How firmly do you stand on your side of the fence?

[MyrDawn]

I've seen posters that believe it's impossible an intruder killed JonBenet, and other that believe it's impossible a Ramsey did it. I've also seen posters that believe in one or the other, but think there's a chance, however slight, that they might be wrong.

I think it would be interesting to see just where everyone stands, especially, how firmly they stand there. Thanks for your responses!

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by MyrDawn

I've seen posters that believe it's impossible an intruder killed JonBenet, and other that believe it's impossible a Ramsey did it. I've also seen posters that believe in one or the other, but think there's a chance, however slight, that they might be wrong.

I think it would be interesting to see just where everyone stands, especially, how firmly they stand there. Thanks for your responses!

I'm surprised there were no replies to this thread. I don't think this case will ever be solved unless there is some breakthrough with the foreign DNA or with DNAx (which we don't know anything about other than the fact that it wasn't found on her body or clothes).

[DAFFODIL]

I started out IDI but over the years I have to come to believe RDI.Sometimes I get swayed by a good point from an IDI but on the whole remain RDI,HOWEVER if it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that IDI I would and could accept that.

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by DAFFODIL

I started out IDI but over the years I have to come to believe RDI.Sometimes I get swayed by a good point from an IDI but on the whole remain RDI,HOWEVER if it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that IDI I would and could accept that.

How did you get started in the case Daffodil? Was it after one of Tracey's documentaries? It's something I've always been meaning to ask you and never quite got the chance.

I also started as IDI following Tracey I. I was very upset about the way the Ramseys had been treated. I nearly joined the doubleBB but after I was attacked for saying I was open-minded about something, I didn't. Eventually I joined WS where I was finally persuaded to read PMPT. At first it made little sense and I struggled with the American justice system. I would say I finally understood PMPT on my third reading of it and after I'd followed the forums for a while. I got on the fence after reading PMPT because Tracey's doc omitted quite a lot!

What made you RDI?

[DAFFODIL]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

How did you get started in the case Daffodil? Was it after one of Tracey's documentaries? It's something I've always been meaning to ask you and never quite got the chance.

I also started as IDI following Tracey I. I was very upset about the way the Ramseys had been treated. I nearly joined the doubleBB but after I was attacked for saying I was open-minded about something, I didn't. Eventually I joined WS where I was finally persuaded to read PMPT. At first it made little sense and I struggled with the American justice system. I would say I finally understood PMPT on my third reading of it and after I'd followed the forums for a while. I got on the fence after reading PMPT because Tracey's doc omitted quite a lot!

What made you RDI?

Hi Jay,
I remember reading about it in the papers and I used to get the National Enquirer too so I developed a bit of an interest then.A few years after I went to America and bought a couple of JB books,I think one was Carlton Smiths.I think I then got PMPT (which like you was a struggle at first),closely followed by DOI.I must admit I believed every word in it and was horrified at the parents being blamed.When I finally got a computer and read more on the case and on the forums I began to have doubts and when I saw a handwriting analysis especially Patsys letter Q like a figure 8 I had to admit that the liklihood was the parents were involved and I have been RDI since.Watching Traceys docs and listening to Lou Smit only convinced me more I have re-read the books many many times and also the views of the (rational ) IDIs but have not been convinced by ANY of their arguments although many have given me pause.I am open to changing my mind back again but it would have to be something pretty convincing to sway me.JMO

[Athena]

Originally Posted by DAFFODIL

I started out IDI but over the years I have to come to believe RDI.Sometimes I get swayed by a good point from an IDI but on the whole remain RDI,HOWEVER if it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that IDI I would and could accept that.

Replace "IDI" with "RDI" above and everything else you said is exactly how I would have answered.

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by DAFFODIL

Hi Jay,
I remember reading about it in the papers and I used to get the National Enquirer too so I developed a bit of an interest then.A few years after I went to America and bought a couple of JB books,I think one was Carlton Smiths.I think I then got PMPT (which like you was a struggle at first),closely followed by DOI.I must admit I believed every word in it and was horrified at the parents being blamed.When I finally got a computer and read more on the case and on the forums I began to have doubts and when I saw a handwriting analysis especially Patsys letter Q like a figure 8 I had to admit that the liklihood was the parents were involved and I have been RDI since.Watching Traceys docs and listening to Lou Smit only convinced me more I have re-read the books many many times and also the views of the (rational ) IDIs but have not been convinced by ANY of their arguments although many have given me pause.I am open to changing my mind back again but it would have to be something pretty convincing to sway me.JMO

You can get the American NE here? I've seen "an" NE from tie to time in some of the larger papershops but it wasn't the same as the American one.

First time I went to the States after I started following the case, I went into a newsagents and asked for "some supermarket tabloids please" The guy gave me such stick about it!

I've got a couple of UK mags which covered the case appallingly. Do you have SKy?

[thewhitewitch1]

I've been RDI since the very beginning. From the moment I heard about the murder, I suspected the Ramseys. It was a "gut feeling". I never read tabloids and I didn't follow the case at all. I just became more informed after the Karr fiasco and from all I've read and learned, I remain convinced that the Ramseys were involved. The intruder scenario just does not ring true to me but I do allow for the tiniest of possibilities.
The only other possibility for me is that if the Ramseys didn't kill her, then they were still involved in some way. They know something more than they were telling. That much seems fairly obvious. IMO

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by MyrDawn

I've seen posters that believe it's impossible an intruder killed JonBenet, and other that believe it's impossible a Ramsey did it. I've also seen posters that believe in one or the other, but think there's a chance, however slight, that they might be wrong.

I think it would be interesting to see just where everyone stands, especially, how firmly they stand there. Thanks for your responses!

I have never wavered for an instant in my conclusion that whatever happened to JonBenet resulting in her violent death, the Ramseys covered it up by staging a scene and writing a bogus kidnapping note, with Patsy being the man stager of the scene. Imo the circumstantial evidence indicates this beyond any doubt.

But I keep wavering back and forth as to what was the reason for JonBenet's violent death.

- Rage over bedwetting?
- Rage over her refusal to go to bed?
- A combination of both?
- Sexual abuse issues? Did Patsy catch John molesting JonBenet and directed her rage against the child?
- Was JonBenet silenced for good because she wanted to tell others about being sexually abused? Abused by whom? By John, by Patsy, or maybe by both?
- Did both parents cover up for Burke?

These are just some examples of possible scenarios.

Bottom line: while I am 100 per cent certain that both John and Patsy were involved in the cover-up and that a resident of the home killed JonBenet, I dont have a fixed theory as to which Ramsey did what in terms of the homicide itself.

jmo

[shill]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

I don't think this case will ever be solved unless there is some breakthrough with the foreign DNA or with DNAx (which we don't know anything about other than the fact that it wasn't found on her body or clothes).

The Susannah Chase case has shown us that even in Boulder Colorado and over ten years later, that that is still a very real possibility.

[Jayelles]

I think there is no doubt that the Ramsey case is one of the biggest mysteries of modern times. The mere fact that it happened on Christmas night for example - which is probably the least likely night of the year for crime since so many people are at home either with friends and family or snoozing off festive fayre. It's the one night when even most vagrants are likely to have had a good meal too thanks to charitable Christian organisations.

Also, the method of her death and the bizarre ransom note all combine to make this the most unlikliest of crimes - if someone wrote this as a piece of fiction, it would surely be criticised for being far fetched and over-done?

I do feel that much of the crime was staged and I acknowledge that staging is done to detract and throw investigators off the scent. Since it was made to look like an intruder kidnapper did it, it seems likely to me that kidnapping was not the real motive. There is also the matter of the sexual assault - yes, it was present as a feature of this crime, but was so minimal as to make one think that sex was not the motive either.

Indeed - Jonbenet's murder seems to have a little bit of everything - the killer hedging his bets perhaps? I think one of them has to be for real though.

Crimes against children by strangers are rare - even rarer for them to take place in the child's own home where she has most protection, but "rare" does not mean "unknown".

I do think that her killer hated her or was in the throws of some rage when she drew her final breaths. That doesn't speak of a parent to me. I think Patsy was pretty "laissez faire" in many respects and for that reason, I think she is unlikely to have gotten into a rage about much. We also know that Patsy loved Jonbenet - doted on her. For those reasons, I don't think Patsy did it.

However, I remain on the fence because of John Ramsey's behaviour post murder. Not telling police about the opne window, not telling police about the suspicious car for months despite the fact that he had seen it whilst supposedly waiting for the kidnappers to call. Refusing a polygraph and asking for time then refusing interviews altogether until 4 months had passed. I blame John for that - Patsy was "out of it" and I really don't think she made many decisions of her own.

But motive? I cannot think of any motive for John murdering his own daughter. We know he has a temper - ala stories of him kicking doors and rudel switching off vacuum cleaners. There is also photographic proof of him beng physically aggressive towards one Frank Coffman. We also know he was an adulterer and therefore, by default, a liar. Lots of little thing - but none of these make him a murderer.

So who would hate JonBenet enough to remove her from her bed on the most magical day of her year, place a length of cord around her neck and squeeze the life from her? I think if we knew the answer to that - we'd have found her killer.

[andU]

Without a long detailed description; I'm going to simply say that until the day if/when convicting evidence is exposed or someone confesses, I believe in the innocence of the parents. In America, everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The media and we posters can try and convict anyone but without evidence, they walk free. And, I might add, the person may walk free in this world for the rest of their lives; but they cannot escape the judgement of the Maker.

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by andU

Without a long detailed description; I'm going to simply say that until the day if/when convicting evidence is exposed or someone confesses, I believe in the innocence of the parents. In America, everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The media and we posters can try and convict anyone but without evidence, they walk free. And, I might add, the person may walk free in this world for the rest of their lives; but they cannot escape the judgement of the Maker.

Have you ever discussed the case with people "in real life"? i.e. people who don't follow the forums? If so - what are their views?

I ask because so few people know the case here in the UK and I thought it was curious that so many people I spoke to after Tracey's 1st and 2nd documentaries thought Burke was involved and that the Ramseys were covering for him! I couldn't fathom out why so many people would draw that conclusion from seeing those docs!

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

I think there is no doubt that the Ramsey case is one of the biggest mysteries of modern times. The mere fact that it happened on Christmas night for example - which is probably the least likely night of the year for crime since so many people are at home either with friends and family or snoozing off festive fayre. It's the one night when even most vagrants are likely to have had a good meal too thanks to charitable Christian organisations.

Also, the method of her death and the bizarre ransom note all combine to make this the most unlikliest of crimes - if someone wrote this as a piece of fiction, it would surely be criticised for being far fetched and over-done?

I do feel that much of the crime was staged and I acknowledge that staging is done to detract and throw investigators off the scent. Since it was made to look like an intruder kidnapper did it, it seems likely to me that kidnapping was not the real motive. There is also the matter of the sexual assault - yes, it was present as a feature of this crime, but was so minimal as to make one think that sex was not the motive either.

Indeed - Jonbenet's murder seems to have a little bit of everything - the killer hedging his bets perhaps? I think one of them has to be for real though.

Crimes against children by strangers are rare - even rarer for them to take place in the child's own home where she has most protection, but "rare" does not mean "unknown".

I do think that her killer hated her or was in the throws of some rage when she drew her final breaths. That doesn't speak of a parent to me. I think Patsy was pretty "laissez faire" in many respects and for that reason, I think she is unlikely to have gotten into a rage about much. We also know that Patsy loved Jonbenet - doted on her. For those reasons, I don't think Patsy did it.

However, I remain on the fence because of John Ramsey's behaviour post murder. Not telling police about the opne window, not telling police about the suspicious car for months despite the fact that he had seen it whilst supposedly waiting for the kidnappers to call. Refusing a polygraph and asking for time then refusing interviews altogether until 4 months had passed. I blame John for that - Patsy was "out of it" and I really don't think she made many decisions of her own.

But motive? I cannot think of any motive for John murdering his own daughter. We know he has a temper - ala stories of him kicking doors and rudel switching off vacuum cleaners. There is also photographic proof of him beng physically aggressive towards one Frank Coffman. We also know he was an adulterer and therefore, by default, a liar. Lots of little thing - but none of these make him a murderer.

So who would hate JonBenet enough to remove her from her bed on the most magical day of her year, place a length of cord around her neck and squeeze the life from her? I think if we knew the answer to that - we'd have found her killer.

Excellent post, Jay.
I strongly believe that JR was involved but I find it difficult to believe that Patsy "knows nothing". The RN fairly screams her dramatic personality and she has never been ruled out as the writer, no matter how small of a percentage her writing matched. There are other things, as well, such as the declaration and later, retraction of having seen the heart on JBs hand that morning and the comment about how well it was drawn. There's her fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple. There's the odd "bending over" to read the RN. There's the contradiction of how much of it she'd actually read before calling 911. There's the calling friends over after disregarding the threats in the RN. There's the overly dramatic and oddly rehearsed sounding "Lazarus speech". There's the mystery of the oversized Bloomies and Patsys misrepresentation of what size underwear JB normally wore.
There's the lie about Burke being asleep through all of the hysterics...and yes, I DO believe that enhanced tape exists. We now know that Burke was awake so why should we not believe that he was up and present during that time? I do not believe that a child his age would stay in bed with all of that commotion going on unless he knew the reason for the commotion and was afraid to come out of his room.
Things that Patsy had said and done do not ring true to me.
I do not believe that she would cover for John if he had killed JB alone. She had to have played a part in it. Either that or Burke was also involved in JBs death. These are the only things that make sense to me. They were covering for each other. They would not do that for anyone else unless they also had something to do with her death. IMO

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by thewhitewitch1

Excellent post, Jay.
I strongly believe that JR was involved but I find it difficult to believe that Patsy "knows nothing". The RN fairly screams her dramatic personality and she has never been ruled out as the writer, no matter how small of a percentage her writing matched. There are other things, as well, such as the declaration and later, retraction of having seen the heart on JBs hand that morning and the comment about how well it was drawn. There's her fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple. There's the odd "bending over" to read the RN. There's the contradiction of how much of it she'd actually read before calling 911. There's the calling friends over after disregarding the threats in the RN. There's the overly dramatic and oddly rehearsed sounding "Lazarus speech". There's the mystery of the oversized Bloomies and Patsys misrepresentation of what size underwear JB normally wore.
There's the lie about Burke being asleep through all of the hysterics...and yes, I DO believe that enhanced tape exists. We now know that Burke was awake so why should we not believe that he was up and present during that time? I do not believe that a child his age would stay in bed with all of that commotion going on unless he knew the reason for the commotion and was afraid to come out of his room.
Things that Patsy had said and done do not ring true to me.
I do not believe that she would cover for John if he had killed JB alone. She had to have played a part in it. Either that or Burke was also involved in JBs death. These are the only things that make sense to me. They were covering for each other. They would not do that for anyone else unless they also had something to do with her death. IMO

I agree about the Bloomies - that is just such a weird thing. Patsy denied knowledge of so much in her interviews and had she denied knowledge of the big Bloomies, it would have made so much more sense.

Burke and the tape. Again this is something which doesn't make sense to me. Why would Burke pretend to be asleep? I can understand him staying in his room if he thought there was something scary going on downstairs - but why would he pretend to be asleep when his parents came into his room? If he was afraid, I would have thought he'd have clung to them.

I have thought long and hard about why a child would stay in his room pretending to be asleep when there was a commotion going on downstairs:-

1) He was afraid of his parents
2) He'd done something wrong and was hiding
3) He was used to his parents shouting
4) He'd been told to go to his room and stay there
5) He was a terribly withdrawn child
6) Other

From all we've heard about Burke, he doesn't seem to have been a terribly withdrawn child.

I would have thought that a normal child who was not afraid of his parents would have been curious to know what the commotion was about and would have gone downstairs and asked "What's wrong?". If Burke's voice is on the end of that tape, that would appear to have been the case - normal child. But we are told instead that Burke stayed in his room and pretended to be asleep. Very curious. I tend not to believe this and it's one of the reasons I have remained on the fence.

[Amy]

I stand more firmly on the fence than on either side. But, there are days that I may kind of lean over to either side, for a while at least.

A friend had watched (on Dateline, 48 hrs? some show) a documentary about the Ramseys. I think the Ramseys were actually on the program. She was absolutely adamant that the Ramseys could not have done this...her only rationale was because they are her parents, and now way could parents kill their child. Which we all know is not true--there are ever so many parents who are killing their children, seems like more and more everyday.

I remember watching a program with Lou Smit. He was showing the grating to the window, and how the elements had been displace, moved, whatever. What I saw was--no footprints, or places where it looked like someone's body had lain on the dust/dirt. AND, there were plenty of leaves that were still in place. So, the window being a point of entry doesn't sit with me at all.

And, I could see a kidnapping OR a murder, but I agree with the ones who say that a kidnapper would have removed JB from the house. The idea of kidnapping is to go in and get the victim, and get out of Dodge as fast as you can---so as not to be caught, for one thing. You don't go down to a basement where, on the long shot, a member of the family might show up. You don't stop to feed the victim...more likely you would run by a McD's for some fries or something rather than sit in her kitchen for a bowl of pineapple or anything else.

AND, if you are there just to murder an innocent little child...you don't leave a ransom note whether you took the time to write it before you went to the house, or after the crime. There just isn't any purpose to it.

Another suspicious thing to me--is JR wanting to get his plane ready to go to Michigan, as planned, even tho his little baby girl is laying dead in his house, and there is so much going on. Not the least is, the police investigating the scene, questioning the people in the house. And, what about funeral arrangements? I guess, go to Michigan til the investigation is over enough that the body is released, and you don't have to worry about "arrangements" until that time? If it was--I can't bear to be in this house, the smarter thing to do would be to take Patsy and go to the White's or some other friend, or even to a hotel (it's not like they couldn't afford it.)

I still think this case would be much more likely to have been solved by now, if it hadn't been for the blunders of the Boulder police. The very first was letting ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE into that house. Well, maybe the minister, and only if he remained in the room with the Ramseys. The second was for Arndt to let ANYONE out of the room at all until they were released to GO OUT--not go about the house to pack this that and the other. I CANNOT to this day get my head around the fact that she let JR and Fernie? search the house!!!! Absolutely unacceptable!!!! The crime scene was contaminated pretty much from the minute LE arrived, IMO.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by Amy

I stand more firmly on the fence than on either side. But, there are days that I may kind of lean over to either side, for a while at least.

A friend had watched (on Dateline, 48 hrs? some show) a documentary about the Ramseys. I think the Ramseys were actually on the program. She was absolutely adamant that the Ramseys could not have done this...her only rationale was because they are her parents, and now way could parents kill their child. Which we all know is not true--there are ever so many parents who are killing their children, seems like more and more everyday.

I remember watching a program with Lou Smit. He was showing the grating to the window, and how the elements had been displace, moved, whatever. What I saw was--no footprints, or places where it looked like someone's body had lain on the dust/dirt. AND, there were plenty of leaves that were still in place. So, the window being a point of entry doesn't sit with me at all.

And, I could see a kidnapping OR a murder, but I agree with the ones who say that a kidnapper would have removed JB from the house. The idea of kidnapping is to go in and get the victim, and get out of Dodge as fast as you can---so as not to be caught, for one thing. You don't go down to a basement where, on the long shot, a member of the family might show up. You don't stop to feed the victim...more likely you would run by a McD's for some fries or something rather than sit in her kitchen for a bowl of pineapple or anything else.

AND, if you are there just to murder an innocent little child...you don't leave a ransom note whether you took the time to write it before you went to the house, or after the crime. There just isn't any purpose to it.

Another suspicious thing to me--is JR wanting to get his plane ready to go to Michigan, as planned, even tho his little baby girl is laying dead in his house, and there is so much going on. Not the least is, the police investigating the scene, questioning the people in the house. And, what about funeral arrangements? I guess, go to Michigan til the investigation is over enough that the body is released, and you don't have to worry about "arrangements" until that time? If it was--I can't bear to be in this house, the smarter thing to do would be to take Patsy and go to the White's or some other friend, or even to a hotel (it's not like they couldn't afford it.)

I still think this case would be much more likely to have been solved by now, if it hadn't been for the blunders of the Boulder police. The very first was letting ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE into that house. Well, maybe the minister, and only if he remained in the room with the Ramseys. The second was for Arndt to let ANYONE out of the room at all until they were released to GO OUT--not go about the house to pack this that and the other. I CANNOT to this day get my head around the fact that she let JR and Fernie? search the house!!!! Absolutely unacceptable!!!! The crime scene was contaminated pretty much from the minute LE arrived, IMO.

Hi Amy...just wanted to clear up a few errors in your post. JR was going to take the family to Atlanta after JBs body was found; not Michigan.
It was JR and Fleet White who searched the house; not JR and John Fernie.
Other than that, I agree with all you've said. IMO

[Amy]

Originally Posted by thewhitewitch1

Hi Amy...just wanted to clear up a few errors in your post. JR was going to take the family to Atlanta after JBs body was found; not Michigan.
It was JR and Fleet White who searched the house; not JR and John Fernie.
Other than that, I agree with all you've said. IMO

Thanks for the corrections.

I don't know why he would take off for Atlanta, either. Surely he knew that JB's body would not be released for a while? I'd wait in Boulder and let my family (if he was wanting to be with the family in this time of need) come there.

[SaraSidle]

wow this is the first time in the 3 months I have been at CL that I have heard br might have something to do with it. I am not nearly as well read as the rest of you but that is what my gut always said. Can you imagine how jealous he must have been???? I would not be surprised even though I go back and forth on the RDI and IDI from reading your posts.

[SuperDave]

(Hideous, snarling voice): I can never be turned from the dark side! LOL

[andU]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

Have you ever discussed the case with people "in real life"? i.e. people who don't follow the forums? If so - what are their views?

I ask because so few people know the case here in the UK and I thought it was curious that so many people I spoke to after Tracey's 1st and 2nd documentaries thought Burke was involved and that the Ramseys were covering for him! I couldn't fathom out why so many people would draw that conclusion from seeing those docs!

As a matter of fact, I recently spoke with a friend who is a retired police chief and now operates his own forensics lab for police investigations. He believes the parents are innocent because there is no hard evidence against them and that the case may never be solved unless JB's body is exumed or someone confesses. He also says it is very understanding as to why John and Patsy refused to allow their daughter's body to be exumed but, that if it were his child, he would choose to exume.

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by andU

As a matter of fact, I recently spoke with a friend who is a retired police chief and now operates his own forensics lab for police investigations. He believes the parents are innocent because there is no hard evidence against them and that the case may never be solved unless JB's body is exumed or someone confesses. He also says it is very understanding as to why John and Patsy refused to allow their daughter's body to be exumed but, that if it were his child, he would choose to exume.

The exhumation is something I feel terribly squeamish and uncomfortable with. I can understand anyone not wanting their loved one dug up again! Then again - I have a problem with autopsies too :-)

However, what puzzled me was the fact that there was the Ramseys - who stood under this umbrella of suspicion and if people weren't suspecting them, they were suggesting that they'd covered up for Burke. I think that if I thought that exhuming my child to prove that a stungun had been used (and I think if THAT could be proved it would tend to indicate their non-involvement) - I'd do it if not for my own sake, for that of my surviving family who were having fingers pointed at them.

I'd do whatever I could for my family, no matter how distasteful it might be for me.

[sweetcharlotte]

100% Idi.......

[nuisanceposter]

I consider myself to be 99.9% RDI with a PDI lean of about 75%. I first heard of the name JonBenet Ramsey on the evening news, probably on the 27th since I'm not sure it made national news on the 26th...but I always take notice of the murder of a child, and with the combination of it being a Christmastime murder (Christmas being the pinnacle of children's holidays) and her unusual name, I took extra notice.

I knew enough about crime back then to know that a child being attacked on such a family holiday in her own hone was very low risk, so I assumed the killer was either a family member or close family friend. I figured if the killer was a stranger, then it was more likely than not a true psychopath, and we'd be hearing from this killer again soon, perhaps in a bigger way. Still waiting for this killer to strike again.

Then the reports about the details came out, especially about the hinky RN and the way the parents lawyered up. Seeing the Ramseys on CNN pretty much cinched it up for me. They just did not act like they had no idea what happened to their daughter or who may have done it, and have done nothing but continue to cement that impression in my mind ever since. IMO.

I did waffle once...when I first heard the report about the foreign DNA. I thought if there was foreign DNA, then perhaps there was someone foreign to the R house (either acquaintance or stranger) responsible for the murder, but when even DA Lacy admits the DNA may very well be artifact and unrelated to the murder, I have to go back to my prior belief that the evidence indicates Ramsey involvement far more than any non-Ramsey intruder.

I just don't believe there's enough evidence of an intruder - and too much that can be directly linked back to the Ramseys, plus the fact that they've been caught lying in this investigation more than once. The pineapple. The bloomies. The heart Patsy saw then said she didn't see. Saying the doors were locked, then saying they weren't, and seeing strange vehicles and open windows and not saying anything for 4 months - plus the RIDICULOUS conditions the Rs put on interviews. Whether Burke was right about JB walking in on her own or not, and that he claims he can't remember if anyone had any pineapple. The replacement doll, whatever that was about. The staging - and NO evidence of a struggle or defensive wounds whatsoever. And renovating the house, complete with ripping up carpets and repainting just months after the murder, like they want to destroy any evidence that may still be left.

Argh, the bloomies. That's a MAJOR issue for me.

Why would they have any reason to lie or change stories or obliterate any potential evidence left if they don't know who did this and had nothing to do with it themselves? They're covering something up, IMO, and the only person they would cover for is one of their own.

Now if a DNA match is made and it can be proven that the person matching the DNA was in the Ramsey house on 12/25-26/96 and had opportunity to murder JonBenet and stage the crime scene, I'll write a letter of apology to the Ramseys.

[LI_Mom]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

I just don't believe there's enough evidence of an intruder - and too much that can be directly linked back to the Ramseys, plus the fact that they've been caught lying in this investigation more than once. The pineapple. The bloomies. The heart Patsy saw then said she didn't see. Saying the doors were locked, then saying they weren't, and seeing strange vehicles and open windows and not saying anything for 4 months - plus the RIDICULOUS conditions the Rs put on interviews. Whether Burke was right about JB walking in on her own or not, and that he claims he can't remember if anyone had any pineapple. The replacement doll, whatever that was about. The staging - and NO evidence of a struggle or defensive wounds whatsoever. And renovating the house, complete with ripping up carpets and repainting just months after the murder, like they want to destroy any evidence that may still be left.

PLUS denying any knowledge of the teddy bear, the baseball bat & the flashlight & making investigators waste how much time pursuing those false 'leads.'

Claiming that no-one in the family ever had those boots (can't recall the brand) & then finding out in the deposition that Burke DID own a pair.


If I wanted to find out who killed MY kid, I sure wouldn't want investigators starting off the investigation with a lot of bad information.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by LI_Mom

PLUS denying any knowledge of the teddy bear, the baseball bat & the flashlight & making investigators waste how much time pursuing those false 'leads.'

Claiming that no-one in the family ever had those boots (can't recall the brand) & then finding out in the deposition that Burke DID own a pair.

In whose deposition was that?

jmo

[Athena]

Originally Posted by LI_Mom

PLUS denying any knowledge of the teddy bear, the baseball bat & the flashlight & making investigators waste how much time pursuing those false 'leads.'

Claiming that no-one in the family ever had those boots (can't recall the brand) & then finding out in the deposition that Burke DID own a pair.


If I wanted to find out who killed MY kid, I sure wouldn't want investigators starting off the investigation with a lot of bad information.

Research has proven that the boots Burke owned with a compass were a limited edition put out in 1992 to celebrate 500 years since Columbus had come to America. I doubt very seriously that his shoe was matched to the imprint to the basement. He would have been 4-5 years old. If they did not think it to be an adult size print they wouldn't have asked for their fellow LE's shoes.

I don't think the bear should have been on that bed thus a reason why Patsy did not remember it. It was not something she would see normally.

There were TWO baseball bats found and they did not deny the flashlight; they were shown a photo and the photo made it look different so their answer was could have been.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally Posted by LI_Mom

PLUS denying any knowledge of the teddy bear, the baseball bat & the flashlight & making investigators waste how much time pursuing those false 'leads.'

Claiming that no-one in the family ever had those boots (can't recall the brand) & then finding out in the deposition that Burke DID own a pair.


If I wanted to find out who killed MY kid, I sure wouldn't want investigators starting off the investigation with a lot of bad information.

Welcome back, LI_Mom. How have you been?

Excellent points - many believe the Ramseys hindered investigation rather than helped, at almost every possible turn. As others have noticed, Patsy seemingly took pride in DOI explaining how about her comments on the bear inspired a "nationwide hunt" for its source.

The last thing I would want to talk about in a book about my child's murder investigation would be how pleased I was that I got god knows how many people to jump at my suggestion. More interesting would have been Patsy explaining what she was on about when she claimed to have seen the heart on JB's hand the DAY her body was found, only to into the interview the next morning and completely contradict what she had just said yesterday very first thing, before the interview barely even got started - but of course, Patsy didn't go into that.

Then there's passing off the pineapple as being an "urban legend," when they'd been told by Smit that it was positively ID'd as pineapple. They knew that it was pineapple, but here they are trying to tell anyone who will listen otherwise. Why? Same with lying about FBI. Why? Same with not telling police about the window and strange vehiclkes, and changing story to say doors weren't locked when they'd previously said the doors were. Why?

[LI_Mom]

Hiya Nuisance... it's been a while, hasn't it? Uh oh... I've forgotten all the abbreviations the Ramseyphiles use... but it's coming back to me. lol

Reading DOI, my first thought was that there was very little about JB and the book's only goal was so Patsy could ramble on about THE MOST absurd things.


Bragging about how her mother taught her to be such a refined lady... 'never be seen without makeup' & then on the next page, tells the world that she didn't shower AND wore the same outfit the next day AND packed their dirty laundry in garbage bags to take on their trip to Michigan. lol

Such as when she went into labor with JB and then they left for the hospital leaving toddler Burke alone in the house since her family members would arrive at the house in a few minutes!

Much shocking to me was when she went on & on about how devastated John was to lose his eldest daughter in a car accident & then later she goes on to tell how when John, Patsy & Burke were staying with those friends of theirs... the women & kids sat around watching a movie & the kids had so much fun counting how many car wrecks there were. (Who knows, when John was alone with HIS friends, maybe they had fun counting cancer victims in movie scenes?)

And how about how offended they were by the media & then she goes on & on about how she & girlfriend (Susan?) outfoxed the media & led them on a high speed chase... oh what fun. And the (one sided) snowball fight John & his buddies had with the media! Why antagonize the media, if your biggest claim is that you just want them to show you compassion?

And there was that person who was watching them in Michigan & John pretended to shoot him & Patsy thought that was hilarious also. Not that that's strange BUT it was a very strange thing to share with the world.

Why not write about your daughter instead of these asinine stories she chose to tell?

The whole book was more absurd than any insipid soap opera on tv, that's for sure.

[DAFFODIL]

Originally Posted by LI_Mom

Hiya Nuisance... it's been a while, hasn't it? Uh oh... I've forgotten all the abbreviations the Ramseyphiles use... but it's coming back to me. lol

Reading DOI, my first thought was that there was very little about JB and the book's only goal was so Patsy could ramble on about THE MOST absurd things.


Bragging about how her mother taught her to be such a refined lady... 'never be seen without makeup' & then on the next page, tells the world that she didn't shower AND wore the same outfit the next day AND packed their dirty laundry in garbage bags to take on their trip to Michigan. lol

Such as when she went into labor with JB and then they left for the hospital leaving toddler Burke alone in the house since her family members would arrive at the house in a few minutes!

Much shocking to me was when she went on & on about how devastated John was to lose his eldest daughter in a car accident & then later she goes on to tell how when John, Patsy & Burke were staying with those friends of theirs... the women & kids sat around watching a movie & the kids had so much fun counting how many car wrecks there were. (Who knows, when John was alone with HIS friends, maybe they had fun counting cancer victims in movie scenes?)

And how about how offended they were by the media & then she goes on & on about how she & girlfriend (Susan?) outfoxed the media & led them on a high speed chase... oh what fun. And the (one sided) snowball fight John & his buddies had with the media! Why antagonize the media, if your biggest claim is that you just want them to show you compassion?

And there was that person who was watching them in Michigan & John pretended to shoot him & Patsy thought that was hilarious also. Not that that's strange BUT it was a very strange thing to share with the world.

Why not write about your daughter instead of these asinine stories she chose to tell?

The whole book was more absurd than any insipid soap opera on tv, that's for sure.

Excellent point about the car wrecks-I had forgotten all about that.Before IDIs jump in and say its not proof of guilt,no it isnt but it goes to character IMO.

[Jayelles]

Originally Posted by Athena

Research has proven that the boots Burke owned with a compass were a limited edition put out in 1992 to celebrate 500 years since Columbus had come to America. I doubt very seriously that his shoe was matched to the imprint to the basement. He would have been 4-5 years old. If they did not think it to be an adult size print they wouldn't have asked for their fellow LE's shoes.

I don't think the bear should have been on that bed thus a reason why Patsy did not remember it. It was not something she would see normally.

There were TWO baseball bats found and they did not deny the flashlight; they were shown a photo and the photo made it look different so their answer was could have been.

I'm sorry, but I don't think it's necessarily quite as cut and dried as you suggest. I have various observations about this:-

1) There is documented evidence that John Ramsey remembers that Burke owned shoes with compasses attached - we have no official record that Burke remembers owning shoes with compasses.

2) Even if Burke DID remember having shoes with compasses attached, I seriously doubt that 4/5 years later he would have remembers that those shoes were manufactured by Hi-tec.

My conclusion is therefore that Burke definitely owned at least ONE pair of Hi-Tec shoes but whether these were the ones with the compases that his father remembers and which came out when he was 5 years old or whether he owned another pair more recently than that which both he and his friend recalled the brand name for - is not a matter of established fact.

Another question I would have - who was the friend who apparently confirmed to the Grand Jury that Burke owned Hi-Tecs? Fleet White Jnr or Doug Stine? I ask because I am not certain that the Ramseys knew either of these families in 1992 so it seems very unlikely that Burke and his friend would be referring to the compass shoes from that perspective.

[LI_Mom]

I actually saved some notes regarding the Hi-Tecs:


HI-TEC Boots:


"And the mystery of the Hi-Tec boot imprint was solved in grand jury testimony. Prosecutors disclosed in the 2000 interviews of the Ramseys that Burke and one of his friends had told jurors that Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots — something his parents said they somehow overlooked or forgot when they told authorities no one in the family owned such a boot, even though there is a distinctive compass on the boot."

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm



Aug. 29, 2000

Atty. Bruce Levin & John Ramsey


Q. We have been provided, and again, one of the sources of this information is confidential grand jury material I can tell you in the question, but we have been provided information from two sources that your son Burke, prior to the murder of your daughter, owned and wore Hi-Tec boots that had a compass on them, which makes them distinctive. Do you recall -- if you don't recall that they actually were Hi-Tec, do you remember Burke having boots that had a compass on the laces?

A. Vaguely. I don't know if they were boots or tennis shoes. My memory is they were tennis shoes, but that is very vague. He had boots that had lights on them and all sorts of different things.

Q. But you do have some recollection that he had some type of footwear that had compasses attached to them?

A. I don't, I don't specifically remember them, but my impression is that he did, in my mind, yeah. But my impression was that they were tennis shoes.

Q. Sneakers?

A. Sneakers. Yeah. Ask Burke if he remembers it. I said, ask Burke, perhaps he -- well, we could certainly ask Burke.

http://www.webbsleuths.com/john2000.txt




Aug. 24, 2002

" Attorney Lin Wood of Atlanta, who represents JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey , said his clients do not dispute the palm-print findings, but he said the family disagrees that the footprint came from Burke.

"Burke Ramsey does not and has never owned a pair of quote, unquote, trademarked Hi-Tec sneakers that the Ramseys are aware of," he said. "I would think they know what shoes he has owned."

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/st...il02.asp?ID=25