prove it, but at present can not move forward.

How can this investgative travesty continue? My opinion is that if there is any possibility of solving a murder, there should not be any question that the investgation should continue, no matter what!

What do you think?

I've seen either that or a similar special several times.

I think it's dubious whether this crime will ever be solved.

Postergeist

01-04-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by darkpaint

I assume there were no fingerprints found on the ransom note other than the ramseys. Do you know how hard it is to write a note with gloves on? Do you think the intruder had latex gloves on?

+

Well, surgeons seem to do an okay job using them for sutures, so IMO, latex gloves wouldn't be hard to use a pen, now winter gloves, yep. I think they (LE) determined even one of the pens from the house was used on that paper. They did have Patsy write with both her left and her right hand...

I admit the note is very peculiar, but one of the programs reasonably showed how SODDI in a much better way than Geragos did in his trial.

IMO

W~A~E

01-04-2006, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Well to be fair.......I didn't say you made it up.......but you did refer to the nail clippers as dirty, as opposed to contaminated.......contamination is a reasonable explanation in most cases.......but there are supposed to be procedures and guidelines followed to insure such contaminations don't take place.....especially in a case involving a murder........like using sterile instruments. Correct?

Sounds very sensible to me. :seeya: Strange, I come here infrequently, but came here this morning. You popped in to my mind. Must be recalling the good old days at CTV? Then, VOILA, you're here.

Anyhoo. Happy Holidays and hoping all's fantabulous with you and yours. :seeya:

W~A~E

01-04-2006, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by darkpaint

maybe you're a suspect?

A *shocking* revelation!

Narc? I thought I knew you! :o Do we need to start a collection for your bail money?

W~A~E

01-04-2006, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

I just ran downstairs, put on latex gloves....wrote with no difficulty......have you tried before? I wonder how you came to that conclusion?
You so fonny. Hell, I wear gloves all the friggin' time to carry out all kinds of tasks, and I seem to be able to perform those tasks with a staggering success rate. :cool:

W~A~E

01-04-2006, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Happy Holidays to you......everyone is doing great......my goodness, have you seen what kids get as toys nowadays? LOL Hope all is well with you and yours. :)

Oh, sure! Those kids'll tap you plumb dry, I tell you! We need tax deductions for Christmas present purchses, I say. I'm sure you spoiled the heck out of your niece and nephew. :)

W~A~E

01-04-2006, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

LOL.....OMG....I didn't know that writing in latex gloves was a unique gift that would pen a murder on me.

Not fair! I'm ROFLMAO here! Pen a murder on you! Ha! :lol:

W~A~E

01-04-2006, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

But I was being honest......I did run downstairs......I did get a writing utensil. :)

Sorry to be such a PITA, but I'm going to need more details.

Was it a pen, pencil, magic marker, or some other method of writing?

I know you so well. You're a shady character. I'm on to you and your solid logic. Give it up, Narc. :rolleyes:

01-04-2006, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Oh everyone spoiled them.......and now you show up and I go on and on about the latex and stuff........hopefully darkpaint isn't taking all this too personally.

Not at all. I am taking this VERY personally. Should have searched the house for latex gloves. Were any found?????

W~A~E

01-04-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Oh everyone spoiled them.......and now you show up and I go on and on about the latex and stuff........hopefully darkpaint isn't taking all this too personally.

I'm positively ROARING with laughter here. Oh, how I've missed you. I'm glad the bebes were spoiled properly.

Postergeist

01-04-2006, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

But I was being honest......I did run downstairs......I did get a writing utensil. :)

LOL! Oh this reminds me of one of our posters here during the SP case, who went out on their boat and then threw bags of potatoes out to prove how you could toss a body and not capsize, or the other poster who's mom IRRC cut up a mattress to show how Mark Hacking may have done something prior to his confessing that he did.

We do have some go-getters here!

:beer:

W~A~E

01-04-2006, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

You caught me.......you know what they say about puns.

Yup. Now you've been penned for a pun. Gotta love the puns.

W~A~E

01-04-2006, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

At first a used a felt tip red pen (marker).....then I used a ballpoint pen black ink......didn't use a pencil, because I had satisfied my curiosity and felt I had answered any doubts that I might have had.

With all due respect, Mr. Narc., you completely disregarded the simple lead pencil in your experiment? Does that not reflect poorly on your so-called broad spectrum studies on said subject? Please submit graph charts with all media of the written word contrasted with types of gloves (including mittens). Until said study is submitted for veracity with all information availed us, we won't be able to fully provide our opinion as to the legitimacy of the statistics.

TIA.

01-04-2006, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

I'm not sure if any were found......but it does pose the question.....if they used latex and none for found......why would they take them off before exiting to leave their fingerprints on the window in the basement.

Now you are sleuthing! Yes he would have had the gloves on coming in doing the dirty work and going out so those fingerprints on the basement window are not the intruder's!

margaritaville

01-04-2006, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Do some research on the case from something besides the trashloids and those who repeat their garbage and then come back and debate the case.

Ah.... what's the matter...You can't answer the question?
He/She was asking your OPINION...

You should know what that is by now..It's all you give...
And apparently only yours is right and everyone elses is wrong. Only you are smart enough to put pieces of a puzzle together to get an answer.. Only you are smarter then all the LE, Lawyers, Jurors, Judges, Posters, Reporters etc... Because you KNOW ALL!!!

(LOL....... Kinda funny when you make your self laugh!!!:lol: )

Here is another Question for you....Has there been any case where you think the person accused or convicted was actually Guilty or is everyone being railroaded, or... is it that you like to Fight? Because that is what it looks like...
Why don't YOU grow up...
Everyone will have you on ignore and then all you will be able to do is debate (if that's what you want to call what you are doing) with yourself.:punch:

W~A~E

01-04-2006, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Missed you too......it didn't matter that we disagreed......we had a good time, just talking and debating.
:
Nah, it didn't matter that we disagreed. I enjoyed our debates. We made eachother think and that's always a good thing.

With this, I must go to bed such that I can wake up at a reasonable hour to go to work.

My best to you and yours!:seeya

W~A~E

01-04-2006, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

LOL.......should I test all lead pencils or would a #2 suffice?

Last I heard, the #2 is the Ferrarri of pencils in the pencil market.

Clear it with PETA first, though. One just never knows.

(G'nite!)

W~A~E

01-04-2006, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Come back soon.........I'm going to send you a PM.....answer when you get a chance.

I think I'll just do that. Looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely hoping all's well w/ you. I'll see it in the am, when I get home from work. :seeya:

Adalena935

01-04-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by ohtootie
I feel so bad for the parents and the brother. I can't imagine what it would be like to have a daughter murdered and then be accused by most of the people in the country when you really didn't do it. It's all just so very sad.:rose:

It would be horrible, I'm sure. On the positive side you wouldn't any longer lack wisdom regarding human nature.

"Never hit a man when he's down. Kick him, it's easier." - Soupy Sales

Postergeist

01-04-2006, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

I try........there could be reasons as to taking off the gloves as well...........do they jump out at you, probably not.......could be a mental lapse.......possibly material on the gloves might have led to a decision to remove them.........possibly a tear in the glove which made them useless.

Speaking of gloves...and since a few others have brought up other cases here, I've always thought the glove left behind at NBS residence was due to the Akita biting at the hand of the killer and that was left behind, and explaining the 'cut' on the hand that was explained away by a drinking glass.

My dog has a thing about wanting to mouth at my hands if I'm wearing any sort of glove, whether it's gardening gloves or winter gloves, etc.

IMO

01-04-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

I try........there could be reasons as to taking off the gloves as well...........do they jump out at you, probably not.......could be a mental lapse.......possibly material on the gloves might have led to a decision to remove them.........possibly a tear in the glove which made them useless.

I wonder if the ramseys use to leave the housekey under the front doormat? Maybe our intruder saw them leave it there when they went out.

Why was John Benet wearing her mother's underwear when she was found? and where was the underwear that Jon benet wore that night? Probably went wherever the latex goves went.

LostinSpace

01-04-2006, 01:35 PM

Was it ever explained WHY the note was on the back stairs? Isn't a 3-page ransom note a bit odd?

Thanks,
Lost

Postergeist

01-04-2006, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by darkpaint

I wonder if the ramseys use to leave the housekey under the front doormat? Maybe our intruder saw them leave it there when they went out.

Why was John Benet wearing her mother's underwear when she was found? and where was the underwear that Jon benet wore that night? Probably went wherever the latex goves went.

John Fernie observed that the butler kitchen door to the outside was opened when he arrived at the house that morning.

(so one can enter into a home by one entrance and exit out another, IMO)

I'd never heard that about JB underwear was actually a pair of her mother's.

01-04-2006, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by LostinSpace
Was it ever explained WHY the note was on the back stairs? Isn't a 3-page ransom note a bit odd?

Thanks,
Lost

Was the ransom note 3 pages? Only a woman would write like that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would have written:

I have your daughter. Do not call the police. Wait for my call for your instructions or you will never see her alive again.

Sincerely,

Dark Intruder

LostinSpace

01-04-2006, 01:54 PM

:lol:

I was thinking the same thing. I may be a woman, but when I write, I get straight to the point.

Back in my auditing days, I was known for the briefness of my reports. Even if I found something, I made my point in as few words as possible.

Lost

01-04-2006, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by LostinSpace
:lol:

I was thinking the same thing. I may be a woman, but when I write, I get straight to the point.

Back in my auditing days, I was known for the briefness of my reports. Even if I found something, I made my point in as few words as possible.

Lost

Were you an auditor for one of the big audit houses? PWC,E&Y,?

LostinSpace

01-04-2006, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by darkpaint

Were you an auditor for one of the big audit houses? PWC,E&Y,?

No, I did internal audit for 7-Eleven.

Lost

Boxing Helena

01-04-2006, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by ohtootie
I feel so bad for the parents and the brother. I can't imagine what it would be like to have a daughter murdered and then be accused by most of the people in the country when you really didn't do it. It's all just so very sad.:rose:

I'm curious as to why they don't lend some of their assests to help get this case resolved? I know if I had the means I would definatley offer it and DEMAND that the FBI and or police force produce the killer(s). :shrug: MOO

Boxing Helena

01-04-2006, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Boxing Helena

I'm curious as to why they don't lend some of their assests to help get this case resolved? I know if I had the means I would definatley offer it and DEMAND that the FBI and or police force produce the killer(s). :shrug: MOO

Was there any evidence of past sexual abuse on Jon Benet?

Boxing Helena

01-04-2006, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by darkpaint

Was there any evidence of past sexual abuse on Jon Benet?

I don't have any idea....:shrug:

mystery101

01-04-2006, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

I think that was one of the theories of the police, but the Family Physician refuted those claims.
She had urinary problems. That could be a symptom of sexual abuse in a young child, but it doesn't prove the abuse happenned.

01-04-2006, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

So if you are a woman that gets to the point, are you the exception to the rule? What if there was a guy that went on and on.....would he be the exception to the rule? Could the perp be the exception to the rule?

Or could have it been a woman other than Patsy.......after the cheerleading mother....and the plot to kill......I thought maybe it was one of the mother's of a competitor in the pageants (nothing that directs me to believe it, just one of those thoughts trying to figure out who and why)

Well that is what happened in Miss Congeniality! Maybe this was a mini version.

01-04-2006, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Yes....but there isn't anything that we know that would substantiate my thought. :)

Maybe it was that movie that put the idea in my head, and not the cheerleader's mother :)

Since this was about all sex(IMO) the whole ransom think was a coverup. The Dark Intruder why would he try to cover this up this way? Doesn't make any sense

Star Diva

01-04-2006, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Same reason that the Bill of Rights were written.....to help protect your rights.

And if you asked any homicide detective who wasn't investigating you what do you if you were on a suspect list, they'd tell you to hire an attorney.

I have no idea where so many got the idea that our systems protect us - our laws protect us against our systems. It's not hard to figure out when you think about or if you think about it.

Valkyrie08

01-04-2006, 03:00 PM

I'm kind of in the middle as to whether or not John and Patsy Ramsey were involved in the JonBenet's murder.

I had one question though: IF the Ramseys were in any way involved with JonBenet's death, why hadn't they gotten rid of her body before contacting LE? Couldn't they have just disposed the body somewhere miles away from the house?

Angelina

01-04-2006, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by taz2110
Hi All, Happy New Year. Did anyone see the special last night on the JBR murder? A new group of 8 detectives have taken over the case and developed a lot of new evidence...some of it proving that the "parents" did not kill JB!

There was a lot of info given about the Bolder police and the absolute "tunnel vision" they suffered during the investigation of this case. There are boxes and boxes of tips, info and other items that were never followed up!! The new info the 8 detectives have uncovered is from those boxes of info!!

One of the new detectives said it is your sworn duty as a police officer to follow up every single item to determine it's credibility or not. The Bolder police did not do that!

The new investigative team went on to say that they may never get the approval to re open this case...due to the costs involved!! Can you believe that? These detectives went on to say that they are sure they know who the killer is, and they have DNA to prove it, but at present can not move forward.

How can this investgative travesty continue? My opinion is that if there is any possibility of solving a murder, there should not be any question that the investgation should continue, no matter what!

What do you think?

I think the Ramsey's could afford to fund the investigation, since the dept is having trouble coming up with the funds. From what I have seen, the Ramsey's have plenty, and I am sure they are ready to catch the killer since they supposedly already know who it is. They should be pulling every legal connection they have to kick start this investiagation, if they dont, to me it sheds more doubt on them. JMHO

MaybytheBay

01-04-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Holly
ZZZZIIIINNNNGGGG!!!!

WOW!! You are brave.

You have just made 14,000 enemies.

Good luck!!

:confused:

Victim's Cry

01-04-2006, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by hotlanta_dude

What rights need protecting if you haven't done anything?

Dougie

Oh Dougie!! I cant believe that came from you. You know the system, and you know that almost any person with 1/2 a brain and the means to do so would/should hire an attorney when they are being looked at as a suspect in the murder of their child, no matter how innocent.

Many to most innocent people dont have attorneys as friends, on staff of their company or the money to hire one to protect their interests from an overzealous LE. Unfortunately.

In canada a few months ago, the boyfriend of a missing girl was accused publicly for being responsible, because of totally "suspicious" circumstances. Last one to see her, he called the police to report her missing without even calling her parents to see where she was. And it was in the morning after he dropped her off that night at home, she lived with her parents. Who would have imagined his statement of "gut instinct" was right, honest and he was totally uninvolved.

He lawyered up, and this was "proof" he was guilty. Luckily her neighbor turned himself in and led the police to her dismembered body in two locations. The boyfriend had nothing to do with it.

Re Jon Benet, as soon as it became public she had another persons DNA in her panties, well that wiped out the family for me. Not that i ever totally thought they were guilty anway. The idea that JB had dna in her panties (since most little girls have clean undies every day) from some other man, and also got murdered and raped by a family member the same night is ludicrous imo. All the cases lately should tell us that its not unusual for someone to come in from outside. Maybe it was a kidnapping to start, and she struggled, so he took her to the basement to shut her up, maybe he got turned on by the danger factor and decided to rape her there, who KNOWS. It is really the first major case where imo an outsider came in and raped/murdered a child. As far as patsy not being ruled out on the ransom note, thats like saying people with blood 0 blood arent ruled out when blood 0 is discovered at a crime scene and 6 friends or family members had the same blood type.

And dougie, dont tell me that if your friend had a child murdered in this way, and the cops were after them, you would not be advising him to get a lawyer, be it yourself or a referral, ESPECIALLY if you believed he was innocent. As a lawyer, cant remember if ex or not, once cops made the first accusation to the person you would think they were nuts not to get a lawyer to help protect them because they were innocent.

JMO imo moo.

Victim's Cry

01-04-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71
Victim.......

what surprises me......but if you make that rule.....and I have no clue what political leaning people are.......

what about the politicians......did Bill Clinton have an attorney? Does Tom Delay have an attorney? I mean if you believe that then you have to follow your own rules.......Do Police hire attorneys.........you made a statement like that, then the rule should follow and those people are guilty as well......why would they need to hire attorneys.

Edited to add....sorry it was very convoluted.....basically does Dougie apply that rule to all.....if not....then it's BS.

Dougie can not seriously believe innocent people shouldnt get lawyers. I have seen him discuss false convictions and his worry that people be very careful on a jury b4 voting guilty because of them and bad police work.

I think he is trying to get our goat :)

imo

01-04-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by RacerX0499

What's also ludicrous is to believe an intruder hid in the house prior to the Ramsey's return, composed the 3 page FARCE of a ransom note and left it on the steps BEFORE Jon Benet was murdered.

There was NEVER a kidnapping plan, NEVER a foreign faction, NEVER an intruder.

The note was written with the sole intent to deflect attention AWAY from the family.

Even bank robbers don't wait till they get to the bank to write the note!

LOL-the intruder forgot his ransom note,a pen but did remember to bring his latex gloves to leave no trace. Why didn't the intruder leave any footprints anywhere? There was snow on the ground. Did he remember to bring his galoshes? Patsy killed that little girl and John helped her beat the rap so she wouldn't reveal his sexual abuse on JB.

01-04-2006, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Yes snow on the ground.....but not up the walkway, and not leading to the window in which the detective believes the intruder gained entry.

What Detective? Thomas the lead detective in the beginning of the case knew right off what really happened. And why were Patsy and John so uncooperative with the police?

cruiserchick

01-04-2006, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

They weren't uncooperative with police? They gave DNA samples, hair samples......how were they uncooperative?

Edited to add....the detective that the Prosecution brought into the case.....I think he was retired, well respected.

Yes he I think was/is from El Paso, Texas. He had solved many cases.

01-04-2006, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

They weren't uncooperative with police? They gave DNA samples, hair samples......how were they uncooperative?

Edited to add....the detective that the Prosecution brought into the case.....I think he was retired, well respected.

Did you know that Patsy has NEVER been interrogated in The Boulder Police offices by Boulder Police? Not one minute-ever.

lucielle

01-04-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Former Juror

Yes, I think a husband would cover up for his wife and vice versa. In my world, it wouldn't happen, but it does happen all of the time.

I think it was an accident. And, I think that Patsy made financial threats to John as well as threatened to blame him for it or for abuse and those made him opt for helping in a cover up. He had too much to lose, in his mind, to tell the truth. She would have turned on him, and they both would have gone down.

Patsy is the ONLY person tested that has not been excluded as a possible writer of the ransom note. I have seen the samples of her other writings, and I have no doubt she wrote it.

EVERTYHING ABOVE IS IMO!

Exactly, FJ. How many parents cover for spouses when abuse is involved? Plenty, especially imo when you have a more "prominent" family.

lucielle

01-04-2006, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by sarasun
darkpaint -

How would I know all that stuff! That's what detectives do, not posters on a message board.

:confused:

Edit: How many high-profile cases are there in which the sleeping child is "plucked" from their beds! Many...too many!!

How many more children are found dead or missing by the hands of their parents? MANY more.

lucielle

01-04-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Who said it was written AFTER she was dead? The "ludicrous" reports with NO proof? :rolleyes: The intruder had a lot of time to write a note and a lot of other things before the Ramseys' got home.

Ok, so you think an intruder broke into the house (without leaving any proof of it) sat down and wrote an extensive ransom note only to kill the child and leave her in the house?

Yeah....

mendara

01-04-2006, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Postergeist

Hi ya Citygirl!

I remember that about the pineapple, from tv documentaries and from various articles. I believe that pineapple was one of her favorite foods....something the family would know, and maybe the brother, and/or someone very close to the family.

While it's possible the brother was awakened by her and he gave her the fruit, one of the tv segments mentioned that the intruder may have taken her to the kitchen to give her some...but then again, I would think it would have to be someone she was familiar with, or else I would hope a kid would scream their head off if an unknown person is moving them around the house.

I think some theories said she may have been stun-gunned in her bed.

Why would a parent use a stun gun tho....they could easily awake their child without a scene.

I think there was also a shoe print in the dust downstairs that didn't match anyone as well.

IRRC, one of the parents routinely took a sleeping pill at night. There was mention about Patsy's clothes being the same as she wore the night before.

Whoever did it, IMO knew the family/house quite well, whether by stalking or by having direct contact in the past.

Part of me thinks if the hub covered up for his wife, why then wouldn't he be scared she might snap and kill their son? But I can see parents covering up things for their child, whether minor age or not.

I think too ME reports said she had been struck pretty hard on the head with a golf club or some such item. Don't know if a child could weild that force.

It's been awhile, but I did read the book that the Ramseys wrote...some parts were just kinda odd, IMO. But I thought that as well about the book written by Elizabeth Smart's parents.

I vaguely recall that there was some forensic evidence inside that suitcase found downstairs as well.

I may get insulted for this - but here it goes -

the ransom note - again this note was gibberish - the amount of money was information way too close to the exact amount of his bonus - i doubt a killer would search for a bonus check or information in the middle of committing a crime and I doubt he would then ask for that exact amount -why not ask for more - this specific number seems like a scramble for a number and the first one that would pop in your head if you are nervous would be your bonus money... - then why kill the kid anyway? - and where was he going to conduct his negotiation? from the basement on a cell phone? -

I think maybe this person KNEW them personally - maybe was at the same party they left - or knew someone at the party - and followed them home.

but but but - i always thought it possible WAY WAY back in my mind - that perhaps that little girl was abused - maybe the parents allowed something to happen and it went too far - and they needed to cover it up - that would expalin the DNA and the ransom note - but I can't imagine parents that evil - so no I can't imagine that...

lucielle

01-04-2006, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by RacerX0499

What's also ludicrous is to believe an intruder hid in the house prior to the Ramsey's return, composed the 3 page FARCE of a ransom note and left it on the steps BEFORE Jon Benet was murdered.

DOn't forget that the note was on a stair between two more stairs. Patsy said as she was coming downstairs she stepped over the note completely (which means she would have had to step over a step completely) then notcied the ransom note. How many of you just randomly miss steps? I did when I was 12 or 13, but I don't now. (certainly not as agile as I used to be!)

01-04-2006, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by lucielle

DOn't forget that the note was on a stair between two more stairs. Patsy said as she was coming downstairs she stepped over the note completely (which means she would have had to step over a step completely) then notcied the ransom note. How many of you just randomly miss steps? I did when I was 12 or 13, but I don't now. (certainly not as agile as I used to be!)

Figures she would find the ransom note. She wrote it!

01-04-2006, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

Then who was interrogating her in the police video where they are telling her that the DNA in the panties match John.....and she is saying, well you better go retest those results because they are wrong? What exactly was that?

That was the Boulder police all right, after negotiating for weeks on how to get her to answer their questions. It was filmed at a neutral site and NOT at Boulder Police Headquarters. You call that cooperation?

fdusa

01-04-2006, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by hotlanta_dude

I still think that is the case.

Dougie
And I have always thought the brother did it and the parents covered for him.

Honestly, I doubt anyone will ever know what really happened

cruiserchick

01-04-2006, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

So we should dish out punishment by odds? If a mother has a child that dies of SIDS, but more mother kill their child....then we should assume guilt......what if the mother has two children that die of SIDS.....the odds are staggering to some, the odds would be she killed them both......because it's more likely. Shouldn't evidence and not odds decide guilt and innocence?

This kinda reminds me of a case where the mother was found gulity of killing her child with antifreeze. Then when the second baby had signs of the same thing they found out it was a rare condition.

Earl Grey

01-04-2006, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by taz2110
Hi All, Happy New Year. Did anyone see the special last night on the JBR murder? A new group of 8 detectives have taken over the case and developed a lot of new evidence...some of it proving that the "parents" did not kill JB!

There was a lot of info given about the Bolder police and the absolute "tunnel vision" they suffered during the investigation of this case. There are boxes and boxes of tips, info and other items that were never followed up!! The new info the 8 detectives have uncovered is from those boxes of info!!

One of the new detectives said it is your sworn duty as a police officer to follow up every single item to determine it's credibility or not. The Bolder police did not do that!

The new investigative team went on to say that they may never get the approval to re open this case...due to the costs involved!! Can you believe that? These detectives went on to say that they are sure they know who the killer is, and they have DNA to prove it, but at present can not move forward.

How can this investgative travesty continue? My opinion is that if there is any possibility of solving a murder, there should not be any question that the investgation should continue, no matter what!

What do you think?

Does it really matter anymore? I know it does in the ideal world and in theory, but that charming little girl is gone.

If the police can prove a theory, then they should make a statement and conclude the case.

Otherwise, it's important to move on and to protect our living and vulnerable children--or there will be more abuse and death.

Of course--IMOO

mystery101

01-04-2006, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71
I didn't see the show.....but I found a link about it.....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

"Like JonBenet, she took lessons at Dance West. And like JonBenet, another girl, who is identified as "Amy," was attacked and sexually assaulted at night in her own bedroom on Sept. 14, 1997.

That night, Amy's father was out of town. After catching a movie, Amy and her mother returned home late. What they didn't know when they entered the house was that there was already an intruder inside."

I found it interesting.

Amy was a teenager, not a five year old.
There was no ransom note either. Just because some pervert decided to abuse a teenager, doesn't mean it's the same perp.

Earl Grey

01-04-2006, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Postergeist

Hi ya Citygirl!

I remember that about the pineapple, from tv documentaries and from various articles. I believe that pineapple was one of her favorite foods....something the family would know, and maybe the brother, and/or someone very close to the family.

While it's possible the brother was awakened by her and he gave her the fruit, one of the tv segments mentioned that the intruder may have taken her to the kitchen to give her some...but then again, I would think it would have to be someone she was familiar with, or else I would hope a kid would scream their head off if an unknown person is moving them around the house.

I think some theories said she may have been stun-gunned in her bed.

Why would a parent use a stun gun tho....they could easily awake their child without a scene.

I think there was also a shoe print in the dust downstairs that didn't match anyone as well.

IRRC, one of the parents routinely took a sleeping pill at night. There was mention about Patsy's clothes being the same as she wore the night before.

Whoever did it, IMO knew the family/house quite well, whether by stalking or by having direct contact in the past.

Part of me thinks if the hub covered up for his wife, why then wouldn't he be scared she might snap and kill their son? But I can see parents covering up things for their child, whether minor age or not.

I think too ME reports said she had been struck pretty hard on the head with a golf club or some such item. Don't know if a child could weild that force.

It's been awhile, but I did read the book that the Ramseys wrote...some parts were just kinda odd, IMO. But I thought that as well about the book written by Elizabeth Smart's parents.

I vaguely recall that there was some forensic evidence inside that suitcase found downstairs as well.

That pineapple in JB's tummy is bothersome. I also have wondered if someone took her to the kitchen to eat a snack. It would HAVE to have been someone she knew. It could have been a family member or someone dressed as Santa. A child would go along with Santa--he's the magical guy delivering the goods!

We follow reports of other children being taken from their homes and murdered, so we know this tragedy happens. But most kids are removed from their homes. This case, which happened in the home, is "off"; something isn't quite right.

Do you think it is "normal" that the Ramseys were in such a deep sleep they didn't hear anything or any movement? Although it is not concrete proof of anything, it has always bothered me that her parents slept so soundly on a night when most parents are awake and setting up Christmas or are listening/watching for their children who might be peeking at the tree before Christmas morning.

Earl Grey

01-04-2006, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by RacerX0499

Can't be someone dressed as Santa, just think about all the trace evidence that would be left behind if it was.

Yeah, traces of faux fur and velour would probably be left behind.

Former Juror

01-04-2006, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by RacerX0499

SNIP

LE solved the crime, it just so happens they SCREWED UP so bad in the early stages, a conviction is now impossible.

Exactly. This case was solved very early on, but there were too many screw-ups ala O.J. Simpson. IMO

Lobsters

01-04-2006, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Former Juror

Exactly. This case was solved very early on, but there were too many screw-ups ala O.J. Simpson. IMO

Yep.

Leve

01-04-2006, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Narcissist71

LE failed miserably at any attempt to get the true perpetrator(s) because they automatically assumed it was the parents, instead of doing a competent investigation. Now with the help of people that are actually doing the job they should have done, there may yet be justice brought in this case.

Nah, the LE screwed up by letting the Ramseys be in charge. Maybe the Ramseys heard or saw something THAT DAY that couls have helped solve the case but 4 mos later when they finally consented to help the police find their daughters killer they forgot it? Heck they were on the phone trying to leave the state while she was still laying there dead under the Christmas tree.

The bowl the pineapple was in had Patsey's and Burke's fingerprints on it. The "intruder" didn't use that basement window because there was undisturbed dust and an undisturbed spider web.

Personally, I think that the police were unable to "do their job" because the Ramseys were unavailable for questions. Where did Jon Benet go that day? ect ect ect. By the time Patsey consented to an interview she couldn't even remember whether or not they had lunch that day. I guess they didn't want the killer found.

Flawless

01-04-2006, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by hotlanta_dude

No, I wouldn't. It was meant as a serious question. The Ramseys were never even accused of a crime, so why did they spend a small fortune in legal fees?

Dougie

I've often wondered about myself. I can understand retaining an attorney, just to keep things from getting out of hand. However, as a parent, my priority would be to find out who killed my child and I would go through heck to help LE in any way possible to find out who did it.

It just seems to me that maternal instinct would take over and I would be thinking less of myself and more about seeing that justice was done for my child's sake.

JonBenet would have been 15/16 now. Sad that she still has not recieved justice. I do hope that someday the murderer is found out, nomatter who it is.

IMO

Pip1

01-04-2006, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Flawless

I've often wondered about myself. I can understand retaining an attorney, just to keep things from getting out of hand. However, as a parent, my priority would be to find out who killed my child and I would go through heck to help LE in any way possible to find out who did it.

It just seems to me that maternal instinct would take over and I would be thinking less of myself and more about seeing that justice was done for my child's sake.

JonBenet would have been 15/16 now. Sad that she still has not recieved justice. I do hope that someday the murderer is found out, nomatter who it is.

IMO

:beer:

Postergeist

01-04-2006, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Earl Grey

<snipped>

Do you think it is "normal" that the Ramseys were in such a deep sleep they didn't hear anything or any movement? Although it is not concrete proof of anything, it has always bothered me that her parents slept so soundly on a night when most parents are awake and setting up Christmas or are listening/watching for their children who might be peeking at the tree before Christmas morning.

IRRC, the plans were the family was to leave later that morning to spend the holidays at their other home.

This house was a very large home (and I'd do a search on it, but am a bit scared of that new virus that attaches to pics on websites, etc. so won't at this time) but the children's rooms were not on the same level as the parents.

There was the basement that had 3 windows and crawl spaces, bathroom, laundry, train room, wine cellar and storage areas.

First floor had garage, mud room, kitchen, butler pantry, dining room, sunroom, study, etc.

Second floor was the playroom, and 4 children's rooms (Burke, Jon Benet, John Andrew, Melinda) washer & dryer, etc.

The third floor was the parents room.

Elizabeth Smart's parents didn't hear anything either, nor did Jessica Lunsford's grandparents and that was a tiny trailer compared to the Smart and Ramsey homes.

My hub can't understand why I never seem to hear our dog bark when I'm in the front spare bedroom and the boy is in the backyard, but I don't hear him.

So all I can think is that these children that have been abducted/kidnapped are not yelling,screaming, or crying loudly or are unable too.

And that children would be less likely to yell and scream when it is a known person (family or not) regardless of the other person's gender or age.

Burke's bedroom was on the other side of the house (same floor tho) so he may not have heard/seen anything himself.

I'm really not aware of how much questioning he had with the LE about the case tho. (or any testing, etc.)

IMO