In Defense of Patsy & John Ramsey

[jerzeegirl]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I guess it hasn't been proven scientifically but we DO know there was a bowl on the table with pineapple and we do see the autopsy report mentions contents that look like pineapple so it's a very fair assumption that she ate pineapple.


IMO, even if she DIDN'T eat pineapple, the pineapple is STILL signifigant because the Ramseys themselves claim they didn't eat anything after they got home & they claim they have no idea where the pineapple came from.

So really, we'd be back to square one... would an intruder break into their home & snack on pineapple while he's waiting to kidnap a child? An intruder who picked a bowl that had Patsy's & Burke's fingerprints and a glass that only had Burke's fingerprints?

He'd be taking a chance that his/her dna would be left in the inside of the bowl with the unfinished food, wouldn't he?


The scenario is too strange to NOT suspect the Ramseys were lying.

thats a very hungry intruder

[bullmoose]

To sunsplashed: Thanks for the information. You do know him, are completely convinced of his guilt, and certainly, in my opinion have a good basis to believe him guilty by your intimate knowledge of the case. Your knowledge certainly trumps mine in that case. bullmoose:eek:

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mimi428
[B]

Honestly, there is much about this case that reminds me of McDonald. The flying off in a rage over the bedwetting - then having to finish everything off by killing the youngest child with the ice pick (an entirely different cause of death than the 1st two died from).


I agree. And MacMurderer had no history of child abuse either.

[hohum]

Originally posted by skye


But that belongs on another thread. I disagree with 'splashed' on this thread. Im not sure I even believe her about JM.

You are very wise. :patriot:

[jerzeegirl]

ya know, some of these ppl here (you know who you are) are the ones that get this board shut down every nite. Some of you love to bait others. I dont care if you like someone on here or not, or believe what they have to say, but i have seen one person on here being baited and not said nice things to her. I think it sux. Ive been NOT posting here very much the last couple days cuz of this. But i cant hold back anymore. Some ppl just cant deal with the fact that there are so many different opinions out there. We all make mistakes on links, quoting wrong ppl, etc. But it just sux when ppl get personally attacked for no reason at all.

JMO!

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Thank you so much but I have already read those books. You are wrong on every single point.....so look in the mirror when you talk about "facts" and then do yourself a favor and do some more reading. BTW, my trash can is full so I won't be needing your "private notes." :lol:

Actually, she's right on every single point. You are wrong.
But, please don't let that stop you, it certainly hasn't so far.

[angelskye]

Originally posted by skye


But that belongs on another thread. I disagree with 'splashed' on this thread. Im not sure I even believe her about JM.

That's the smartest thing to do, considering she's inserted herself more than once in this case, and tried to affiliate herself with people that has later proven to be untrue.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by bullmoose
To sunsplashed: I too have read up on the Macdonald case; I would say it ranks as being somewhere nearly as bizarre as the Jonbenet case; I have spent time on army bases and know from my own experiance that some really strange things go on; his story does not sound as crazy as it would seem. But this is not a thread on that subject; however since he has always denied any guilt, I really want to know if he confessed to you or did you happen to be there that night, or are you just talking in a figurative fashion? I really am curious?:confused: bullmoose

I was not even born when the MacDonald murders took place, so no, I wasn't there by any means. I guess I was nowhere. LOL

No, he has always maintained his innocence.

I have lots of reasons for believing him guilty, but, as you said this is a thread for discussing the JBR case.

I was just struck by a few similarities between the MacDonald case and the JBR case. Not a lot, but a few.

JMO

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


It's amazing to me that people are actually pondering those
initials as if they really mean something. Do the same
people also believe a "small foreign faction" is responsible
for the kidnapping, that wasn't a kidnapping? It's all nonsense and means nothing. It's, just intended to throw people off.

No matter HOW wacky the ransom note is, you have to try to figure out what the references might mean to the author.

I lean towards the theory that Patsy wrote it because she was overly dramatic, she was in the habit of using acronymns in her personal correspondence & she was pretty religious. I think it meant: 'saved by the cross.'



The note makes almost no sense if written by an intruder.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


No matter HOW wacky the ransom note is, you have to try to figure out what the references might mean to the author.

I lean towards the theory that Patsy wrote it because she was overly dramatic, she was in the habit of using acronymns in her personal correspondence & she was pretty religious. I think it meant: 'saved by the cross.'



The note makes almost no sense if written by an intruder.

I've read the bit about Patsy using acronyms before. But I always see the same 2 examples posted. Does doing something twice make it a habit? Or are there other examples?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


No matter HOW wacky the ransom note is, you have to try to figure out what the references might mean to the author.

I lean towards the theory that Patsy wrote it because she was overly dramatic, she was in the habit of using acronymns in her personal correspondence & she was pretty religious. I think it meant: 'saved by the cross.'



The note makes almost no sense if written by an intruder.

I think Patsy was overly dramatic, too. And IIRC, her talent in beauty competitions was dramatic reading. I've read she loved to use acronyms and Psalm 118 was her favorite.

Saved By The Cross makes sense to me, especially when used in context with "Victory."

Also, I think Patsy did what Patsy had to do to save and preserve her own life. I can see her able to do just about anything if her life and lifestyle were threatened.

Just supposition on my part, however, not based in fact.

JMO

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


I've read the bit about Patsy using acronyms before. But I always see the same 2 examples posted. Does doing something twice make it a habit? Or are there other examples?

Not that I know of.

But let's face it, Patsy's friends & family probably wouldn't rush to turn over letters that might cause her any problems. I have to assume they'd hand over things that did NOT show any type of connections to the ransom note.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Not that I know of.

But let's face it, Patsy's friends & family probably wouldn't rush to turn over letters that might cause her any problems. I have to assume they'd hand over things that did NOT show any type of connections to the ransom note.

Except one of the examples I saw was a letter to Priscilla White. (No friend to the Ramseys) The other was Barb Fernie. (Who apparently had some sort of breakdown after the murder)

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Except one of the examples I saw was a letter to Priscilla White. (No friend to the Ramseys) The other was Barb Fernie. (Who apparently had some sort of breakdown after the murder)

Interesting!

That supports my theory, that most of her close friends knew better than to tell or show investigators ANYTHING that might make Patsy look guilty.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Interesting!

That supports my theory, that most of her close friends knew better than to tell or show investigators ANYTHING that might make Patsy look guilty.

But if that is true and nobody turned over examples how can it be said she had this "habit?"

[Paisley]

Originally posted by Mimi428


Honestly, there is much about this case that reminds me of McDonald. The flying off in a rage over the bedwetting - then having to finish everything off by killing the youngest child with the ice pick (an entirely different cause of death than the 1st two died from).

To me, there are parallels in that to the theory that JonBenet was severely injured (without intent to murder) after a bedwetting incident - & when the realization hit just how badly she was hurt, the garrote was created & used to finish it.

JMO & my apologies for going sorta O/T. So do you have proof that she wet her bed? JonBenet that is.

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by Paisley
So do you have proof that she wet her bed? JonBenet that is.

No, she had not wet her bed.

But my question is: what are the odds that both Patsy and John could be sadist psycopaths and no one knew???

[hohum]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


Actually, she's right on every single point. You are wrong.


She is not right on any of those points and if you believe it, then it appears you aren't right either.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by DixieChick


No, she had not wet her bed.

But my question is: what are the odds that both Patsy and John could be sadist psycopaths and no one knew???

Do you have a link for that? Just becase the bed was not wet does not mean she did not get her clothes wet.

[hohum]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


MacDonald was NOT having an affair prior to the murders. He admits to spending one night with a woman

:rolleyes:

[reprise]

To me, there are parallels in that to the theory that JonBenet was severely injured (without intent to murder) after a bedwetting incident - & when the realization hit just how badly she was hurt, the garrote was created & used to finish it.

The autopsy report doesn't support the theory that she was badly injured prior to asphyxiation - quite the reverse.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Rippage


Thanks you for saying "supposition". Your points are interesting. Psalm 118?
Hmm 118, are you referring to the ransom note? I'll have to look up Psalm 118, or, ask my sister, I think she has the Bible memorized.

But this is all there is when pointing the finger at Mrs. Ramsey. Arcane referrences to numbers, and things. Nothing concrete. Just....stuff.

I'm not bashing you. I found your post interesting and informative.

According to this, which is not definitive, of course, as it's not a legal document, Patsy often referred to Psalm 118.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html

You might find the entire article interesting, though I don't think it proves anything one way or another.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by hohum


She is not right on any of those points and if you believe it, then it appears you aren't right either.

Would you please support your assertions with a link?

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I think Patsy was overly dramatic, too. And IIRC, her talent in beauty competitions was dramatic reading. I've read she loved to use acronyms and Psalm 118 was her favorite.

[...]
Just supposition on my part, however, not based in fact.

JMO
Her Favorite?

From your link:

Response: Police and a police-hired expert in use of language, Don Foster, said the $118,000 has two other possible connections to the Ramseys. The Ramseys' home computer showed a net liabilities figure of $1,118,000 and Patsy referred to Psalm 118 in some of her writings.

[angelskye]

:lol: @ the French audience.

JonBenet could have soaked her pajamas but missed, entirely MISSED getting her sheets wet!

That's the best one yet.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


But if that is true and nobody turned over examples how can it be said she had this "habit?"

I don't recall the exact wording.

It probably was said, 'she was known to use acronymns in her letters.'


And of course, it's never ONE or even TWO things that makes a person a suspect... it's a combination of many little things that cause you to wonder.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Rippage
What if JonBenet wet her bed? The "bedwetting" theory. LOL! It's an anti Patsy theory proposed after an assumed fact.

We need to believe that Mrs. Ramsey is guilty. Why (I don't wanna know, lol)...so, let's see..........ok, that IT!!!!!!!!Voila!!! Let's say it again for the french audience: Voila!!!! So, There is proof that Mrs. Ramsey murdered her child. Her child wet the bed and Mrs. Ramsey murdered her with a garotte. In a fit of rage.
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

I need another beer, hang on. lol.

Well, I don't subscribe to Steve Thomas's bedwetting theory AT ALL, even though I lean toward the Ramseys being guilty.

I just know it's possible to wet your pants and not get the bed wet.

And I don't know what the French have to do with any of this. I didn't know the French were bedwetters. LOL

Do you have a link for that?

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I don't recall the exact wording.

It probably was said, 'she was known to use acronymns in her letters.'


And of course, it's never ONE or even TWO things that makes a person a suspect... it's a combination of many little things that cause you to wonder.

Of course, it's going to be suspect as it comes from Steve Thomas, but this says Patsy used acronyms and signed her Christmas cards PPRBSJ.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/133490/detail.html

[LI_Mom]

I have to agree that the sheets couldn't have been wet.

Judge Carnes looked at the crime scene photos & wisely ruled that they didn't look wet to her. :biggrin: :biggrin:


4 Crime scene photos taken the following morning do not indicate that JonBenet's bed was wet or suggest that the sheets to the bed had been changed.


That's hilarious, imo.
:lol:

[angelskye]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Well, I don't subscribe to Steve Thomas's bedwetting theory AT ALL, even though I lean toward the Ramseys being guilty.




Why post something so foolish that's such a lie, again?

This is YOUR post, posted just moments ago -

sunsplashed
Member
Registered: Aug 2006
Location:
Posts: 592

Do you have a link for that?

Just becase the bed was not wet does not mean she did not get her clothes wet.

_____________________________

You post ridiculous notions one after the other, and then when you're called on them and you can't back them up, you run the other way. :rolleyes:

[reprise]

Given the number of acronyms I use online, it's a good thing I wasn't in Boulder in December 1996.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I have to agree that the sheets couldn't have been wet.

Judge Carnes looked at the crime scene photos & wisely ruled that they didn't look wet to her. :biggrin: :biggrin:


4 Crime scene photos taken the following morning do not indicate that JonBenet's bed was wet or suggest that the sheets to the bed had been changed.


That's hilarious, imo.
:lol:

It is more than kind of funny. A federal judge deciding something on the basis of a photo?

My goodness, I thought the MacDonald case was bungled, but even they had the sense to test the sheets for urine.

JMO

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Of course, it's going to be suspect as it comes from Steve Thomas, but this says Patsy used acronyms and signed her Christmas cards PPRBSJ.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/133490/detail.html

I'm just curious WHO turned over the evidence.

Probably someone who was NOT on their Christmas list the following year. LOL

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


It is more than kind of funny. A federal judge deciding something on the basis of a photo?

My goodness, I thought the MacDonald case was bungled, but even they had the sense to test the sheets for urine.

JMO

Have you dealt with wet sheets? There is usually a ring left even when they are dry.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I have to agree that the sheets couldn't have been wet.

Judge Carnes looked at the crime scene photos & wisely ruled that they didn't look wet to her. :biggrin: :biggrin:


4 Crime scene photos taken the following morning do not indicate that JonBenet's bed was wet or suggest that the sheets to the bed had been changed.


That's hilarious, imo.
:lol:

I hate to admit it (but as I've already admitted it in this forum, it won't hurt to do so again), but one hot day I had glass after glass after glass of iced tea. Then, I, who was then a grown woman of thirty, with NO bladder problems, did indeed, wet my bed.

The front of my pajamas were wet, but the sheets were perfectly dry, much to my husband's relief! LOL

I'm sure Judge Carnes would say NO ONE wet themselves in MY bed that night! But she would have been wrong. LOL

Just my own embarrassing experience.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


It is more than kind of funny. A federal judge deciding something on the basis of a photo?

My goodness, I thought the MacDonald case was bungled, but even they had the sense to test the sheets for urine.

JMO

I used to believe they ran tests that were NOT made public. The sheets. The spoon.

But reading that nonsense by Carnes tells us that they didn't.


This case will NEVER, EVER be solved.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Have you dealt with wet sheets? There is usually a ring left even when they are dry.

No, I never deal with wet anything. I just throw my stuff away and buy new.

Just kidding.

I don't do my own laundry, though.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I hate to admit it (but as I've already admitted it in this forum, it won't hurt to do so again), but one hot day I had glass after glass after glass of iced tea. Then, I, who was then a grown woman of thirty, with NO bladder problems, did indeed, wet my bed.

The front of my pajamas were wet, but the sheets were perfectly dry, much to my husband's relief! LOL

I'm sure Judge Carnes would say NO ONE wet themselves in MY bed that night! But she would have been wrong. LOL

Just my own embarrassing experience.

OK. Score one for your experience. Score umpteen million for all the kids who leave a ring when they wet the bed.

I suspect it has to do with dilution.

[angelskye]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I hate to admit it

:no: Disgusting, and this thread is NOT about you and your bedwetting problems. :no:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I hate to admit it (but as I've already admitted it in this forum, it won't hurt to do so again), but one hot day I had glass after glass after glass of iced tea. Then, I, who was then a grown woman of thirty, with NO bladder problems, did indeed, wet my bed.

The front of my pajamas were wet, but the sheets were perfectly dry, much to my husband's relief! LOL

I'm sure Judge Carnes would say NO ONE wet themselves in MY bed that night! But she would have been wrong. LOL

Just my own embarrassing experience.


If Judge Carnes saw photos of your PJs taken 6 hours after the fact, you would have been home free. LOL

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I used to believe they ran tests that were NOT made public. The sheets. The spoon.

But reading that nonsense by Carnes tells us that they didn't.


This case will NEVER, EVER be solved.

No, I don't think it will ever be officially solved, either.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


No, I never deal with wet anything. I just throw my stuff away and buy new.

Just kidding.

I don't do my own laundry, though.

Didn't sound like it...

I'm guessing you don't have kids yet?

November 2000

crimeADM: Was JonBenet definitely wearing the red turtleneck at the Whites' party?
stevethomas: no, she was wearing the white top in which her body was eventually found the next day

jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/stchat.html

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Have you dealt with wet sheets? There is usually a ring left even when they are dry.

Wouldn't it depend how wet they were & also what type of & what color sheets.

Lots of times my kid wet the bed & never even woke up. The next morning the sheets wouldn't even look stained.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



If Judge Carnes saw photos of your PJs taken 6 hours after the fact, you would have been home free. LOL

LOL

Six hours? BPD is looking more and more inept.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Didn't sound like it...

I'm guessing you don't have kids yet?

November 2000

crimeADM: Was JonBenet definitely wearing the red turtleneck at the Whites' party?
stevethomas: no, she was wearing the white top in which her body was eventually found the next day

jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/stchat.html

I have three children.

Thanks for the link, but someone else already gave one to me.

I know JB was wearing the white shirt from the GAP now.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Wouldn't it depend how wet they were & also what type of & what color sheets.

Lots of times my kid wet the bed & never even woke up. The next morning the sheets wouldn't even look stained.

My experience (I had two who wet the bed for years) was if they had had a lot to drink then the urine was dilute and usually didn't stain. If they hadn't it did leave a stain. Sometimes just a ring.

November 2000

crimeADM: Was JonBenet definitely wearing the red turtleneck at the Whites' party?
stevethomas: no, she was wearing the white top in which her body was eventually found the next day

jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/stchat.html

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I have three children.

Thanks for the link, but someone else already gave one to me.

I know JB was wearing the white shirt from the GAP now.

Excellent. Now I can take that piece of toilet paper off my foot.

[angelskye]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar




crimeADM: Was JonBenet definitely wearing the red turtleneck at the Whites' party?
stevethomas: no, she was wearing the white top in which her body was eventually found the next day

jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/stchat.html

:lol: :lol: Absofreakinlutely ROLLING here..

[hohum]

Originally posted by Rippage
Confessions of a bedwetter: (lol) First off, lots of kids wet the bed.

MOO

Adults too. :lol:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


LOL

Six hours? BPD is looking more and more inept.

JMO

Well, let's assume she died before midnight (Patsy's theory) and the R's didn't wake up before 5:50 or so.

That's 6 hours right there.

I don't know WHEN the photographer arrived but I'm sure it took many hours & it was likely NOT before they found her body at 1:00.

I think it would be hard to tell with the printed sheets that were on JB's bed. Maybe a solid color.

Imagine getting so angry that police would have the audacity to theorize that a known bedwetter wet the bed. LOLOL


Anyhoo, I'll say goodnight & see you guys when the board is back up again.

[hohum]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Would you please support your assertions with a link?

You said you had the books, read or reread them, whichever the case. Re the affair, you have already confirmed my point so don't worry about that one. ;)

Are you aware there is a MacDonald board?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by thannahh


So if one person doesn't want to continue the "assignation" it's not called an affair? LOL, learned two new words tonight.

A minor correction: BOTH didn't want to continue with it. Neither MacDonald nor the woman.

I'm not going to look up the link right now, but it's in Fatal Vision and Fatal Justice both, and well as numerous articles.

http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/QandA.html

That link is very pro-MacDonald innocence, though. In fact, he uses it as his "official site."

This might be better:

http://www.handwriting.org/archives/97may_04.html

Freshwater actually posted how well things were going in the MacDonald household here:

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=269108

Still, I'll mark this:

JMO

[hohum]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


A minor correction: BOTH didn't want to continue with it. Neither MacDonald nor the woman.



And what part of that is not an affair?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by hohum


You said you had the books, read or reread them, whichever the case. Re the affair, you have already confirmed my point so don't worry about that one. ;)

Are you aware there is a MacDonald board?

No, not on the JBR case.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Well, let's assume she died before midnight (Patsy's theory) and the R's didn't wake up before 5:50 or so.

That's 6 hours right there.

I don't know WHEN the photographer arrived but I'm sure it took many hours & it was likely NOT before they found her body at 1:00.

I think it would be hard to tell with the printed sheets that were on JB's bed. Maybe a solid color.

Imagine getting so angry that police would have the audacity to theorize that a known bedwetter wet the bed. LOLOL


Anyhoo, I'll say goodnight & see you guys when the board is back up again.

Nothing wrong with theorizing. But you can't build a whole case on it. Especially when the mother is known to not be bothered by the bedwetting.

[angelskye]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


A minor correction:

Could you please stay on topic on THIS board, the RAMSEY board?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Well, let's assume she died before midnight (Patsy's theory) and the R's didn't wake up before 5:50 or so.

That's 6 hours right there.

I don't know WHEN the photographer arrived but I'm sure it took many hours & it was likely NOT before they found her body at 1:00.

I think it would be hard to tell with the printed sheets that were on JB's bed. Maybe a solid color.

Imagine getting so angry that police would have the audacity to theorize that a known bedwetter wet the bed. LOLOL


Anyhoo, I'll say goodnight & see you guys when the board is back up again.

I agree about the sheets.

Me, too. Leaving for now. My husband and "Frasier" are calling.

Hope you have a good holiday. :)

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by hohum


You said you had the books, read or reread them, whichever the case. Re the affair, you have already confirmed my point so don't worry about that one. ;)

Are you aware there is a MacDonald board?

Yes, I know there's a MacDonald board, but my posts were only made when people began comparing JR to Jeff MacDonald and the Ramsey case to the MacDonald case.

In fact, I'm one of the ones who brought it back to the topic of the Ramseys again in an earlier post. ;)

[krd]

I know there has been speculation that one of the Ramsey's committed the crime and the other went along with the coverup. Why? It goes against everything that one as a parent would normally do.

Yes, I have read stories of one one parent who abuses their child and the other parents does nothing to stop the abuse.

However, these parents have no history of abuse and yet that night one of them killed their child and convinced the other to cover it up?

I know there has been some parallels drawn to Jeffrey MacDonald (or even John List) since they commited murder of their children with no prior history, but both those men murdered their entire families, not one child and then convinced their wife to cover it up with them.

Those two issues (cover up and no history of abuse/violence) seem to truly point to someone not in the immediate family (I don't buy the Burke did it theory, either)

JMO...

[Louisadelmar]

I agree. But I'd like to point out that List had a history that came to light after the murders.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/list/1.html
"At one point, not long before she left, she had even told him that her father was going to kill her. He went to the house several times, and finally decided to get the police involved, but they were already on their way. "


RE MacDonald - I think it should be a crime to write a book about a true crime and present it as a non-fiction account when it is really the author's fictionalized account. At this oint I have no idea what is fact or fiction with him.

And don't let me get started on what I think Arthur Miller did to generations of school kid's belief about what happened at the Salem Witch Trials.

[EDDIEisMINE]

I don't think this is the situation with this family. They are not the kind of people that would take one of their children. At least I wouldn't think so. Those kind of people are usually like that lady who drowned her kids or the one who pushed her kids into a pond in the car. They have a "reason" at least they think a reason. There is no reason to take a life. I think as fluent as this family was, that they just had some kind of freak that had his eye on their baby and planned this out. I can't believe they can't solve this crime with DNA at the scene. The whole world should be forced to give DNA sample before getting a license to drive.

[SteelerFan]

Originally posted by EDDIEisMINE
I don't think this is the situation with this family. They are not the kind of people that would take one of their children. At least I wouldn't think so. Those kind of people are usually like that lady who drowned her kids or the one who pushed her kids into a pond in the car. They have a "reason" at least they think a reason. There is no reason to take a life. I think as fluent as this family was, that they just had some kind of freak that had his eye on their baby and planned this out. I can't believe they can't solve this crime with DNA at the scene. The whole world should be forced to give DNA sample before getting a license to drive.

What kind of people kill a child? Andrea Yates (mentally ill|) and Susan Smith are middle class women. What kind of reason do you think they thought they had? What was Susan Smith's motive. Affluent people can strike out and kill as easily as poor people. Watch your local news. Everyday people abuse, neglect and kill their children. They don't have a letter "A" tattoed on their foreheads, though it would be nice if they did.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by SteelerFan


What kind of people kill a child? Andrea Yates (mentally ill|) and Susan Smith are middle class women. What kind of reason do you think they thought they had? What was Susan Smith's motive. Affluent people can strike out and kill as easily as poor people. Watch your local news. Everyday people abuse, neglect and kill their children. They don't have a letter "A" tattoed on their foreheads, though it would be nice if they did.

Susan Smith was not your average, well adjusted young middle-class mother.

Statistics show that parents who kill/abuse their children:
Tend to be under-educated
Tend to be substance abusers
Tend to have marital problems
Tend to have psychological illnesses
Tend to have financial problems
Tend to be isolated from a support system.

[SteelerFan]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Susan Smith was not your average, well adjusted young middle-class mother.

Statistics show that parents who kill/abuse their children:
Tend to be under-educated
Tend to be substance abusers
Tend to have marital problems
Tend to have psychological illnesses
Tend to have financial problems
Tend to be isolated from a support system.

How does anyone here, as I have asked before on this board, know what went on in the Ramsey's home? How do we know what particular stresses, marital, psychological or financial they were dealing with? We know that Patsy had health issues - don't you think that is stressful? Wasn't JR taking anti-depressant's at the time of the murder? Why?

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by SteelerFan


How does anyone here, as I have asked before on this board, know what went on in the Ramsey's home? How do we know what particular stresses, marital, psychological or financial they were dealing with? We know that Patsy had health issues - don't you think that is stressful? Wasn't JR taking anti-depressant's at the time of the murder? Why?



I think the appearance of perfection was crucial in that house.

No, we don't know what goes on behind closed doors. No matter WHAT we would like to infer.

[krd]

Originally posted by kindeekat




I think the appearance of perfection was crucial in that house.

No, we don't know what goes on behind closed doors. No matter WHAT we would like to infer.

And the flip could be true, they might have had a wonderful relationship, family, etc...you can't infer that they had problems either.

Although, with the intense media spotlight and investigative reporting if something was extremely off in the family I think it would have come to light years ago.

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by krd


And the flip could be true, they might have had a wonderful relationship, family, etc...you can't infer that they had problems either.

Although, with the intense media spotlight and investigative reporting if something was extremely off in the family I think it would have come to light years ago.




People have gone to their graves closely guarding their secrets for time immemorial.

[beagle_lover]

Here is something that has occurred to me since this whole Karr thing popped up.

It makes a ton more sense to me that a freak crazy pedophile like this Karr guy (if not him) tortured and murdered a six year old than the parents who loved her and had no history of abuse, violence or any indication that she was anything but a very special, very loved little girl.


Everyone keeps pointing at the Ramseys and their 'weird' actions following the murder of Jon Benet, but the bottom line is the Bolder police targeted the parents immediately and stopped looking. John Ramsey realized immediately that Patsy and he were the sole focus of the BDP and therefore immediately stopped trusting the BPD. All of their actions including the hiring of attorneys point directly to the fact that not only had their precious child been violently murdered and a sick killer was on the loose, but that the police had no intention of looking for the killer. The BPD wanted so badly to put the blame on the parents they actually IGNORED evidence that pointed away from the parents and put forth FALSE evidence in the media in an attempt to implicate the parents.

A freak like John Michael Karr makes a whole lot more sense to me in the brutal, violent and sadistic murder of Jon Benet Ramsey. The parents who loved her and had NO history of violence or abuse towards her makes no sense at all, especially to believe one would cover for the other for over 10 years.

Since the DNA cleared Karr it obviously cleared the Ramseys years ago.

[kindeekat]

the DNA was likely an artifact and only cleared KARR because it was THE connection he claimed to the JonBenet murder.

It doesn't clear the Ramseys as it likely has NO connection to the crime.

I hope it does and they match it TODAY. THEN it would exclude the Ramseys.

But even Mary Lacy admitted there is every chance there may be NO nexus to the identity of the Real Killer.

Back to square one, NOT John Karr but also back to the possibility that the Ramseys were involved. Also per Mary Lacy.

[SteelerFan]

Originally posted by beagle_lover
Here is something that has occurred to me since this whole Karr thing popped up.

It makes a ton more sense to me that a freak crazy pedophile like this Karr guy (if not him) tortured and murdered a six year old than the parents who loved her and had no history of abuse, violence or any indication that she was anything but a very special, very loved little girl.


Everyone keeps pointing at the Ramseys and their 'weird' actions following the murder of Jon Benet, but the bottom line is the Bolder police targeted the parents immediately and stopped looking. John Ramsey realized immediately that Patsy and he were the sole focus of the BDP and therefore immediately stopped trusting the BPD. All of their actions including the hiring of attorneys point directly to the fact that not only had their precious child been violently murdered and a sick killer was on the loose, but that the police had no intention of looking for the killer. The BPD wanted so badly to put the blame on the parents they actually IGNORED evidence that pointed away from the parents and put forth FALSE evidence in the media in an attempt to implicate the parents.

A freak like John Michael Karr makes a whole lot more sense to me in the brutal, violent and sadistic murder of Jon Benet Ramsey. The parents who loved her and had NO history of violence or abuse towards her makes no sense at all, especially to believe one would cover for the other for over 10 years.

Since the DNA cleared Karr it obviously cleared the Ramseys years ago.


How do you know they stopped looking for someone else? As many things that they should have done differently when they first became involved, they have stated that they received and followed up on many tips that came in about this case. Even the BPD would have known to run parallel investigations. One for the family, one for others who may have been involved. It might make sense to you that a nut like JMK did this, but the evidence just isn't there to back that up. The Ramsey's nor anyone else has officially been cleared. There has been no conviction.

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by kindeekat
the DNA was likely an artifact and only cleared KARR because it was THE connection he claimed to the JonBenet murder.

It doesn't clear the Ramseys as it likely has NO connection to the crime.

I hope it does and they match it TODAY. THEN it would exclude the Ramseys.

But even Mary Lacy admitted there is every chance there may be NO nexus to the identity of the Real Killer.

Back to square one, NOT John Karr but also back to the possibility that the Ramseys were involved. Also per Mary Lacy.

Mary Lacy said very clearly they are no suspects regarding this case.

They are hoping for new tips when the 10th anniversary comes.

IMO

Ocean

[krd]

Originally posted by kindeekat
the DNA was likely an artifact and only cleared KARR because it was THE connection he claimed to the JonBenet murder.

It doesn't clear the Ramseys as it likely has NO connection to the crime.

I hope it does and they match it TODAY. THEN it would exclude the Ramseys.

But even Mary Lacy admitted there is every chance there may be NO nexus to the identity of the Real Killer.

Back to square one, NOT John Karr but also back to the possibility that the Ramseys were involved. Also per Mary Lacy.

Just a question how can you be so sure that the DNA in the underwear is not connected to the crime? And if it isn't, how did it get there?

[SteelerFan]

Originally posted by krd


And the flip could be true, they might have had a wonderful relationship, family, etc...you can't infer that they had problems either.

Although, with the intense media spotlight and investigative reporting if something was extremely off in the family I think it would have come to light years ago.

Who would have shared family secrets? JB was gone. It would not have benefitted Burke to tell. And JR and PR, to keep up those important appearances, would NEVER have let anything negative out. No, too many people had too much at stake to talk if there was any dirt.

[msgatorslayer]

I've been 100% convinced that Darlie Routier killed both her young Son's by stabbing them with a kitchen knife. Many, many, people think that her Husband, Darin, was either involved as well or helped cover up. I don't see any evidence to think that. Either did the DA, cause only Darlie sits on DR.

Husband's and Wive's do things behind each other's backs often. They have affairs, hide things from one another, some kill the other. Why is it so hard to believe that one parent could kill their child without the other parent's help, knowledge, or cover up?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by kindeekat


People have gone to their graves closely guarding their secrets for time immemorial.

Even kids.

And no, I'm not blaming Burke, I'm simply pointing out that kids have an amazing ability to NOT talk about something if they think they or someone they love might get into trouble.


And I agree completely that "appearances" were of very great importance in that family.

And we know that John Ramsey was wrapped up in his work & Patsy was wrapped up in the pageants with JB and the other women in her life.

Before JB was old enough for the pageant mania, Patsy's focus was centered on Burke.


That's NOT a perfect 'Leave It To Beaver' type family, imo.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by krd
I know there has been speculation that one of the Ramsey's committed the crime and the other went along with the coverup. Why? It goes against everything that one as a parent would normally do.

Yes, I have read stories of one one parent who abuses their child and the other parents does nothing to stop the abuse.

However, these parents have no history of abuse and yet that night one of them killed their child and convinced the other to cover it up?

I know there has been some parallels drawn to Jeffrey MacDonald (or even John List) since they commited murder of their children with no prior history, but both those men murdered their entire families, not one child and then convinced their wife to cover it up with them.

Those two issues (cover up and no history of abuse/violence) seem to truly point to someone not in the immediate family (I don't buy the Burke did it theory, either)

JMO...

I think IF GUILTY, John may have covered for Patsy because he felt bad for her and her fight with cancer and he did truly love her. And, I don't think he'd want to take Burke's mother away, providing the death of JB was accidental.

If John did it, I can see Patsy covering for him to maintain the status quo, to keep the money coming in. Patsy did what Patsy had to do, IMO.

I can see either parent covering for the other if the other didn't find out about what happened until he or she felt he or she was in too deep to get out.

Pure speculation on my part, of course.

JMO

[beagle_lover]

Originally posted by SteelerFan



How do you know they stopped looking for someone else? As many things that they should have done differently when they first became involved, they have stated that they received and followed up on many tips that came in about this case. Even the BPD would have known to run parallel investigations. One for the family, one for others who may have been involved. It might make sense to you that a nut like JMK did this, but the evidence just isn't there to back that up. The Ramsey's nor anyone else has officially been cleared. There has been no conviction.

The evidence isn't there to back up that the parents did it except that they were in the house. Or is there evidence somewhere that I've missed?

And it's one thing to follow up on tips, quite another to run a serious investigation into another direction. From everything I've heard and read (and I admit I'm no expert) the BPD worked under the premise that the parents were responsible because they couldn't find evidence of an intruder, when it turns out there was evidence of an intruder, they chose to ignore and deem unimportant.

What evidence points to the parents being responsible besides the fact they were in the house?

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by krd


Just a question how can you be so sure that the DNA in the underwear is not connected to the crime? And if it isn't, how did it get there?




Henry Lee says 9 of 10 pairs of underwear out of the package contain "unknown DNA".

I am NOT sure the DNA isn't connected, but I'm more and more convinced it's an artifact. It was on the size 12 Bloomies before this incident jmo---but I really do hope it is matched to the perp.
And the story of how it got there can be supported, unlike Karr's claim.

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by msgatorslayer
I've been 100% convinced that Darlie Routier killed both her young Son's by stabbing them with a kitchen knife. Many, many, people think that her Husband, Darin, was either involved as well or helped cover up. I don't see any evidence to think that. Either did the DA, cause only Darlie sits on DR.

Husband's and Wive's do things behind each other's backs often. They have affairs, hide things from one another, some kill the other. Why is it so hard to believe that one parent could kill their child without the other parent's help, knowledge, or cover up?



Since we don't KNOW what happened your scenario is a possibility.

I hadn't considered the Routier comparison but it's a good one!

[krd]

Originally posted by msgatorslayer
I've been 100% convinced that Darlie Routier killed both her young Son's by stabbing them with a kitchen knife. Many, many, people think that her Husband, Darin, was either involved as well or helped cover up. I don't see any evidence to think that. Either did the DA, cause only Darlie sits on DR.

Husband's and Wive's do things behind each other's backs often. They have affairs, hide things from one another, some kill the other. Why is it so hard to believe that one parent could kill their child without the other parent's help, knowledge, or cover up?

I had forgotten about that case. What I can remember is it's similar to the Ramsey case. Parents claimed intruder, LE thought otherwise (except in this case there was a conviction) and some conflicting evidence. People thought the parents didn't act like grieving parents (i.e. celebrating child's birthday at his gravesite and spraying silly string).

Off to go read some more...

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by kindeekat




I think the appearance of perfection was crucial in that house.

No, we don't know what goes on behind closed doors. No matter WHAT we would like to infer.

It all goes back to that old saying: "When things seem too good to be true, they usually are."

I don't know that the Ramseys had any family problems, but on the other hand the Ramsey supporters don't know that they didn't. Most people do, is all I can say. I'm sure their life wasn't a fairy tale. It's not even a life that I would have wanted.

JMO

[SteelerFan]

Originally posted by beagle_lover


The evidence isn't there to back up that the parents did it except that they were in the house. Or is there evidence somewhere that I've missed?

And it's one thing to follow up on tips, quite another to run a serious investigation into another direction. From everything I've heard and read (and I admit I'm no expert) the BPD worked under the premise that the parents were responsible because they couldn't find evidence of an intruder, when it turns out there was evidence of an intruder, they chose to ignore and deem unimportant.

What evidence points to the parents being responsible besides the fact they were in the house?

Them being in the house IS evidence. And, the intruder theory has been speculated about by the pro-Ramsey people, but cannot be agreed upon. So, if it's there, why can't it be shown for us all to see and end the discussion?

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


It all goes back to that old saying: "When things seem too good to be true, they usually are."

I don't know that the Ramseys had any family problems, but on the other hand the Ramsey supporters don't know that they didn't. Most people do, is all I can say. I'm sure their life wasn't a fairy tale. It's not even a life that I would have wanted.

JMO



Correct. I'm not saying the Ramseys are guilty by a long shot.

But I think it would be imprudent and short-sighted to believe they have been ELIMINATED 100% (together or separately) for the crime. Evidence to the contrary has NOT been forthcoming despite the recent excitement...

[krd]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


It all goes back to that old saying: "When things seem too good to be true, they usually are."

I don't know that the Ramseys had any family problems, but on the other hand the Ramsey supporters don't know that they didn't. Most people do, is all I can say. I'm sure their life wasn't a fairy tale. It's not even a life that I would have wanted.

JMO

Yes, I agree but its strange to me that people are so quick to believe that they couldn't have been a normal happy family. My husband and I disagree and argue but we have a pretty good marriage, we are happy, we have wonderful children, a pretty nice life...I would hate to think people would second guess our life b/c our child was murdered and look back and say it was too good to be true.

[bullmoose]

To beagle lover: You have stated the case very much as I see it. Especially about the cops; cops lie, just like any criminal, when it suits their purpose. I have personal experiance of cops who deliberately lie and perjure themselves to strengthen a case they are sure they know the solution to. bullmoose

[beagle_lover]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Even kids.

And no, I'm not blaming Burke, I'm simply pointing out that kids have an amazing ability to NOT talk about something if they think they or someone they love might get into trouble.


And I agree completely that "appearances" were of very great importance in that family.

And we know that John Ramsey was wrapped up in his work & Patsy was wrapped up in the pageants with JB and the other women in her life.

Before JB was old enough for the pageant mania, Patsy's focus was centered on Burke.


That's NOT a perfect 'Leave It To Beaver' type family, imo.

Who the hell has a perfect "Leave It to Beaver" type family? NO ONE!!!! But being wrapped up in 'appearances' to garrotting, abusing and killing your 6 year old daughter is a long stretch.

Is there ANY evidence of abuse in that family? ANY????? They've been under a microscope for 10 years and no one can find one instance of abuse except for the false rumors put out by the BDP.

Patsy 'accidently' strangled her 6 yo and John covered up for her for 10 years because he felt 'sorry' for her????

Or John sexually molested Jon Benet and accidently killed her and Patsy covered up for him for 10 years because she wanted to 'keep up appearances'?

That is true sociopathic behavior and is there any indication at all that either of these people have ever exhibited such symptoms?

But as we can tell after looking under the rock Karr crawled out from under, there are real freaks in this world who fantasize sexually about 6 year olds and don't really hide themselves all that well if you care to take a close look.

My money is on a John Karr freak type, not the Ramseys. JMHO

[Lynn Gweeny]

Originally posted by kindeekat





Henry Lee says 9 of 10 pairs of underwear out of the package contain "unknown DNA".

I am NOT sure the DNA isn't connected, but I'm more and more convinced it's an artifact. It was on the size 12 Bloomies before this incident jmo---but I really do hope it is matched to the perp.
And the story of how it got there can be supported, unlike Karr's claim.

According to the Boulder D.A. in her press conference:

"The DNA could be an artifact," she said. "It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else".

That last sentence is confusing, to me anyway, since she had previously mentioned "artifact" suggesting the possibility then that the DNA just might not be DNA?

What do some of you other posters gleen from that statement? TIA It just seems to me that on the one hand she says it's DNA, but then says what they maybe thought was DNA is actually artifact. It's just not clear to me WHAT she was trying to say.

Here's the article where the statement came from: (scroll down about 3/4 of the way)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4955521,00.html

[abby15]

Originally posted by EDDIEisMINE
The whole world should be forced to give DNA sample before getting a license to drive.

Are you serious?
What about those that don't drive? Let them just go around commiting crimes?
You go first, give up your rights. Maybe some others will follow.

[kindeekat]

yeah. I'm not sure SHE knew what she was saying especially in the heat of the moment.

Thanks Lynnie.


and "...there's a probability..." it's the killers? I wonder what "probability" she is talking about? I'd like some percentages here, actually. What is she basing
THAT on? Numbers please! A statistical analysis! "Probability" is a pretty big word in this situation jmo...

[krd]

Originally posted by kindeekat





Henry Lee says 9 of 10 pairs of underwear out of the package contain "unknown DNA".

I am NOT sure the DNA isn't connected, but I'm more and more convinced it's an artifact. It was on the size 12 Bloomies before this incident jmo---but I really do hope it is matched to the perp.
And the story of how it got there can be supported, unlike Karr's claim.

I made this point on another thread...how many white males are working at an underwear factory? I have to imagine all almost underwear is manufactured and package in SE Asia, seems unlikely...JMO.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by kindeekat




Correct. I'm not saying the Ramseys are guilty by a long shot.

But I think it would be imprudent and short-sighted to believe they have been ELIMINATED 100% (together or separately) for the crime. Evidence to the contrary has NOT been forthcoming despite the recent excitement...

This case keeps reminding me of something Vincent Bugliosi said: That a lack of evidence IS evidence (paraphrased).

In this case, I don't see ANY evidence of an intruder.

The murder weapons came from inside the home.

The paper and pen to write the ransom note came from inside the home.

The pineapple (if it was, indeed, pineapple) probably came from inside the home.

Most of the identifiable fibers came from inside the home.

There is a lack of foreign fibers.

There is a lack of foreign footprints and fingerprints.

There is no evidence of forced entry.

Just the fact that the note was left on the back stairs leads me to Patsy Ramsey. How would a pedophile KNOW she always used those stairs? The logical place to leave a note would have been on JB's bed or on the kitchen counter or even the front stairs. Actually, a pedophile wouldn't have left a note at all.

I'm not saying the Ramseys are guilty, but like you, I think it would be unwise to exclude them as suspects.

JMO

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by krd


I made this point on another thread...how many white males are working at an underwear factory? I have to imagine all almost underwear is manufactured and package in SE Asia, seems unlikely...JMO.


Was Bloomingdales having their $10 panties made in SE Asia 10 years ago?

Who knows how the sample got on there? Maybe it WAS the Real Killer. Maybe it got on the underwear in a totally innocent manner.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Lynn Gweeny


According to the Boulder D.A. in her press conference:

"The DNA could be an artifact," she said. "It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else".

That last sentence is confusing, to me anyway, since she had previously mentioned "artifact" suggesting the possibility then that the DNA just might not be DNA?

What do some of you other posters gleen from that statement? TIA It just seems to me that on the one hand she says it's DNA, but then says what they maybe thought was DNA is actually artifact. It's just not clear to me WHAT she was trying to say.

Here's the article where the statement came from: (scroll down about 3/4 of the way)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4955521,00.html

It seems to mean an unknown source.


Here's an interesting article about 'dna artifacts':

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/revolution/databases.html

[reprise]

Originally posted by Lynn Gweeny


According to the Boulder D.A. in her press conference:

"The DNA could be an artifact," she said. "It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else".

That last sentence is confusing, to me anyway, since she had previously mentioned "artifact" suggesting the possibility then that the DNA just might not be DNA?

What do some of you other posters gleen from that statement? TIA It just seems to me that on the one hand she says it's DNA, but then says what they maybe thought was DNA is actually artifact. It's just not clear to me WHAT she was trying to say.

Here's the article where the statement came from: (scroll down about 3/4 of the way)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4955521,00.html

What I get from her statement isn't that
"the DNA mightn't be DNA", but that it might be totally unrelated to the crime.

It's almost certain that some of what we currently regard as "evidence" in this case will ultimately prove to have no relevance to the crime. The DNA could be a red herring and it's extremely wise for law enforcement to recognise that.

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


It seems to mean an unknown source.


Here's an interesting article about 'dna artifacts':

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/revolution/databases.html


WHOA that ROCKS! :beer:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by kindeekat


Was Bloomingdales having their $10 panties made in SE Asia 10 years ago?

Who knows how the sample got on there? Maybe it WAS the Real Killer. Maybe it got on the underwear in a totally innocent manner.


I wonder if scientists have ever done a study on how much foreign dna & forensics might be found on the average body under normal situations?

Dog, cat hairs? Skin under fingernails? All sorts of things that people can pick up & transfer to different parts of their body in a normal day.

[cantstandnuts]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


(snip for relevance)


That's NOT a perfect 'Leave It To Beaver' type family, imo.

I didn't know those types of families existed. It wouldn't be fair to hold the Ramseys to a standard that nobody else on the planet can attain.

[reprise]

Originally posted by abby15


Are you serious?
What about those that don't drive? Let them just go around commiting crimes?
You go first, give up your rights. Maybe some others will follow.

Here, at least, a DNA sample does exist for most people who were born in the last 30 years - it's just not available to law enforcement agencies.

The samples taken here for routine neonatal screening for PKU and other genetic disorders are kept for a very long time. I'm aware of only one time when law enforcement has been allowed to access those samples for comparison purposes and that was a few years ago when permission was given to conclusively identify a shark attack victim using DNA extracted from his PKU screen for comparison.

[Lynn Gweeny]

THANKS to LI_Mom and reprise for the responses so far. When the D.A. said it at the time, I didn't pay it any mind, until I read it in the article and that's when I was like :confused:

So, DOES the D.A. have DNA that can and will be used eventually to find JonBenet's killer or NOT?

[docg]

Everyone has been programmed to think of this case as intruder vs. "the Ramseys." I don't buy the intruder theory. I was willing to admit that maybe Karr could be "the one." But as soon as you try to imagine what his answers to certain very basic questions might be, you realize how difficult it would be for ANYONE to answer such questions. There is no evidence of an intruder nor is there any logical basis for any intruder theory anyone has ever been able to come up with.

So, what could be the answer here? Well, folks, there is one very simple answer no one EVER wants to consider. Why? Because they've been programmed to look in every other direction.

If JonBenet had been killed either accidently or on purpose by either parent, there is no reason to believe the other would go along with any sort of coverup.

But if one parent was responsible, and never told ANYONE, then the other parent would be just as much in the dark as everyone else. Why is it so hard for all the many people so puzzled by this case to even consider that very logical possibility? A little help here, please?????

[abby15]

Originally posted by reprise


Here, at least, a DNA sample does exist for most people who were born in the last 30 years - it's just not available to law enforcement agencies.

The samples taken here for routine neonatal screening for PKU and other genetic disorders are kept for a very long time. I'm aware of only one time when law enforcement has been allowed to access those samples for comparison purposes and that was a few years ago when permission was given to conclusively identify a shark attack victim using DNA extracted from his PKU screen for comparison.


Where are you?

Sounds similar to the fingerprints taken in some states for driver's licenses. First time I had to do it I questioned why & exactly who had access to it.

I just think taking DNA in this way is too random. Either all or nobody.

[jerzeegirl]

Originally posted by docg
Everyone has been programmed to think of this case as intruder vs. "the Ramseys." I don't buy the intruder theory. I was willing to admit that maybe Karr could be "the one." But as soon as you try to imagine what his answers to certain very basic questions might be, you realize how difficult it would be for ANYONE to answer such questions. There is no evidence of an intruder nor is there any logical basis for any intruder theory anyone has ever been able to come up with.

So, what could be the answer here? Well, folks, there is one very simple answer no one EVER wants to consider. Why? Because they've been programmed to look in every other direction.

If JonBenet had been killed either accidently or on purpose by either parent, there is no reason to believe the other would go along with any sort of coverup.

But if one parent was responsible, and never told ANYONE, then the other parent would be just as much in the dark as everyone else. Why is it so hard for all the many people so puzzled by this case to even consider that very logical possibility? A little help here, please?????

i have suggested this before, because JR had taken something to help him sleep that night, very big house, noone heard anything but maybe a neighbor did.

[msgatorslayer]

Originally posted by kindeekat




Since we don't KNOW what happened your scenario is a possibility.

I hadn't considered the Routier comparison but it's a good one!

Oh, I agree, Kindee. I was just saying more or less that I believe one parent could kill a child without the others help, knowledge, or cover up afterwards.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Lynn Gweeny
THANKS to LI_Mom and reprise for the responses so far. When the D.A. said it at the time, I didn't pay it any mind, until I read it in the article and that's when I was like :confused:

So, DOES the D.A. have DNA that can and will be used eventually to find JonBenet's killer or NOT?

Just before Karr's scheduled hearing last week, his lawyer filed for access to all of the information regarding the DNA evidence.

A lawyer for JonBenet Ramsey murder suspect John Mark Karr demanded that the state turn over all evidence related to DNA in the 1996 case Monday, just a few hours ahead of Karr’s first Colorado court appearance.

Among other things, Seth Temin’s court filing asked for a clear description of any biological evidence, including how much is left and how it is being stored.

“Eventually in this case, a court will have to analyze the admissibility of DNA evidence and its alleged statistical results,” the public defender wrote. “It appears that more than one laboratory handled or had custody of samples subjected to testing in this case and more than one expert has evaluated the samples and testing results.”

AP (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=5992447b-b149-471d-bcd0-e16e0956b059)

As the state didn't proceed, all we know for sure that they have is the numbers they submitted to CODIS - which represents a DNA profile of someone who may or may not be connected to the crime.

I can't find any credible references to any other DNA evidence which might prove useful in solving the crime.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


It all goes back to that old saying: "When things seem too good to be true, they usually are."

I don't know that the Ramseys had any family problems, but on the other hand the Ramsey supporters don't know that they didn't. Most people do, is all I can say. I'm sure their life wasn't a fairy tale. It's not even a life that I would have wanted.

JMO

You mean like cancer and a child killed in a car crash?

[reprise]

Originally posted by abby15



Where are you?

Sounds similar to the fingerprints taken in some states for driver's licenses. First time I had to do it I questioned why & exactly who had access to it.

I just think taking DNA in this way is too random. Either all or nobody.

Sydney.

My eldest child is almost 30 and PKU screening was a routine test at the time he was born.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Lynn Gweeny
THANKS to LI_Mom and reprise for the responses so far. When the D.A. said it at the time, I didn't pay it any mind, until I read it in the article and that's when I was like :confused:

So, DOES the D.A. have DNA that can and will be used eventually to find JonBenet's killer or NOT?

Another sense in which the evidence is not "fixed" is that forensic science improves all the time.

It might be possible in 5 years to extract information from the crime scene evidence which we can't extract now. Although no-one can go back and collect new evidence, the evidence which was collected may yield new information for many years to come.

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I think IF GUILTY, John may have covered for Patsy because he felt bad for her and her fight with cancer and he did truly love her. And, I don't think he'd want to take Burke's mother away, providing the death of JB was accidental.

If John did it, I can see Patsy covering for him to maintain the status quo, to keep the money coming in. Patsy did what Patsy had to do, IMO.

I can see either parent covering for the other if the other didn't find out about what happened until he or she felt he or she was in too deep to get out.

Pure speculation on my part, of course.

JMO

Hi sunsplashed,

but the problem with that theory IMO of course is this:

there is no evidence of a previous injury before the massive head wound and strangulation.....in other words, a rage on the spot....which would have occurred in her room, the hall, their room, anywhere but the basement.

no evidence of a struggle or rage anywhere in the home indicating that JBR was 'accidently' seriously injured or dying and then a bogus crime scene created to divert.

there was no struggle around her body, or evidence she was thrown down the stairs and sustained an accidental injury...which brought her close to death or was in fact dead....which then gave way to 'creating a crime scene'......horrendous methods to formulate....and time to pause and think: hmm...something sinister will be plausible...

PR WAS immersed in her pageant activities....this was a winner child.....and if she was going to punish her or a rage occurred...I truly believe she would never ever cause an injury that would be noticeable to interfere with her winner status.

I cannot subscribe to the theory that one or both parents, violated their daughter in this matter 'for appearances'.

there is no evidence of a life threatening injury sustained prior to the head bashing, strangulation and sexual intrusion.

best regards,
Pru

[Paisley]

Originally posted by SteelerFan


What kind of people kill a child? Andrea Yates (mentally ill|) and Susan Smith are middle class women. What kind of reason do you think they thought they had? What was Susan Smith's motive. Affluent people can strike out and kill as easily as poor people. Watch your local news. Everyday people abuse, neglect and kill their children. They don't have a letter "A" tattoed on their foreheads, though it would be nice if they did.

Susan Smith's motive is that her children were in the way of her life. A boyfriend had just broken up with her and she blamed it on her kids. He was a rich boy in a small town and she resented her kids for ruining it for her.

Andrea Yates was determined to be insane.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


This case keeps reminding me of something Vincent Bugliosi said: That a lack of evidence IS evidence (paraphrased).

In this case, I don't see ANY evidence of an intruder.

The murder weapons came from inside the home.

The paper and pen to write the ransom note came from inside the home.

The pineapple (if it was, indeed, pineapple) probably came from inside the home.

Most of the identifiable fibers came from inside the home.

There is a lack of foreign fibers.

There is a lack of foreign footprints and fingerprints.

There is no evidence of forced entry.

Just the fact that the note was left on the back stairs leads me to Patsy Ramsey. How would a pedophile KNOW she always used those stairs? The logical place to leave a note would have been on JB's bed or on the kitchen counter or even the front stairs. Actually, a pedophile wouldn't have left a note at all.

I'm not saying the Ramseys are guilty, but like you, I think it would be unwise to exclude them as suspects.

JMO

Another oddity is the fact that when the ransom note was first found, Patsy did not pick it up to read it; she bent over and read it as if she did not want to touch it. She did not read the entire note before she panicked and screamed for John. She did not read the entire note (if at all) until after the 911 call was made. How did she know, then to tell the operater that it was signed S.B.T.C. Victory when asked if it was signed? Surely in her panic it would not be that easy to remember those initials. Again, I emphisize that she was NOT holding the note in her hand when she made the call. Also, John read the note in full with it spread out on the floor instead of in his hands, which I found strange also. If he was trying to not mess up any existing fingerprints on it...fine but that is not consistant with allowing a bunch of people in your home to trash a crime scene. Patsy wouldn't have thought about fingerprints because she (allegedly) didn't know what it was that she was reading at first.
Someone please tell me why you would not pick a piece of paper up off the floor to read it but would awkwardly hunch over it to read instead?? :confused:

[aproudmom]

Originally posted by EDDIEisMINE
It is rediculous and sad that the Boulder Police department wasted so much time on people that loved and cared for their daughter while a no good for nothing murderer continuted to enjoy his life and STILL people won't take the truth that this man killed Jon Benet. They STILL think her mother or father did it. Those people must of had bad parents but they need to realize that not all people have bad parents. Jon Benets mom n dad included. Their lives were ruined and still, even in Patsys death, continues to be called a killer.:(


I totally agree and here is a link to the Lead Detective Steve Thomas it really shows he was not willing to look into other people and that he told alot of lies.....

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm


here is a depostition Patsy Did in 2001 i think

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

[aproudmom]

I have done alot of reading and I found a few things that answered some of my questions.
I only hope that people are not judging the Ramsey's before you look at legal documents and
some of the shady work done by the Lead Det. at the time of the murder. They never treated the home like a crime scene so I think they messed this up right from the begining.JMO

It will take alot of reading but I think you may see why this case has not been solved. and that is JMO
if you look you can find out fact and not opinions

Dirty EX Detective

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm


I feel Patsy's attorney did not allow her to answer questions that only made her look guilty..JMO

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

[hohum]

Originally posted by cantstandnuts


I didn't know those types of families existed. It wouldn't be fair to hold the Ramseys to a standard that nobody else on the planet can attain.

Well said.

[kindeekat]

Unspeakable acts go on behind the most respectable doors and always have.


To say "The Ramseys just wouldn't do this type of thing" is fine but to suggest it's not POSSIBLE for them to have been involved in JonBenet's death is an opinion and not a fact at this point, jmo.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Another oddity is the fact that when the ransom note was first found, Patsy did not pick it up to read it; she bent over and read it as if she did not want to touch it. She did not read the entire note before she panicked and screamed for John. She did not read the entire note (if at all) until after the 911 call was made. How did she know, then to tell the operater that it was signed S.B.T.C. Victory when asked if it was signed? Surely in her panic it would not be that easy to remember those initials. Again, I emphisize that she was NOT holding the note in her hand when she made the call. Also, John read the note in full with it spread out on the floor instead of in his hands, which I found strange also. If he was trying to not mess up any existing fingerprints on it...fine but that is not consistant with allowing a bunch of people in your home to trash a crime scene. Patsy wouldn't have thought about fingerprints because she (allegedly) didn't know what it was that she was reading at first.
Someone please tell me why you would not pick a piece of paper up off the floor to read it but would awkwardly hunch over it to read instead?? :confused:

I tried to make the same point over the weekend with some people. It just doesn't make sense.

According to the autopsy report, JB was found with her hair brushed and in ponytails, like she normally wore it for bed. However, in her April 30, 1997 interview with the BPD, Patsy says ALL she did was remove JB's velvet jeans and put on the long underwear.

I do not know how JB wore her hair to the White's Christmas party, but I have a hard time believing Patsy would let her go with her hair brushed in the style she wore for bed.

There's too much that tells me JB was definitely awake after coming home. And if she was, then Patsy and John are lying.

JMO

[kindeekat]

THAT is not evidence----PATSY was not the mother of the other Ramsey kids (except for Burke).

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I tried to make the same point over the weekend with some people. It just doesn't make sense.

According to the autopsy report, JB was found with her hair brushed and in ponytails, like she normally wore it for bed. However, in her April 30, 1997 interview with the BPD, Patsy says ALL she did was remove JB's velvet jeans and put on the long underwear.

I do not know how JB wore her hair to the White's Christmas party, but I have a hard time believing Patsy would let her go with her hair brushed in the style she wore for bed.

There's too much that tells me JB was definitely awake after coming home. And if she was, then Patsy and John are lying.

JMO

Maybe Patsy was referring to clothing changes only in that statement, and not JB's hair.

Maybe Patsy put JB's hair in pony tails, while in the car, driving home from the White's.

IMO

[kindeekat]

Still not evidence.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Maybe Patsy was referring to clothing changes only in that statement, and not JB's hair.

Maybe Patsy put JB's hair in pony tails, while in the car, driving home from the White's.

IMO

When she was sleeping in the back seat and Patsy was in the front?

Patsy denies ever having seen the particular hair ties JB was wearing when she was found murdered, but they did belong to her.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by kindeekat
Still not evidence.

No, it's not evidence. It might indicate "no history of abuse," but then Jeffrey MacDonald, who was convicted of savagely killing his two young daughters and pregnant wife had no history of abuse, either. He was highly regarded and well thought of as a husband, father, Green Beret, and doctor.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by kindeekat
THAT is not evidence----PATSY was not the mother of the other Ramsey kids (except for Burke).

If Patsy had killed JB in a rage, as ST suggests, the blow to her head would have been struck first. However, that was not the case, as the ME stated JB died of ashyxiation during strangulation with the garrotte.

To believe the Ramseys did this, is to believe the garrotte was used first, then as JB lie dying, she was struck with great force to her head, followed by the blow to her head, which bled slightly since it was delivered during perimortem.

To me, it seems more logical that a pedophile, who was into bondage and EA, did this, and became enraged that he had tightened the garrotte too much, spoiling his pleasure, and struck the already dying child in the head.

IMO

[kindeekat]

That's fine.

And I know there are things parents do to their children---doctors, lawyers and politicians---that people NEVER know or suspect is happening behind closed doors.

I see NO evidence of a pedophile but I don't call you names if you do see it that way.

Vive la difference.

:patriot:


did you see this discussion of the garrotte and wrist ties?

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...read.php?t=6751

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

The first time John picked Patsy up for a date he had three year old John Andrew in the car with him.

Christmas morning 1996 John Andrew and Melinda were in Boulder and had Christmas with the family.

They questioned John Andrew, Melinda and Burke extensively. Nothing found re: abuse

John Andrew and Melinda were flying to meet John, Patsy & the kids to continue their holiday with them on a Disney trip. Think they would have done that if Patsy or John were abusive.

Lucinda, John's first wife, came out in defense of Patsy and said that she was always good to the children.

After JonBenet was killed police went to Chicago to question friends of John's daughter Beth to see if they can find any inappropriate behavior between John & Beth. No found.

John Andrew and Melinda both had rooms at the Ramseys' Boulder home.

No evidence - this is when common sense comes into play.

JMO I think it is very apparent by Lucinda coming to Patsy and Johns defense...there was no abuse in any form by them throughout all those years....if there had ever been a hint of it..it would have been broadcast to the world..........does anyone know exactly why John and his first wife divorced? I can't recall ever reading anything about it!

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


If Patsy had killed JB in a rage, as ST suggests, the blow to her head would have been struck first. However, that was not the case, as the ME stated JB died of ashyxiation during strangulation with the garrotte.

To believe the Ramseys did this, is to believe the garrotte was used first, then as JB lie dying, she was struck with great force to her head, followed by the blow to her head, which bled slightly since it was delivered during perimortem.

To me, it seems more logical that a pedophile, who was into bondage and EA, did this, and became enraged that he had tightened the garrotte too much, spoiling his pleasure, and struck the already dying child in the head.

IMO

I do not believe the "garotte" was used first. And, a link has been provided to show that it was not, indeed, a "garotte."

I've even provided links that show the ME, himself, has said he's not sure which wound came first. Only that JB was alive when both wounds were inflicted.

I honestly don't think the posters on this board know more than the ME who examined the body of JBR. I don't. That's why I take his word, and the word of other experts, that no one can determine, with certainty, which wound came first.

JMO

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I do not believe the "garotte" was used first. And, a link has been provided to show that it was not, indeed, a "garotte."

I've even provided links that show the ME, himself, has said he's not sure which wound came first. Only that JB was alive when both wounds were inflicted.

I honestly don't think the posters on this board know more than the ME who examined the body of JBR. I don't. That's why I take his word, and the word of other experts, that no one can determine, with certainty, which wound came first.

JMO

The ME has stated that JonBenet died of asphyxiation, followed by the severe blow to her head, which bled minimally because the blow was delivered during perimortem.

IMO

[Paisley]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


If Patsy had killed JB in a rage, as ST suggests, the blow to her head would have been struck first. However, that was not the case, as the ME stated JB died of ashyxiation during strangulation with the garrotte.

To believe the Ramseys did this, is to believe the garrotte was used first, then as JB lie dying, she was struck with great force to her head, followed by the blow to her head, which bled slightly since it was delivered during perimortem.

To me, it seems more logical that a pedophile, who was into bondage and EA, did this, and became enraged that he had tightened the garrotte too much, spoiling his pleasure, and struck the already dying child in the head.

IMO You're exactly right. The time for the victim that is most dangerous is when the molester becomes enraged because he is not "getting off". (repeating myself, I know) He was not able achieve orgasm throughout the ordeal (sorry to be so blunt but rapists are often impotent), blamed her, and killed her in his rage.

This crime screams pedophile, and any argument I've seen to dispute it has been very weak at best.

[Paisley]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I don't know what "caused" the divorce, but John had an affair when he was married to Lucinda. I have read that he said the affair was the worst thing he ever did.

Also, Lucinda is more than a lady. When reporters tried to get her to discuss the case and asked her for the name of the woman, she said she didn't remember. My ex had an affair too, he's no killer either.

[paperbackreader]

Originally posted by Paisley
You're exactly right. The time for the victim that is most dangerous is when the molester becomes enraged because he is not "getting off". (repeating myself, I know) He was not able achieve orgasm throughout the ordeal (sorry to be so blunt but rapists are often impotent), blamed her, and killed her in his rage.

This crime screams pedophile, and any argument I've seen to dispute it has been very weak at best.

This document by the government really expanded my own perspective on pedophiles and crime. Warning: It's lengthy!

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

[samsong]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


No, it's not evidence. It might indicate "no history of abuse," but then Jeffrey MacDonald, who was convicted of savagely killing his two young daughters and pregnant wife had no history of abuse, either. He was highly regarded and well thought of as a husband, father, Green Beret, and doctor.

Exactly. It was the same way with OJ Simpson. His children and other family members swore nothing had happened and they were on his side. Family members have their own reasons for not telling the truth about incidents that happen within the family.

[kindeekat]

Scott Peterson had no history of abuse, just "the affairs". His family (parents, anyway) sure did explain away ANY suspicious behavior he displayed (and continue to do so).

John List had NO history of abuse nor affairs.

Susan Smith wasn't a previous child abuser.

Darlie Routier had no history, either.

[samsong]

Originally posted by kindeekat
Scott Peterson had no history of abuse, just "the affairs". His family (parents, anyway) sure did explain away ANY suspicious behavior he displayed (and continue to do so).

John List had NO history of abuse nor affairs.

Susan Smith wasn't a previous child abuser.

Darlie Routier had no history, either.

Not only that, but Susan Smith spent a normal day right up to the time she killed her children. The same with all of them. To anyone on the outside looking in, they all appeared to be leading a normal family life.

[bullmoose]

I missed you all this weekend with the board down; I didn't realize how much I look foward to the discussion here. Its good to be back. Back to the subject: Remember, please Jeffery MacDonald has always claimed innocence in the murders, yeah, okay so has OJ, but nobody believes OJ, JM has his supporters. Yes, even Spokane's South Hill rapist,Coe has some supporters.Hmm. What's my point? Just that there will be believers and disbelievers of the Ramsey story no matter what. I guess thats why we are here. bullmoose

[paperbackreader]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I missed you all this weekend with the board down; I didn't realize how much I look foward to the discussion here. Its good to be back. Back to the subject: Remember, please Jeffery MacDonald has always claimed innocence in the murders, yeah, okay so has OJ, but nobody believes OJ, JM has his supporters. Yes, even Spokane's South Hill rapist,Coe has some supporters.Hmm. What's my point? Just that there will be believers and disbelievers of the Ramsey story no matter what. I guess thats why we are here. bullmoose

True.....but I like to look at hard evidence in cases where the circumstantial evidence isn't clear.

OJ.....hard evidence available.
MacDonald....same.
Jon Benet.......none.

[kindeekat]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by samsong


Not only that, but Susan Smith spent a normal day right up to the time she killed her children. The same with all of them. To anyone on the outside looking in, they all appeared to be leading a normal family life. [/QUOTE

yep. Same with John List. They didn't even SUSPECT anything "funny" for weeks and weeks, long enough for him to disappear.

It's just an illustration of the fact that until something breaks wide open we often have NO idea what is going on Next Door.

Dennis Rader lived under the radar for decades.

[karental]

When I was a child abuse investigator it was MUCH easier to get in to investigate an allegation of abuse in a project or low income home...but it was VERY difficult to get into a wealthy home (sometimes even the neighborhood) because people could lawyer up, or disappear between the time I went to the gated community guard shack and the actual home, or school teachers/administrators at private schools were reluctant to report concerns because of the "type" of family (stereotypes) or the parents were $$ donors. Abuse happens just as often in two-parent, traditional, affluent homes, it's just harder to see IMO. Low income families often have their kids in preschool/daycare and public school, or have other social workers familiar with the family. Affluent families can keep their kids out of the public eye. And yes, I removed children from very low income homes and from very high income homes. IMO and based on my experience.

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by karental
When I was a child abuse investigator it was MUCH easier to get in to investigate an allegation of abuse in a project or low income home...but it was VERY difficult to get into a wealthy home (sometimes even the neighborhood) because people could lawyer up, or disappear between the time I went to the gated community guard shack and the actual home, or school teachers/administrators at private schools were reluctant to report concerns because of the "type" of family (stereotypes) or the parents were $$ donors. Abuse happens just as often in two-parent, traditional, affluent homes, it's just harder to see IMO. Low income families often have their kids in preschool/daycare and public school, or have other social workers familiar with the family. Affluent families can keep their kids out of the public eye. And yes, I removed children from very low income homes and from very high income homes. IMO and based on my experience.



Thank you.

[samsong]

Originally posted by kindeekat
[QUOTE]Originally posted by samsong


Not only that, but Susan Smith spent a normal day right up to the time she killed her children. The same with all of them. To anyone on the outside looking in, they all appeared to be leading a normal family life. [/QUOTE

yep. Same with John List. They didn't even SUSPECT anything "funny" for weeks and weeks, long enough for him to disappear.

It's just an illustration of the fact that until something breaks wide open we often have NO idea what is going on Next Door.

Dennis Rader lived under the radar for decades.

I agree. With John List, much like the other cases, it was all about appearances. H wanted to appear successful, religious, and a good family man.

[samsong]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I missed you all this weekend with the board down; I didn't realize how much I look foward to the discussion here. Its good to be back. Back to the subject: Remember, please Jeffery MacDonald has always claimed innocence in the murders, yeah, okay so has OJ, but nobody believes OJ, JM has his supporters. Yes, even Spokane's South Hill rapist,Coe has some supporters.Hmm. What's my point? Just that there will be believers and disbelievers of the Ramsey story no matter what. I guess thats why we are here. bullmoose

Exactly. In all of the cases the posters will pick pieces of evidence to support their views. In the Ramsey case, most of the evidence can be viewed both ways and that is what has kept the interest alive.

In all of the above cases, it hasn't helped that the people had money to muddy the waters and in some cases to find new clues.

[karental]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


{snipped}

What about these cases - in any way - relates to the Ramsey case?

Murdered innocents??? JMO

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I missed you all this weekend with the board down; I didn't realize how much I look foward to the discussion here. Its good to be back. Back to the subject: Remember, please Jeffery MacDonald has always claimed innocence in the murders, yeah, okay so has OJ, but nobody believes OJ, JM has his supporters. Yes, even Spokane's South Hill rapist,Coe has some supporters.Hmm. What's my point? Just that there will be believers and disbelievers of the Ramsey story no matter what. I guess thats why we are here. bullmoose

Hello bullmoose, I know what you mean...although I was here on the weekend. We farm so do not go anywhere on Labor day...I agree that unless a confirmed killer is found, there will always be some supporters for the Ramseys and some for the intruder theory. I am in the middle of PM/PT, and the incredible detail brings the whole incident into focus, sadly.

[TigressPen]

Does any one besides me really wish CTV would take JMK's picture off the Court TV Extra page? He is in record books now as associated with the JonBenet case and that sickens me.

[karental]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Smith, Peterson, List - proven

Ramseys - not even indicted, Judge issues ruling most probably an intruder.

BTW - I know you stated IMO in your posts, but do you have a breakdown by social/financial status for child abusers? And yes, I realize there are exceptions to every rule.

If I cared to (which I don't) I could maybe find stats on socio-economic status of ALLEGATIONS, but not all allegations are true, and not all abusers are reported.

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by TigressPen
Does any one besides me really wish CTV would take JMK's picture off the Court TV Extra page? He is in record books now as associated with the JonBenet case and that sickens me.



YES! I think he was just an ugly bump in the road of this case and he really enjoyed his moment in the sun. His fifteen minutes of fame is long gone.

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by karental


If I cared to (which I don't) I could maybe find stats on socio-economic status of ALLEGATIONS, but not all allegations are true, and not all abusers are reported.


Run screaming and I mean that in the best way possible.

[samsong]

Originally posted by kindeekat




YES! I think he was just an ugly bump in the road of this case and he really enjoyed his moment in the sun. His fifteen minutes of fame is long gone.

I agree and he will have to ride off with Wendy Hutcens, Michael Tracey, and the rest of the long lost school mates. :D

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by samsong


I agree and he will have to ride off with Wendy Hutcens, Michael Tracey, and the rest of the long lost school mates. :D




TOOOOOOOOOOO funny.

And the Boulder folks ain't looking so good in all this either.

JMO.

[samsong]

Originally posted by kindeekat





TOOOOOOOOOOO funny.

And the Boulder folks ain't looking so good in all this either.

JMO.

No they're not. It was so funny when this first started. The people just got stranger and stranger. Poor old Michael Tracey is going to have to get a new penpal.

:D

[jerzeegirl]

Oj being sued again by goldman family to take control of OJ money making machine. Breaking news? NG just said this.

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
Oj being sued again by goldman family to take control of OJ money making machine. Breaking news? NG just said this.



My heavens OJ is off leash. JMO. :rolleyes:

[bullmoose]

I would personally believe that it will prove harder to get OJ to cough up a buck than it would be to get blood out of a turnip. JMHO. bullmoose

[Paisley]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Fair enough. That leaves me open to draw my own conclusions..... ROFL..... :lol:

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by TigressPen
Does any one besides me really wish CTV would take JMK's picture off the Court TV Extra page? He is in record books now as associated with the JonBenet case and that sickens me.

Yes, I do and I don't even watch Court TV.

JMK is old news by now. He wasn't involved and he's not newsworthy. I don't know what CTV is thinking.

JMO

[DixieChick]

It is highly unlikely someone with 4th stage Cancer, close to death themselves, would do such a thing. Coupled with being Christian, Stable, intelligent, educated, successful... etc. A married couple with no history of abuse. One must take this profile into account. This was not an accident. It was a very violent, torturous, sexual murder. NOT by these parents. and I'm far from naive.

Plus... NO evidence whatsoever, as found by the Grand Jury.

But evidence of an intruder.
DNA from an unidentified white male,
a pubic hair on the blanket she was wrapped in,
a footprint,
a palm print,
None linked to the Ramseys. Then an open window, with a suitcase underneath.

[Athena]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I missed you all this weekend with the board down; I didn't realize how much I look foward to the discussion here. Its good to be back. Back to the subject: Remember, please Jeffery MacDonald has always claimed innocence in the murders, yeah, okay so has OJ, but nobody believes OJ, JM has his supporters. Yes, even Spokane's South Hill rapist,Coe has some supporters.Hmm. What's my point? Just that there will be believers and disbelievers of the Ramsey story no matter what. I guess thats why we are here. bullmoose

Hi bullmoose,

Think how boring this would be if we could not debate. or there wouldn't be a need for this message board. And if we did not have this message board - none of us would have ever met. jmo :)

[Athena]

Originally posted by DixieChick
It is highly unlikely someone with 4th stage Cancer, close to death themselves, would do such a thing. Coupled with being Christian, Stable, intelligent, educated, successful... etc. A married couple with no history of abuse. One must take this profile into account. This was not an accident. It was a very violent, torturous, sexual murder. NOT by these parents. and I'm far from naive.

Plus... NO evidence whatsoever, as found by the Grand Jury.

But evidence of an intruder.
DNA from an unidentified white male,
a pubic hair on the blanket she was wrapped in,
a footprint,
a palm print,
None linked to the Ramseys. Then an open window, with a suitcase underneath.

Hi ya DixieChick -- I agree with most of what you say however if I had written the list above, unfortunately I would leave out the Christian. With everything going on around the world there are far too many people that kill/harm others under the guise of religion. Sad isn't it? jmo

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by Athena


Hi ya DixieChick -- I agree with most of what you say however if I had written the list above, unfortunately I would leave out the Christian. With everything going on around the world there are far too many people that kill/harm others under the guise of religion. Sad isn't it? jmo

Well Athena its sadly true...I guess we know one that just killed her preacher husband. But, with the fact Patsy had ovarian cancer, just cant see her sending herself straight to HELL! Why? what motive would she have? It is the entire profile along with no evidence to support such a thing. I dont buy it.

[hohum]

Originally posted by DixieChick


Well Athena its sadly true...I guess we know one that just killed her preacher husband. But, with the fact Patsy had ovarian cancer, just cant see her sending herself straight to HELL! Why? what motive would she have? It is the entire profile along with no evidence to support such a thing. I dont buy it.

And that is the point. No evidence and no motive.

[hohum]

Originally posted by samsong


Exactly. It was the same way with OJ Simpson. His children and other family members swore nothing had happened and they were on his side. Family members have their own reasons for not telling the truth about incidents that happen within the family.

LOL OJ Simpson has a long history of anger management issues. He is nothing if not in trouble. His own daughter Sydney called the police on him.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by hohum


LOL OJ Simpson has a long history of anger management issues. He is nothing if not in trouble. His own daughter Sydney called the police on him.

Strange, then, that she and her brother wanted to live with their father and not their maternal grandparents.

Of course,

JMO

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by hohum


And that is the point. No evidence and no motive.


:beer: It's just common sense. Just because all the questions of an intruder aren't answered doesn't mean it must be the Ramsey's! It is totally ignorant. Maybe the person came in the window and went out the front door! or maybe they even had a key! and lived on the same street. The focus was lost on the Ramsey's.

[hohum]

Originally posted by DixieChick


:beer: It's just common sense. Just because all the questions of an intruder aren't answered doesn't mean it must be the Ramsey's! It is totally ignorant. Maybe the person came in the window and went out the front door! or maybe they even had a key! and lived on the same street. The focus was lost on the Ramsey's.

Never assume people who are educated have common sense. Perhaps it's easier for some to accuse the Ramsey's than the trouble of actually finding the real killer.

[Athena]

Originally posted by DixieChick


:beer: It's just common sense. Just because all the questions of an intruder aren't answered doesn't mean it must be the Ramsey's! It is totally ignorant. Maybe the person came in the window and went out the front door! or maybe they even had a key! and lived on the same street. The focus was lost on the Ramsey's.

Fleet White had a key!!!! I still believe it was someone close to them. I can't find the link or maybe it was in one of the transcripts - all these documents are starting to blur. I look at my bookmarks in my favs and can't make heads or tails out of them anymore. Just earlier today I read two different accounts of White in the basement as well. One said he peeked through a window into the wine cellar and didn't see anything because it was dark. And another account said he actually unlatched the door and went in but didn't see anything. But I thought the wine cellar was windowless -- now I can't find the damn link and it's driving me nuts. :eek:

[hohum]

Originally posted by beagle_lover


Who the hell has a perfect "Leave It to Beaver" type family? NO ONE!!!! But being wrapped up in 'appearances' to garrotting, abusing and killing your 6 year old daughter is a long stretch.

Is there ANY evidence of abuse in that family? ANY????? They've been under a microscope for 10 years and no one can find one instance of abuse except for the false rumors put out by the BDP.

Patsy 'accidently' strangled her 6 yo and John covered up for her for 10 years because he felt 'sorry' for her????

Or John sexually molested Jon Benet and accidently killed her and Patsy covered up for him for 10 years because she wanted to 'keep up appearances'?

That is true sociopathic behavior and is there any indication at all that either of these people have ever exhibited such symptoms?

But as we can tell after looking under the rock Karr crawled out from under, there are real freaks in this world who fantasize sexually about 6 year olds and don't really hide themselves all that well if you care to take a close look.

My money is on a John Karr freak type, not the Ramseys. JMHO

Well said beagle_lover!

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by Athena


Fleet White had a key!!!! I still believe it was someone close to them. I can't find the link or maybe it was in one of the transcripts - all these documents are starting to blur. I look at my bookmarks in my favs and can't make heads or tails out of them anymore. Just earlier today I read two different accounts of White in the basement as well. One said he peeked through a window into the wine cellar and didn't see anything because it was dark. And another account said he actually unlatched the door and went in but didn't see anything. But I thought the wine cellar was windowless -- now I can't find the damn link and it's driving me nuts. :eek:

I think it is so sad that Fleet White's name continues to be posted on a public forum as a suspect when he has been CLEARED, and named as a KEY WITNESS in this case.

IMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


I think it is so sad that Fleet White's name continues to be posted on a public forum as a suspect when he has been CLEARED, and named as a KEY WITNESS in this case.

IMO

I agree with you.

Fleet and Priscilla and Bill and Janet McReynolds. All were cleared. Totally.

[hohum]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


I think it is so sad that Fleet White's name continues to be posted on a public forum as a suspect when he has been CLEARED, and named as a KEY WITNESS in this case.

IMO

How is Fleet White cleared any more than the Ramsey's who people still want to crucify, pray tell.

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by hohum


How is Fleet White cleared any more than the Ramsey's who people still want to crucify, pray tell.

The Ramsey's were never cleared.

The White's were.

IMO

[hohum]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


The Ramsey's were never cleared.

The White's were.

IMO

Last I heard a judge ruled that an intruder most likely killed JB. John and Patsy Ramsey would not be considered intruders in their own home. And BTW, their DNA did not match. Just for fun, how do you think the White's were cleared?

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by hohum


Last I heard a judge ruled that an intruder most likely killed JB. John and Patsy Ramsey would not be considered intruders in their own home. And BTW, their DNA did not match. Just for fun, how do you think the White's were cleared?

You mean the judge in the civil case? I don't think that judge had all the evidence.

How do I think the White's were cleared? well, according to the BPD, they cooperated fully in which it was announced they were "key witnesses".

IMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


You mean the judge in the civil case? I don't think that judge had all the evidence.

How do I think the White's were cleared? well, according to the BPD, they cooperated fully in which it was announced they were "key witnesses".

IMO

Judge Carnes had the evidence the Ramseys wanted her to have.

I have to commend the Whites for cooperating fully at the outset, unlike the Ramseys who delayed meeting with the police for as long as they possibly could.

JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by watson
It's never seemed to me like the kind of crime a woman or mother would committ. The crime wasn't done the way a woman would do it. Patsy has always been consistent and sicnere sounding in her interviews, statements, and behavior, and the big kicker....Patsy called the police first thing, when the kidnap note she supposedly wrote to herself told her 10 times not to. If she bothered to put all that in the note, she never would have called the police (plus all her friends and her minister) on herself to get caught. It's just ridiculous.

Why is it so ridiculous that she called the police if she wrote the note? If she already knew her daughter was dead then there was nothing to fear from deviating from the "kidnappers" instructions. Makes perfect sense to me.
Not calling the police, or at least waiting a while and handling things more discreetly would seem more in favor of her innocence to me. I'd be afraid for my childs life by not following instructions.
Your logic makes no sense to me.

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Judge Carnes had the evidence the Ramseys wanted her to have.

I have to commend the Whites for cooperating fully at the outset, unlike the Ramseys who delayed meeting with the police for as long as they possibly could.

JMO

Exactly.

That was a "civil case"

I agree with you about the White's, they cooperated FULLY with the authorities to clear their name. I don't even know if they obtained an attorney, but if they did, they STILL met with the authorities and did whatever it took to assist them in the investigation.

I never understood why The Ramsey's did the opposite.

IMO

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I agree with you.

Fleet and Priscilla and Bill and Janet McReynolds. All were cleared. Totally. Good evening, Sun.....were these folks dna tested?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, Sun.....were these folks dna tested?

Hi LadyFisher, I hope you're having a good evening.

IIRC, Fleet and Priscilla White and the McReynolds's did give the BPD blood, hair, and handwriting samples.

I'll try to find the link for you.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, Sun.....were these folks dna tested?

I had something better, LadyFisher, but I have so many links, I can't find it right now.

However, I did find this:

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1104572&postcount=7

It appears from this that the Whites DNA did not match just as the Ramseys did not. IIRC, the McReynolds were also tested at the same time.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


I think it is so sad that Fleet White's name continues to be posted on a public forum as a suspect when he has been CLEARED, and named as a KEY WITNESS in this case.

IMO

And I think it is so sad as well that the ONLY reason the Ramseys were not cleared is simply because the crime occurred in their home. It is MY belief and MY opinion that the suspects in this case were ONLY cleared because the BPD had already made up their minds about the Ramseys and the suspects in this case were not thoroughly investigated ; and Fleet White least of all because he manipulated the BPD by siding with them and not with the truth but with what they wanted to hear and the BPD bought it hook, line and sinker.

The Ramseys were totally criticized for not cooperating with them but the BPD had made up their minds the first day and the Ramseys knew that. If the evidence was there -- the grand jury would have indicted them and they did not. MOO

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I had something better, LadyFisher, but I have so many links, I can't find it right now.

However, I did find this:

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1104572&postcount=7

It appears from this that the Whites DNA did not match just as the Ramseys did not. IIRC, the McReynolds were also tested at the same time. Thank you, Sun.....so these folks were cleared....but I am still leaning toward a former employee or close acquaintance of the Ramseys as the killer of JB...mainly because of the ransom note....I appreciate your posts, Sun....even though we're on opposite sides of the fence...I think you try to be fair and openminded!!! :)

[angelskye]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Judge Carnes had the evidence the Ramseys wanted her to have.




:lol: What a foolish statement!

You need to read up on what powers a Federal Judge has in the way of subpeona.

Judge Carnes had anything and everything that she wanted in the way of information; from the onset of initial police reports, moving forward to her own timeline, and everything in between.

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by Athena


And I think it is so sad as well that the ONLY reason the Ramseys were not cleared is simply because the crime occurred in their home. It is MY belief and MY opinion that the suspects in this case were ONLY cleared because the BPD had already made up their minds about the Ramseys and the suspects in this case were not thoroughly investigated ; and Fleet White least of all because he manipulated the BPD by siding with them and not with the truth but with what they wanted to hear and the BPD bought it hook, line and sinker.

The Ramseys were totally criticized for not cooperating with them but the BPD had made up their minds the first day and the Ramseys knew that. If the evidence was there -- the grand jury would have indicted them and they did not. MOO

Athena, I was talking to a friend of mine tonite, a professor and author of several books (non-fiction) She has a theory that Fleet White came into the home with his key during the party and grabbed the pad, wrote the ransom note and set up his plan. Went back later after everyone was asleep, (incl. his wife) killed JB
and exited thru the front door. Makes sense to me. Why else would he be a supporter of Thomas' theory? Why would a friend implicate his friend of murder?

[samsong]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Judge Carnes had the evidence the Ramseys wanted her to have.

I have to commend the Whites for cooperating fully at the outset, unlike the Ramseys who delayed meeting with the police for as long as they possibly could.

JMO

I agree. I think many people will never be able to get past their behavior at the beginning. It set the stage for everything that was to happen.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Thank you, Sun.....so these folks were cleared....but I am still leaning toward a former employee or close acquaintance of the Ramseys as the killer of JB...mainly because of the ransom note....I appreciate your posts, Sun....even though we're on opposite sides of the fence...I think you try to be fair and openminded!!! :)

Thank you, LadyFisher. I'm very open to an intruder theory. I just haven't seen one yet that makes a lot of sense to me, but then we all see things a bit differently. Just because something doesn't make sense to me, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense! LOL

And, I've changed my mind about this case several times in the past, based on new things I learn. There's nothing to say I won't change it to an intruder in the future.

I do think the person had to be familiar with the Ramseys and their habits, though.

Have a good rest of the week! :)

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by samsong


I agree. I think many people will never be able to get past their behavior at the beginning. It set the stage for everything that was to happen.

Yes, if they were innocent, I think the Ramseys should have been a LOT more open and cooperative.

JMO

[Athena]

I also find this article interesting. It specifically says hair and handwriting sample were collected from McReynolds but not White. Also in Thomas' deposition he did not write reports when he met with White (below this article):

Fleet and Priscilla White, witnesses

Fleet and Priscilla White were once good friends of the Ramseys. The Whites, along with other three other friends of the Ramseys, were called to the Ramseys' home after Patsy Ramsey realized her daughter was missing and found a ransom note. Fleet White joined John Ramsey in searching the house at the request of a Boulder police detective, with Ramsey finding his daughter's body in the basement. Police ruled out the Whites as suspects early in the investigation.

<snip> McReynolds

Authorities collected hair and handwriting samples from McReynolds and his wife, Janet, in the first few months following the murder, but police sources said they did not consider the McReynolds serious suspects. The Ramseys, however, called McReynolds a suspect in their book.

http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/county_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2423_4923400,00.html

From Thomas depo:

19 Q. Now, you do know that after the

20 Boulder Police Department had investigated

21 Mr. Wolf, that the district attorney's office

22 was still actively investigating an intruder

23 theory and that Fleet White, Bill McReynolds

24 and Chris Wolf were on the top of their

25 suspect list. You do know that to be true,

116

1 don't you, sir?

2 A. Yes.

<snip>

2 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) I assume what

3 you're telling me is because of Arndt and

4 Harmer somehow what they did, that's why you

5 didn't do reports?

6 MR. DIAMOND: Why don't you listen

7 to the answer, then you won't have to assume.

8 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Why don't you

9 answer my question about why you didn't

10 prepare reports when you had contacts with

11 Mr. White and then we can move to another

12 question.

13 MR. DIAMOND: You can now finish

14 your answer, if you haven't completed it.

15 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Maybe now you can

16 answer.

17 A. Detective Harmer inherited I think

18 the Fleet and Priscilla White assignment, if

19 you will, and was friends with them,

20 compassionate to them trying to do her job as

21 a police detective. When she introduced me

22 then at some later date to the Whites, I

23 completed and prepared reports on contacts,

24 meetings, interviews that I felt were relevant

25 at the time certainly and did so concerning

268

1 the Whites. But every time I either spoke

2 or met with these people, no, I did not

3 complete a written report.


http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm

[Athena]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Yes, if they were innocent, I think the Ramseys should have been a LOT more open and cooperative.

JMO

? - even though they knew that the BPD thought them guilty very, very early in the investigation?

[samsong]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Yes, if they were innocent, I think the Ramseys should have been a LOT more open and cooperative.

JMO

The case was a mess from the beginning and they didn't help. I think that is why so many people have trouble believing anything they have said.

[sturetroll]

Originally posted by Athena


? - even though they knew that the BPD thought them guilty very, very early in the investigation? Well, this is my thing: If you are suspected, which all parents would have been in this case, what is the proper thing to do?

Hide behind lawyers is an option if you have a lot of money. Most people cant afford that.

I wonder what would have happened to parents who had no money. Hanged by now?

If this is: We live in a hell-society..

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Athena


? - even though they knew that the BPD thought them guilty very, very early in the investigation?

Yes. I don't blame them for hiring an attorney(s) to make sure their rights were not violated and they were not railroaded, but I do fault them for hiring a PR firm and for not going in for police interviews and polygraphs much, much earlier like Mark Klaas did. He insisted on a polygraph immediately.

Perception is a very strong thing. Guilty or not, the Ramseys, by their own actions, created a perception of guilt in the minds of many.

Even today, most people simply assume the Ramseys are guilty of the death of JonBenet.

JMO

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


snipped....

Even today, most people simply assume the Ramseys are guilty of the death of JonBenet.

JMO

Not a single person I know believes that!

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by DixieChick


Not a single person I know believes that!

Do you know the majority of Americans?

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Do you know the majority of Americans?

No, and you do?

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Do you know the majority of Americans?

My observation is that the people who think the Ramsey's are guilty do not know all the facts. They, like you, are sidetracked by pineapple and pigtails.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


I don't think it's fair to compare the Whites with the Ramseys. The Ramsey's little girl had just been found murdered horribly. They did willingly speak to the police all day on the 26th, as much as the police wanted, cooperating fully.

Then the police realized their huge screw-up in not securing the crime scene, letting any evidence that might be there be destroyed by all the people, or even speaking to the Ramsey's separately. So, they tried to cover their butt's by asking the coroner hold JonBenet's body "hostage" to force her grieving parents to do what they wanted, then blame the parents for not "cooperating". Nice way to throw the heat off themselves for their screw-up, right?

How can the White's experience and reaction be compared to the Ramsey's in any way?

I agree there is NO comparrison as the Whites were not in shock as the ramseys were. Some posters THINK they KNOW exactly what they would do in the Ramseys situation but unless they lost a child to a killer there is NO way they KNOW how they would react. Even in a normal expected death those closest to the person who died are not themselves and they simply function. How the Ramseys were treated is beyond inhumaine and IMO those who tried to manufacture "evidence" and blame them will one day be bitten as bad or worse than the Ramseys were. What goes around comes around.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Yes. I don't blame them for hiring an attorney(s) to make sure their rights were not violated and they were not railroaded, but I do fault them for hiring a PR firm and for not going in for police interviews and polygraphs much, much earlier like Mark Klaas did. He insisted on a polygraph immediately.

Perception is a very strong thing. Guilty or not, the Ramseys, by their own actions, created a perception of guilt in the minds of many.

Even today, most people simply assume the Ramseys are guilty of the death of JonBenet.

JMO

There were live witnesses to Polly's kidnapping so St. Mark was not "under an umbrella" and cops were not "leaking" lies about him as they were with the Ramseys.

When the Ramseys came back from Atlanta after buring their 6 year old daughter the cops told them it was "too late" to talk to them. They tried to withhold the body, they put out lies to the media, they tried to turn their friends against them and they turned down the Ramseys after the funeral and you think it was the Ramseys "actions" that created a "perception of guilt"??? :rolleyes:

"Perception" is NOT proof or evidence and unfortunately there is no handbbook about how to "act" when your child is killed so gossips don't get the wrong "perception".

[hohum]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


You mean the judge in the civil case? I don't think that judge had all the evidence.



IMO

Oh I see. If a judge said the RAMSEY'S did not kill their daughter then it doesn't count. What a crock. :lol:

[hohum]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Agree! And, St. Mark was not even in the house when Polly was kidnapped, and knew he could easily proove it.

I'm sick of hearing Klaas's blasting of the Ramseys. Having a child kidnapped and murdered does not make a person intelligent, or all knowing of how anyone else would react to a similar situation. I think John Walsh has a lot more brain cells!

I'm sick of Klaas period.

[hohum]

Originally posted by samsong


I agree. I think many people will never be able to get past their behavior at the beginning. It set the stage for everything that was to happen.

How fair and open minded. Thankfully I don't know any of those people.

[hohum]

Originally posted by DixieChick


They, like you, are sidetracked by pineapple and pigtails.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Paisley]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I agree there is NO comparrison as the Whites were not in shock as the ramseys were. Some posters THINK they KNOW exactly what they would do in the Ramseys situation but unless they lost a child to a killer there is NO way they KNOW how they would react. Even in a normal expected death those closest to the person who died are not themselves and they simply function. How the Ramseys were treated is beyond inhumaine and IMO those who tried to manufacture "evidence" and blame them will one day be bitten as bad or worse than the Ramseys were. What goes around comes around. I have absolutely no idea what I would do in this situation. I think I would be in a state of shock for months and be completely incoherent for a very long time.

[Paisley]

Originally posted by DixieChick


My observation is that the people who think the Ramsey's are guilty do not know all the facts. They, like you, are sidetracked by pineapple and pigtails. Well you know, the pineapple and pigtails are very important FACTS in this case...

[Regina.Lampert]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Agree! And, St. Mark was not even in the house when Polly was kidnapped, and knew he could easily proove it.

I'm sick of hearing Klaas's blasting of the Ramseys. Having a child kidnapped and murdered does not make a person intelligent, or all knowing of how anyone else would react to a similar situation. I think John Walsh has a lot more brain cells! St. Mark? Your smart a** reference to
this child victim advocate bespeaks volumes. imo. Mr. Klaas has done much good, compared to others such as the ramseys who
only looked out for themselves. imo.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert
St. Mark? Your smart a** reference to
this child victim advocate bespeaks volumes. imo. Mr. Klaas has done much good, compared to others such as the ramseys who
only looked out for themselves. imo.

You forgot to add in YOUR opinion. :shrug:

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert
St. Mark? Your smart a** reference to
this child victim advocate bespeaks volumes. imo. Mr. Klaas has done much good, compared to others such as the ramseys who
only looked out for themselves. imo. Regina, I, too, like Mark Klaas...but I think what irks some poster is the fact his case was a lot different from the Ramseys and many of us feel that you really can't judge their reactions without being in their shoes...imo they were in shock...everyone does react to shock differently! imo

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert
St. Mark? Your smart a** reference to
this child victim advocate bespeaks volumes. imo. Mr. Klaas has done much good, compared to others such as the ramseys who
only looked out for themselves. imo.



He's a hero. The only reason people are turning on this VICTIM is because he doesn't agree with them on the Ramsey issue. He has great suspicion towards them---and I agree with him---and the Ramsey supporters are turning on him in droves. I think it says more about THEM than Mark Klaas.

Hiya darlin' and hang in there! :seeya:

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by DixieChick


My observation is that the people who think the Ramsey's are guilty do not know all the facts. They, like you, are sidetracked by pineapple and pigtails.


Ah, so you know all the facts do you. Who is the killer of JonBenet Ramsey? Do tell.

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by DixieChick


My observation is that the people who think the Ramsey's are guilty do not know all the facts. They, like you, are sidetracked by pineapple and pigtails.

You don't think these are important facts?

How do you suppose the pineapple got into JB's system? if there was an intruder, do you think he/she gave JB pineapple, THEN waited around 2 to 3 hours before murdering her?

How about the pigtails. If JB's hair was styled a different way at the White's party than what it was when she was found, did the intruder "re-style" her hair?

No wonder the White's became "key witnesses". I can only imagine what h*ll they have gone through trying to assist in this investigation, only to have the Ramsey "team" try and point suspicion back in their direction. But it didn't work. The White's fought for justice for JB, they know the truth, and the person responsible for murdering JB knew it too.

BTW, within the last 10 years everytime I discussed this case with anyone, I can't recall a time where someone didn't believe one of the Ramsey's were responsible, other than recently on this board. This is the first time I have ever discussed this case on any forum.

IMO

[Regina.Lampert]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You forgot to add in YOUR opinion. :shrug: Did I? Better check again.

[Regina.Lampert]

Originally posted by kindeekat




He's a hero. The only reason people are turning on this VICTIM is because he doesn't agree with them on the Ramsey issue. He has great suspicion towards them---and I agree with him---and the Ramsey supporters are turning on him in droves. I think it says more about THEM than Mark Klaas.

Hiya darlin' and hang in there! :seeya: You too Doll!! Just like they turned on John Walsh when he
said scottietohottie was acting guilty. So predictable, ain't they?

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert
St. Mark? Your smart a** reference to
this child victim advocate bespeaks volumes. imo. Mr. Klaas has done much good, compared to others such as the ramseys who
only looked out for themselves. imo.

Regina,
Mark Klaas has done so much, and it really is a shame that some on here have to go after this man who had his daughter brutally murdered, and now speaks out on behalf of victims everywhere.

He is a "class act", and cleared himself immediately, and only concerned himself with WHO murdered his daughter.

IMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by DixieChick


My observation is that the people who think the Ramsey's are guilty do not know all the facts. They, like you, are sidetracked by pineapple and pigtails.

Oh, I'm not sidetracked by the pineapple and the ponytails. I'm taking into consideration the note, the ransom amount, the open window that was subsequently closed by John, the location of the body, the scream that was heard by the woman across the street, the fact that Patsy was wearing the same clothes and didn't shower, the fact that John DID shower, the fact that it was Patsy who made the 911 call despite the fact that she was hysterical and John was not, and a host of other things. I have a theory, and I think things happened pretty much that way, but of course, truth is always stranger than any fiction could ever be.

I am SURE of ONE thing: You can't read my mind or anyone else's.

JMO

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert
You too Doll!! Just like they turned on John Walsh when he
said scottietohottie was acting guilty. So predictable, ain't they?



Ah yes I'd forgotten about that.

sheesh. No matter WHAT you think about Marc Klaas he is every bit the victim the Ramseys are in the BEST light---

I guess ANYBODY who suspects the Ramseys might have been involved in JonBenet's death is fair game. Even other Parents of Murdered Children.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by DixieChick


No, and you do?

No, I do not know the majority of Americans, nor do I believe EVERYTHING I read, however, in this case, I accept what I read since it goes along with my personal experience. Most of the people I know either (a) know very, very little about this case and don't have an opinion and don't care; or (b) believe the Ramseys to be guilty.

It has been reported by several reputable newpapers (not tabloids), magazines, and television shows that MOST of Americans, even today, believe the Ramseys to be guilty.

You have to remember, most Americans read about this case, decided the parents must be guilty because that was how the media played it, then promptly forgot about the case. The Karr fiasco only reinforced the Ramseys guilt in their minds.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by hohum


Oh I see. If a judge said the RAMSEY'S did not kill their daughter then it doesn't count. What a crock. :lol:

Actually, no, legally, it doesn't count for anything. Not since it was a civil case, i.e., Wolf vs. Ramsey, and concerned defamation of character and not murder. Had the Ramseys not been sued, this decision would not have even been made.

JMO

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


The Whites cooperated SO much that people became suspicious of them. Then Fleet goes around getting involved in questionable activities......ends up serving 30 days for contempt of court... I just not sure about Fleet or Priscilla for that matter. JMO

Who became "suspicious" of the Whites for cooperating? who WOULDN'T cooperate in a murder investigation? and when is it considered "too much" when you think someone is guilty of murder and an injustice is taking place?

The White's were cleared and became "Key Witnesses".

IMO

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


Who became "suspicious" of the Whites for cooperating? who WOULDN'T cooperate in a murder investigation? and when is it considered "too much" when you think someone is guilty of murder and an injustice is taking place?

The White's were cleared and became "Key Witnesses".

IMO



When Patsy was asked who SHE thought might have had a reason to do this to them/JonBenet, she said something like "The Whites have been acting strangely"---

They sure haven't "cleared" the Ramseys have they?

[lisafremont]

Originally posted by trt
The police in this case were very negligent. AS they were in the case involving OJ Simpson...it does not preclude him or them from being the perpertrators in the respective cases. Just because police screwed up which prevents a guilty finding, does not mean the parties involved are innocent, IMO.

I agree with your point, trt. However, I take exception to the early part of your statement.

Yes, terrible mistakes were made by the first responders who believed they had a kidnapping on their hands. The blunders by Linda Arndt are well known.

Thereafter, the police were not negligent but thwarted by the DA's office which was determined not to pursue the Ramseys and which committed, IMO, obstruction of justice with their outrageous and unprofessional conduct.

The lack of justice in this case is a direct result of the behavior of Alex Hunter and his cohorts and not the police whose hands were tied at every turn. JMO.

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


The Whites cooperated SO much that people became suspicious of them. Then Fleet goes around getting involved in questionable activities......ends up serving 30 days for contempt of court... I just not sure about Fleet or Priscilla for that matter. JMO




They were there and DO know the Ramseys.

I can't see how anyone could just DISMISS their opinions on this case. Seems counterintuititive to me.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by kindeekat





They were there and DO know the Ramseys.

I can't see how anyone could just DISMISS their opinions on this case. Seems counterintuititive to me.

One of the Whites even looked in the wine cellar prior to John Ramsey "finding" JB's body in there. One of the Whites was downstairs when that body was found.

IMO, he knows FAR more than he's ever told the public and is doing one Ramsey "gentleman" a favor with his public silence.

JMO

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by kindeekat




When Patsy was asked who SHE thought might have had a reason to do this to them/JonBenet, she said something like "The Whites have been acting strangely"---

They sure haven't "cleared" the Ramseys have they?

No, and I think that's something that is often overlooked here.

IMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by lisafremont


I agree with your point, trt. However, I take exception to the early part of your statement.

Yes, terrible mistakes were made by the first responders who believed they had a kidnapping on their hands. The blunders by Linda Arndt are well known.

Thereafter, the police were not negligent but thwarted by the DA's office which was determined not to pursue the Ramseys and which committed, IMO, obstruction of justice with their outrageous and unprofessional conduct.

The lack of justice in this case is a direct result of the behavior of Alex Hunter and his cohorts and not the police whose hands were tied at every turn. JMO.

Yes, had Linda Arndt gone to the basement herself, had she or Rick French been the one to find the body, I think this case would have been solved on the first day.

JMO

[lisafremont]

Originally posted by breezy1234


There were live witnesses to Polly's kidnapping so St. Mark was not "under an umbrella" and cops were not "leaking" lies about him as they were with the Ramseys.

When the Ramseys came back from Atlanta after buring their 6 year old daughter the cops told them it was "too late" to talk to them. They tried to withhold the body, they put out lies to the media, they tried to turn their friends against them and they turned down the Ramseys after the funeral and you think it was the Ramseys "actions" that created a "perception of guilt"??? :rolleyes:

"Perception" is NOT proof or evidence and unfortunately there is no handbbook about how to "act" when your child is killed so gossips don't get the wrong "perception".

When exactly did the Ramseys "come back from Atlanta" and the police refused to talk to them?? Do you have some link for this alleged "fact"?

Your calling Marc Klass "St Mark" is truly despicable, IMO, and reflects very poorly on you.

[Hey Paula]

IMO, the BPD did not secure the crime scene, allowing potential evidence to become contaminated. Due to their failure in this regard, I believe this led them to look inward, at the family, in lieu of a pedophile intruder.

I respect Mark Klaas and agree with him that the Ramseys made the wrong choices in dealing with the BPD. However, because I'm not privy to what transpired between the parties, and judging from Steve Thomas' inappropriate attack on Patsy on LKL, I am left with the feeling that perhaps this attack was self-serving, to cover his own ineptitude as one of the investigators in this tragic case.

ST's theory, of Patsy killing JonBenet in a rage over her daughter having wet the bed, isn't logical. For this theory to warrant any form of consideration, Patsy will have had to strike JB in the head first, then cover the crime, posing it as if JB fell victim to an intruder pedophile.

Inasmuch as the ME stated that JB died of ashyxiation, through strangulation, via the garrotte, and that there was minimal bleeding from the great force strike to her head because it was delivered during perimortem, Patsy will have had to slowly strangle her daughter until she lay there dying, then strike her in the head. How can this be considered murder committed in the fit of rage?

At this point, I believe that Helgoth and an accomplice might have committed this crime. He owned a stun gun, high tech boots, and was found dead almost immediately after Alex Hunter announced they were closing in on the killer/s. The murder was viewed as a suicide, but after a further look at the crime scene and the trajectory of the bullet to Helgoth's head, it was believed that he could not have delivered that fatal bullet himself. I believe that perhaps his accomplice, fearing Helgoth would turn informant, killed him. I truly wish the death of Helgoth would be thoroughly investigated, as by in so doing, the murder of JonBenet might also be solved.

IMO

[trt]

Originally posted by lisafremont


I agree with your point, trt. However, I take exception to the early part of your statement.

Yes, terrible mistakes were made by the first responders who believed they had a kidnapping on their hands. The blunders by Linda Arndt are well known.

Thereafter, the police were not negligent but thwarted by the DA's office which was determined not to pursue the Ramseys and which committed, IMO, obstruction of justice with their outrageous and unprofessional conduct.

The lack of justice in this case is a direct result of the behavior of Alex Hunter and his cohorts and not the police whose hands were tied at every turn. JMO.

Whatever happened after the fact could have probably been prevented if the Boulder PD had been more complete and efficient in the initial stages of this crime, IMO. By securing the crime scene, they may have found more evidence with which to solve this crime regardless of the behavior of the DA's office, etc. The fact that they had little to no concrete evidence allowed *thwarting* by the DA's office, IMO. I don't think any LE or prosecutors handled this case efficiently, but as someone else stated, I do think that this would be a different ball game had the police done a thorough job at the beginning.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


John and Patsy Ramsey were "cleared" - as much as anyone else - by the DNA, Grand Jury, and Judge Carnes.

The DA decides whether to turn a case over the Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury decides whether to indict.

Judge Carnes was making a decision in a civil suit, not a criminal one.

None of these people "cleared" the Ramseys of murder.

I can come up with an entire scenario of why ONE Ramsey is guilty of murder and back it up with facts. Can't you come up with anything in the Ramseys defense other than this silly Judge Carnes stuff? It doesn't help the Ramseys one bit.

JMO

[kindeekat]

I would assume they know things WE do not and never will.

And there IS no "too much" when trying to find the Real Killer.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by lisafremont


When exactly did the Ramseys "come back from Atlanta" and the police refused to talk to them?? Do you have some link for this alleged "fact"?

Your calling Marc Klass "St Mark" is truly despicable, IMO, and reflects very poorly on you.

I agree with you, Lisa. It is truly despicable and shows a very closed and nasty mind, IMO.

I believe ONE of the Ramseys to be guilty of murder, but nowhere have I said I KNOW it, or called that Ramsey a nasty name. And, if it were proven beyond ANY doubt that that Ramsey was, in fact, guilty, I still would refrain from elementary school style namecalling.

Mark Klaas has suffered terribly, he's the father of a murdered child. He's taken a tragedy and turned it into something good. That speaks volumes about him and his goodness.

JMO

[kindeekat]

Even other Parents of Murdered Children are fair game if they happen to disagree with the Ramsey defenders---No matter how you look at it, Marc Klaas is as much a victim as the Ramseys, and for CERTAIN he didn't have anything to do with the murder of his child.

Despicable.

[kindeekat]

I would LOVE to hear what the Whites know and think. But I think they are being the best friends they can possibly be at this point by NOT writing a book that for sure would be a bestseller.

Real class.

And THEY didn't do anything but what the Ramseys asked of them until they realized something wasn't right, put 2 + 2 together, whatever.

To attack and disbelieve THEM? Dismiss at your own risk jmo.

[trt]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I said "people" - I'm a people so me for one.

Too much are the initiatives that the Whites kept taking to point fingers at the Ramseys and the other activities that landed Fleet in jail.

Too much would be becoming upset with his friend in Atlanta immediately following the funeral of his child and having a heated argument with him at that time. Too much would be the way he was acting in Atlanta that caused John's brother to have him and Priscilla moved to a motel. Too much would be going back to Boulder and suddenly remembering that John let out a cry even before he turned the light on. Too much would be writing the citizens of CO an open letter. Too much would be demanding the gov. appoint a special prosecutor.

Fleet - for a former friend - would much too interested in seeing John and Patsy prosecuted. Makes me wonder just how much he actually had to hide.

JMO


I don't know, it seems that they were really protecting the Ramseys at the beginning and that it wasn't until they found out that the Ramseys were casting suspicion on them that they started to sing a different tune. So it could be that he knew this stuff all along, but the gloves came off, so to speak, once he realized that they weren't interested in playing fair anymore? JMO

[kindeekat]

Well something made them suspicious. I wasn't there.

But it speaks volumes to ME.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


The gloves came off in Atlanta following JonBenet's funeral when Fleet found out John & Patsy were going on CNN. He wanted them to go back to Boulder and talk to the PD. By this time the Ramseys already knew they were under the umbrella of suspicion SO why did Fleet think he knew better what should be done than John and his attorneys?

Because Fleet was with John in the basement when the body of JB was found.

Fleet was interested in justice being served, not some lawyer doublespeak.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


When did they realize something wasn't right?

When John opened the wine cellar door.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by kindeekat
I would LOVE to hear what the Whites know and think. But I think they are being the best friends they can possibly be at this point by NOT writing a book that for sure would be a bestseller.

Real class.

And THEY didn't do anything but what the Ramseys asked of them until they realized something wasn't right, put 2 + 2 together, whatever.

To attack and disbelieve THEM? Dismiss at your own risk jmo.

I agree with you. The Whites have cooperated with LE to the fullest, but have shown real class by refraining from writing a book, talking to the media extensively, etc.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by trt



I don't know, it seems that they were really protecting the Ramseys at the beginning and that it wasn't until they found out that the Ramseys were casting suspicion on them that they started to sing a different tune. So it could be that he knew this stuff all along, but the gloves came off, so to speak, once he realized that they weren't interested in playing fair anymore? JMO

The Ramseys weren't accusing the Whites of any wrongdoing in Atlanta. Fleet was upset for a very different reason, IMO.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Oh, I'm not sidetracked by the pineapple and the ponytails. I'm taking into consideration the note, the ransom amount, the open window that was subsequently closed by John, the location of the body, the scream that was heard by the woman across the street, the fact that Patsy was wearing the same clothes and didn't shower, the fact that John DID shower, the fact that it was Patsy who made the 911 call despite the fact that she was hysterical and John was not, and a host of other things. I have a theory, and I think things happened pretty much that way, but of course, truth is always stranger than any fiction could ever be.

I am SURE of ONE thing: You can't read my mind or anyone else's.

JMO Good morning, sun! Whew, this board has a tendency to bring out the worst in all of us.....but....I would love to hear your theory...if...and I say IF I believed that one of the Ramseys was guilty..and I would like to add that I don't really....I would pick John as the perp....I think that Patsy genuinely loved her children...had been through cancer treatments....I don't see her as the type of woman that would or could cover up such a crime for anyone.....if it was John that did this...he wrote the ransom note and left it on the stairs for Patsy to discover...I really can't picture this father doing these horrible things to this beautiful child though..the ransom note imo leads me to believe it was someone that hated John....probably a former employee or someone close enough to the Ramseys to know their routine!!! IMO

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


When John opened the wine cellar door.

JMO

:beer:

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


How can something that you don't know speak volumes?

As Vincent Bugliosi said, "A lack of evidence, IS evidence."

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good morning, sun! Whew, this board has a tendency to bring out the worst in all of us.....but....I would love to hear your theory...if...and I say IF I believed that one of the Ramseys was guilty..and I would like to add that I don't really....I would pick John as the perp....I think that Patsy genuinely loved her children...had been through cancer treatments....I don't see her as the type of woman that would or could cover up such a crime for anyone.....if it was John that did this...he wrote the ransom note and left it on the stairs for Patsy to discover...I really can't picture this father doing these horrible things to this beautiful child though..the ransom note imo leads me to believe it was someone that hated John....probably a former employee or someone close enough to the Ramseys to know their routine!!! IMO

Good morning, LadyFisher. I hope you're having a nice day.

I think a very emotional case like this one can bring out the worst in people if they get too involved in it, and that's easy to do, since the victim was a little six-year-old girl.

I think John was the guilty Ramsey, not Patsy. There is another poster who shares my theory and perhaps developed aspects of it first. (Our theories are close, but not identical, though we both believe John is the guilty one.)

I'll be very happy to share my theory with you. I have to write it better than I have so far, though, and when I do (probably tomorrow), I'll PM you and let you know.

When talking about something like this, I never have my mind set in stone. I'm still very willing to accept a plausible intruder theory.

I hope you have a nice day. I have to go out into the countryside soon to take photos. It would be nice if the leaves were turning, but they aren't. Not yet. :(

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


It helps keep the discussion going when questions and answers are in context. JMO

__________________________________________________ __

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


When did they realize something wasn't right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When John opened the wine cellar door.

JMO

__________________________________________________ __

It was.

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by LadyFisher someone that hated John....probably a former employee or someone close enough to the Ramseys to know their routine!!! IMO [/B]


I keep coming back to that conclusion myself Ladyfisher. Not that I know anything that everyone else here doesn't know..I just think someone hated John enough to do this. JMO

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Good morning, LadyFisher. I hope you're having a nice day.

I think a very emotional case like this one can bring out the worst in people if they get too involved in it, and that's easy to do, since the victim was a little six-year-old girl.

I think John was the guilty Ramsey, not Patsy. There is another poster who shares my theory and perhaps developed aspects of it first. (Our theories are close, but not identical, though we both believe John is the guilty one.)

I'll be very happy to share my theory with you. I have to write it better than I have so far, though, and when I do (probably tomorrow), I'll PM you and let you know.

When talking about something like this, I never have my mind set in stone. I'm still very willing to accept a plausible intruder theory.

I hope you have a nice day. I have to go out into the countryside soon to take photos. It would be nice if the leaves were turning, but they aren't. Not yet. :( It is a lovely day here today!!! I hope you're having a nice one as well.....please let me know when you do write your theory and on what thread....I will be gone the entire day tomorrow until late evening...so let me know exactly where it is...thanks...I respect your opinion.....I might not agree with it though! :)

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by nutmeg22



I keep coming back to that conclusion myself Ladyfisher. Not that I know anything that everyone else here doesn't know..I just think someone hated John enough to do this. JMO It is hard to believe that someone could have that kind of hatred...and could do that to an innocent child.....but the ransom note is full of hatred toward John.....

[trt]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


The gloves came off in Atlanta following JonBenet's funeral when Fleet found out John & Patsy were going on CNN. He wanted them to go back to Boulder and talk to the PD. By this time the Ramseys already knew they were under the umbrella of suspicion SO why did Fleet think he knew better what should be done than John and his attorneys?

That is not when Fleet and Priscilla stopped backing the Ramseys. They just had a heated discussion. Do I think it should have occured during that time in the Ramsey's life(as in, having a heated discussion with them during their daughter's funeral?) No, I think that was bad judgement and inconsideration on Fleet's part. But the reality of it is that he may have more information than we are privy to and knew what a mistake like that would mean for them as far as proving themselves innocent was concerned. JMO

[trt]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


The Ramseys weren't accusing the Whites of any wrongdoing in Atlanta. Fleet was upset for a very different reason, IMO.

I agree, I think Rosey posted that the gloves came off in Atlanta.

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
It is hard to believe that someone could have that kind of hatred...and could do that to an innocent child.....but the ransom note is full of hatred toward John.....
My thoughts exactly...so this means that this person is completely a sociopath ...without conscience in my book. JMO

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


As Vincent Bugliosi said, "A lack of evidence, IS evidence."


and as Sherlock Holmes said, when you eliminate the impossible the IMPROBABLE, no matter how unlikely, is your answer (paraphrasing).

Back to the Ramseys. All the "I can't see them doing it!" doesn't matter in the long run jmo. What is, is.

And my posts stand alone. Context Schmontext.

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


__________________________________________________ __

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


When did they realize something wasn't right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When John opened the wine cellar door.

JMO

__________________________________________________ __

It was.





Thank you! :lol:

[Athena]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


And remembered after he had the argument with John in Atlanta that John had uttered an exclamation of surprise even before the turned the light on in the room where JonBenet was found. When did he "remember" that utterance.

Also, why did Fleet go back to the room where JonBenet was found? Why did he pick up the tape that John pulled from JonBenet's face? Why did he put it back on the blanket? He had to know it was evidence.

Earlier that morning when he was down in the basement why did he pick up broken glass from beneath the window and lay it back up in the window?

Lots of questions about Fleet's activities - IMO

I agree rosy and a huge question I have is why was White down there alone anyway before Ramsey went down?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


ROFL.....why are you answering all of the questions asked in response to kindeekat's posts. So she can hold the beer mugs and do this?

:beer:

Am I not allowed to communicate with kindeekat on this board?

I was not aware of that. When the moderator tells kindeekat and I not to communicate with each other, we will stop.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
It is a lovely day here today!!! I hope you're having a nice one as well.....please let me know when you do write your theory and on what thread....I will be gone the entire day tomorrow until late evening...so let me know exactly where it is...thanks...I respect your opinion.....I might not agree with it though! :)

Okay, LadyFisher, I will, for sure.

We have sun here today, too! It's so nice after all that rain.

Oh, it doesn't matter if you agree with me or not. I've changed my mind on this case myself when I found more information. And, I still keep an open mind about everything because I can only theorize, I don't know and that's the ONLY thing I know for sure. LOL

Enjoy the sun! :)

I'll be sure to PM you, but it might be tomorrow or the next day.

[Paisley]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


Who became "suspicious" of the Whites for cooperating? who WOULDN'T cooperate in a murder investigation? and when is it considered "too much" when you think someone is guilty of murder and an injustice is taking place?

The White's were cleared and became "Key Witnesses".

IMO They were also under the "umbrella of suspicion" along with around 200 other people.