If you support the Ramseys or are on the fence, please read this...

[Maxi]

Originally posted by Jayelles
I bellieve that the Ramseys (mainly John) are guilty of no more than extreme arrogance following their daughter's death. I think they have been 'badly advised' with regard to their assisting plice with enquiries and I think their supporters continue to do them no favours by refusing to accept that this is the case.

I completely agree with Jayelles with one exception. I am still not convinced the Ramseys didn't kill JonBenet. If they are involved, I lean toward Patsy as the killer with John assisting in the coverup. If they are not involved, I lean toward someone with an obsession about JonBenet rather than someone seeking revenge on John Ramsey.

[ayjey]

Casshew.

I was on solidly on the fence until I saw Patsy's handwriting compared to the note left behind.

:dontknow:

[Shylock]

Originally posted by ayjey
I was on solidly on the fence until I saw Patsy's handwriting compared to the note left behind. I agree, there is no doubt that Patsy wrote the ransom note, a half-blind person can see that.
I'm still on the fence about which Rammer caused her death. Any of the three could have, and Burke certainly looks good for it because of the childlike molestation.

[Barbara]

"...I am aware that the majority here are Ramsey bashers,...."

I resent being called a Ramsey basher. Believing that they are involved in their daughter's death does not make us "evil Ramsey bashers".

Like Jayelles and Maxi, I too am apalled at the extreme arrogance the Ramseys exhibited during the investigation.

Yes, I do believe one of the Ramseys are involved in JonBenet's death.

That doesn't make me or anyone else "bashers", just makes us believers that the Ramseys are hiding their involvement in JonBenet's murder.

The "bashers" are the Ramseys who have thrown just about everyone they used to care about "under that bus".

[sissi]

I firmly believe the Ramseys are innocent!
I do not have access to the Ransom note to determine pen pressure ,but from the overall appearance it doesn't appear to be written by Patsy IMO.
There were no bleed through pages on the pad but,several were missing,as though the perp took the pages for this purpose. Why didn't he just take the entire pad? It's almost as though he ripped the pages and took them with him in a folder or something to keep them neat until he returned them to the house. No one asked the right questions early enough to jog the memory of the Ramseys. Who may have grabbed a pen and the pad to run to a phone in private while visiting? Then later a folder appears which includes a picture of the entrepreneurial mag photo of John,with a heart around him? Was it ever determined if this folder was theirs? In fact,did the police release the "leak" deliberately to add to the already building public case against the Ramseys,was this "leak" truth? Were the pages absolutely from that pad,or was another pad taken from the home. We know,for fact,that the Pughs helped themselves to pads and pens from the Ramseys,can we be certain this pad was the one? It would have been a nice "gesture" (ha) on the part of the police to have confiscated the pads from the Pughs,but heck they didn't want to seem insensitive at this time,when Linda was obviously upset and her inebriated hubby was asking if Jonbenet was strangled.
They should have asked Linda,how many people may have stopped in the kitchen,both adults and children,who could have grabbed a pad to write a note,and left with one.
JMO IMO

[Jayelles]

I don't say that I 'firmly' believe ni their innocence - because I don't know the Ramseys, I wasn't there and who knows what goes on behind closed doors?

However, I do believe that Patsy adored JonBenet with all her heart and I don't think she would stay with John if he was a monster.

I can't understand anyone who wasn't an eye witness being able to say that they 'know' the Ramseys are innocent. They cannot possibly know that for sure. People can feel strongly that they are innocent, but they can't know for sure.

The Ramseys have every incentive to lie about events that night and we must bear that in mind - not dismiss it outright, but bear it in mind. John Ramsey has been known to tell lies, so his word is worth less in my mind because of that.

But I cannot envisage of them killing their daughter.

[Arielle]

I am also on the fence on this case. I lean towards the Ramsey's being innocent, simply because I cannot conceive of a motive for the crime if it was premeditated and I cannot see them covering up an accident. Patsy was overprotective of JonBenet in the extreme. If some sort of accident happened, I can see her rushing JonBenet to the hospital and begging the doctors and God to save her baby. I can't see her allowing this coverup to happen. I would never think that such a thing would save my reputation and I can't see that she would have thought that either. Of course, I don't know them and I don't know how they would really react in any given situation. Like Jayelles, I feel that they received some really bad advice from their lawyers and were not capable of thinking for themselves and managed to did themselves into the hole they are in today. They certainly are not perfect people or saints and there must be some dirty laundry there somewhere. I hate those people that put them up on a pedastal and say they can do no wrong.

I also don't think Patsy wrote the ransom note, even after seeing the handwriting comparison. The ransom note and Patsy's writing look very much like mine. So much so, I wanted to try to write it out myself to see if it would match. However, I decided this was a bad idea, so I never did it.

I tend to think an intruder did this. However, an intruder does NOT have to be a stranger.

[Toth]

I just want to make one quick comment on 'arrogance' and 'following bad advice':
I saw nothing that was arrogant. Apparently others did, but I don't know when.
As for bad advice? The lawyers kept them out of jail. The lawyers told them do not speak to the cops, it was the Ramseys who insisted that their lawyers arrange a meeting with the police despite their lawyers advice that it was best for the Ramseys to not meet with the BPD at all.
Pedestal? Not really. But in comparison to Porno Peeping Santa or Naked Photographers strolling down the street and the like, I sure think the Ramseys deserve general admiration for their lifestyle even if certain aspects, such as pageant participation, are not to your particular likeing.

[Barbara]

"Pedestal? Not really. But in comparison to Porno Peeping Santa or Naked Photographers strolling down the street and the like...."

Truthfully, the "Porno Peeping Santa" (not nice, BTW) and the "Naked Photographers" cooperated fully and when asked by the BPD to answer questions, and whatever else. Can't say the same for those admirable Ramseys.

Have you never seen a porno Toth? So easy to malign the dead when they can't defend themselves eh?

[Imon128]

deleted to help MissMisty with her thread. ;)

[Toth]

I think John must have had a little risque side to himself to keep a mistress for two years. Thats news to me and I think it might also be news to him too, but if it did actually happen, I still don't see it as particularly relevant.

[TLynn]

I've been on the fence and both sides of it ---

But it always comes back to the pineapple.

[Jayelles]

Thank you Toth for demonstrating what I was trying to say about the supporters.

Re John's mistress - common knowledge. You can read about it in the police transcripts. I/m surprised that Toth is denying knowledge of this. He's discussed it often enough.

[Maxi]

I'd say the idea of hiring the PR firm was pretty bad advice.

[Shawna]

I always believed a GOTH was responsible for Jonbenet's murder. Members of the BPD said that only a midget could get through that small window. This effeminate gothic dwarf was not cut out for the midget wrestling team. He used his height as an advantage and became a cat burgler around Boulder :eek:

I always felt the Ramsey's were innocent .

[Nehemiah]

I am a fence sitter most of the time. I really hate to be that way, but I cannot get off for any length of time.

At the most, I believe the Rs could have covered up an accident within the family. I do not believe there was anything premeditated.

On the other hand, I don't believe that it was a random intruder. If someone else killled JB besides an accident w/in the family, I believe that it was someone known to her, and familiar with the house and grounds.

[Britt]

Originally posted by Jayelles
But I cannot envisage of them killing their daughter.
I cannot envisage any parent killing their child... and yet they do.

Like Barbara, I resent being called a Ramsey basher... actually, I don't resent it... I don't really care... but it's a silly dismissive term that means nothing. I'm a basher of liars and of manglers of justice.

Finally, I want to know what Imon said before she edited her post. I probably agree with whatever it was :D

[K777angel]

Since I AM "open-minded" about this case, that means that I have objectively looked at every single fact of this case. I'm not talking about rumors - but the simple known facts of this case.
I am left with no other logical conclusion than to understand that of course the Ramseys were involved in the crime & cover-up.
Nothing else makes sense. Evidence and facts do not lie.

It does not mean I - or anyone else coming to this logical conclusion is a "Ramsey basher." Don't you know that when logic is not on YOUR side of the arguement that you then must resort to name calling of your opponent??
It's a way of diverting attention away from the REAL problem and the truth.

A wise Philosophy professor once said in class that there are 2 kinds of people: Those who want the truth - and those who want to be consoled.
How true.

[vicktor]

Blazeboy3: Please refer where/how you got this info(Animal Hair).. Thanks ( animal hairs reportedly found on JB's hands)

I saw it on the eight asterisk forum several months ago being discussed. Although I can't recall the printed or quoted source of it, I vaguely remember it being brought up in one of the depositions taken from ST or MB.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Toth
I saw nothing that was arrogant. Apparently others did, but I don't know when. Toth, it's too bad you didn't pay close attention to the Van Damms--from day-1 they could have given the Ramseys a lesson on how innocent parents REALLY act. They DON'T hide behind lawyers.

[MissMisty]

To all of you who came here for the reason I asked, thank you! I figured it would turn into a free for all, when all I wanted to know was who else supports the intruder theory. Please, if you want to debate, go somewhere else...that's not what this thread is for. Thank you, I appreciate it.
(By the way...I see no resemblance whatsoever between Patsy's writing and the author of the ransom note's. Nor is there any tangible evidence against either parent. Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Please keep this on topic...please?
Misty

[BrotherMoon]

And how do you manage to overlook the dead body of a little girl in the house of the parents as evidence of a crime by the parents?

If you don't want to read evil posts why do you post them and invite us to read them?

K7, there are three kinds of people; adults, children and those in transition.

[nellicat]

There is no tangible evidence, it appears, against anyone. That is why the case remains unsolved and probably unsolvable. All we have is a bunch of circumstantial evidence or physical evidence that is unlinked to any particular person. Much of the evidence points to the parents and/or Burke, some points to a known intruder (most likely someone who laid in wait), and some (IMO, the least) points to an unknown, or opportunistic, intruder.

I am on the fence. I feel the circumstantial evidence points to the parents and/or Burke, but I am not convinced they are guilty. This does not make me a "basher" or a "supporter" of the Ramseys.

[SisterSocks]

I think John and Patsy didn't kill Jon Benet....

[ajt400]

Originally posted by K777angel

It does not mean I - or anyone else coming to this logical conclusion is a "Ramsey basher." Don't you know that when logic is not on YOUR side of the arguement that you then must resort to name calling of your opponent??

There is plenty of name-calling on both sides.....so does that mean that both sides have no real logic to them?:dontknow:

[Shylock]

Originally posted by SisterSocks
I think John and Patsy didn't kill Jon Benet.... I think you're right. I think Burke bashed her over the head and it was all cover-up from that point on.

[shadow]

Originally posted by SisterSocks
I think John and Patsy didn't kill Jon Benet....

i agree. for a long time i thought they were guilty but not anymore. there are now transcripts available of Det. Lou Smit which show the possibility of an intruder. posters have referred to him as senile and other deragatory terms. a judge recently ruled that there is no evidence against the Ramseys and someone came forward who was in possession of chilling audio tapes, letters, etc. from some sadistic wierdo who was obsessed with Jon Benet. bondage dolls, according to Patsy, were left on the lawn at their Boulder home after the murder. during a police interrogation which took place in the Ramseys' attorneys' office, John adamantly denied the presence of his DNA in JonBenet's underwear, which was a lie made up by LE to try to trap him into "confessing." a photograph exists of Patsy sitting at the piano playing JonBenet's favorite song. there is no way those parents murdered her. the look on Patsy's face is not the look of a murderer. as far as the Ramseys "hiding behind their attorneys" or "hiring a PR firm", this is how the wealthy conduct themselves. they are going to hire attorneys to protect their rights and since they had no history of criminality/molestation in their family, they were not used to being maligned by anyone. that is why they felt the need to hire a PR firm. Betty Broderick hired a PR firm as well when she went to jail. they feel they are not portrayed correctly to the public and are able to afford representation to help with their defenses. footage is available now showing Patsy & John at JonBenet's grave. reports were that the grave was unmarked and they never went to visit. this is incorrect information. why is it so hard to believe some pervert saw JonBenet at a pageant or around Boulder and got in the house?

[Barbara]

"... during a police interrogation which took place in the Ramseys' attorneys' office, John adamantly denied the presence of his DNA in JonBenet's underwear, which was a lie made up by LE to try to trap him into "confessing." ...

It was not John's DNA they asked him about. It was "fibers" from John that they stated they had found in her underwear.
Do you have a source for your statement that the LE made it all up? Or are you doing the same thing we are all doing...going by our own feelings and opinions? As far as I know, we DONT know if it was made up.

"....why is it so hard to believe some pervert saw JonBenet at a pageant or around Boulder and got in the house?"


It's not at all hard to believe that there would be perverts ogling JonBenet at pageants or anywhere else for that matter. That is not the issue. What is IMPOSSIBLE for most of the public to believe is that he/they got into the house, did all those things, wrote a note, etc. without leaving anything of himself/herself/themselves. The DNA does not seem to be anything useful so far in this murder, although some are hanging on to this as "proof" of an intruder. I personally think it will turn out to be nothing relevant based on the real life experts who have weighed in on this issue.

Perverts are not usually known for leaving a phony ransom note for no reason at all. A pervert who may have seen JonBenet at a pageant and developed a "thing" for her would not have researched the family, knowing their names and all about John's business, etc., etc. A pervert wouldn't usually find his victims in such a way as to put him/herself at such a real risk. Perverts usually like their victims on different terms with as little risk as possible. A pervert finding her at a pageant would not have gone through such risky means to get to her and then molest or sexually assault her in the manner that she was assaulted. A child molester does not usually penetrate with objects; they penetrate with themselves. If objects are used, it is usually done after the personal assault and satisfying themselves. And no, I don't believe some of the spin that the perversion was to insert an object while he/they masturbated.

I find it hard to believe that anyone finds it hard to believe those who feel this presentation from Smit is not viable and the Ramseys are involved in this murder.

[shadow]

Do you have a source for your statement that the LE made it all up? Or are you doing the same thing we are all doing...going by our own feelings and opinions? As far as I know, we DONT know if it was made up.

i don't have the link right now. it's very late here but i will dig up some links when i am not so tired. LE often, as part of their investigation/interrogation of a suspect, lies to elicit a confession or statement that would help their case. in this case they felt the case was at a standstill if they did not get the Ramseys to confess. i saw the interrogation on the documentary that was aired on TV which showed John and Patsy being interrogated in their lawyer's office. it was made up because John's DNA was not found in her underwear. there was some DNA that was discovered on JonBenet that did not belong to either parent or family member.

[Barbara]

Again, I will point out that DNA was not what they told John they found. They told John they found fibers from his shirt in her underwear, NOT DNA.

As far as LE making things up to get people to confess, yes I am aware of that (that's how Susan Smith confessed), but what I am saying is that we don't know IN THIS CASE yet whether that happened.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Toth
Toth believes the Ramseys are innocent of any wrongdoing; that none of them were in any way involved in the murder and that no sort of cover-up ever existed. This was a witchhunt perpetrated by an incompetent police force and a DA who was in league with the tabloids.

Is this ABSOLUTE...as in NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE?... just curious.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Shawna
I always believed a GOTH was responsible for Jonbenet's murder. Members of the BPD said that only a midget could get through that small window. This effeminate gothic dwarf was not cut out for the midget wrestling team. He used his height as an advantage and became a cat burgler around Boulder :eek:

I always felt the Ramsey's were innocent .

I'm still trying to figure out where the "300" #number came from... here's one source...FYI/FWIW...

http://www.peekaboo.net/archives/cat18/99.html

Wecht also said the description of the skull fracture, which ran from the front of the girl's head across the crown to the rear, indicated use of an elongated instrument such as a golf club or heavy flashlight, and that the unknown weapon was wielded with enough brute force to bring down a ''300-pound football player.''

[Blazeboy3]

HERE'S ANOTHER REFERENCE TO "300 POUND?"

John Ramsey
Burke was a 9-year-old child when JonBenet was killed. The blow to JonBenet's head was powerful enough to bring down a 300-pound man. This blow was administered by an adult male. So, to presume that a 9-year-old child could so viciously and brutally attack another child is foolishness.]]\\\

Here's another reference...300#

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/14/lkl.00.html

And here's a very significant point, Larry. This child's skull was crushed. She suffered a 8 1/2 inch displaced fracture of the right side of her skull. Now, Patsy Ramsey didn't accidentally push a child into the bathtub edge. If his theory holds water, which it doesn't, Patsy Ramsey would have had to pick up her 45-pound daughter and swing her like a sledgehammer to crush her skull like this. This was a blow that would fall a 300-pound man.

And here's another reference...300#

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/1999/07/08/profiler/index2.html
If the parents didn't do it and the brother didn't do it, who did?

They have their own suspicions, but I eliminated them through analysis. If two people are working together after a crime they stay together like glue because they don't trust each other. The Ramseys went to separate places, which reinforces that they probably didn't do it. The hardest part I had with the crime was the way the girl was killed. There was such anger directed at her. The blow to her head was so forceful it could have taken down a 300-pound man. And she was also digitally sexually assaulted. And mixed in with her own blood is DNA evidence. I said way back when, "It's probably not semen." And two years later, they proved it's not semen. It may be saliva. The reason I said, "It's not semen" -- to me it was more of a vengeful kind of crime.

I couldn't understand: How do you go from a Christmas Day party with neighbors and friends and on the way home, "Goodbye, we're going to Charlevoix, Mich., tomorrow." What happened that would cause the parents to just lose it that night and kill a child -- wetting the bed? That didn't jibe.

I only know what I read in the tabloids. Based on what you said, somebody at that party hated the Ramseys and wanted to hurt them before they split for the holiday.

It can't be a stranger. It has to be someone who has some knowledge.

Do you have a suspect?

There are several. I can't discuss it. But there are several who look good.

Has anyone investigated them?

I don't know. When I went out there in the first week of January '97, people thought, "Here's the hired gun." Believe me -- moneywise, I got hardly next to nothing. And the hours I put in all these years ... I stopped taking any money once I saw the Ramseys were not responsible. They were victims. The Boulder Police -- I thought I was somewhere down in the deep, deep, Deep South. Good ol' boys smoking cigars. I said, "If you don't like me -- if you think I'm a turncoat -- go to the FBI. Go to my unit and get them involved. Be proactive." What do you mean "be proactive"? I said, "Look at the Unabomber case. Had we not publicized the manifesto, he'd still be living in Montana." Here you have a so-called "ransom note" -- I'd like a guy like you [meaning Bowman] to look at it. With your background, you'd see: Would parents write a note like that? It has statements in it from current movies. What parent would have the presence of mind to write something like that?

What lines are from movies that were playing Boulder at the time?

"Don't grow a brain, John"

[shadow]

As far as LE making things up to get people to confess, yes I am aware of that (that's how Susan Smith confessed), but what I am saying is that we don't know IN THIS CASE yet whether that happened.

yes, i understand Barbara. what do you think about that nasty knot that was used on the garrot. i saw photos of it close up and it looks like what a sexual sadomasochistic fiend would use. i find it impossible to believe Patsy, a mother, could sit and practice and make those knots hour after hour. only someone insane would make knots like that. does Patsy have any psychiatric issues? they were tied to perfection. she also described that a bondage doll was thrown on her lawn after the murder. there is some creepy alley behind the house that leads out to city streets. the ransom note is also disturbing. one explanation to the use of the words "and hence" were that she had to write it over and over for the handwriting analysts and that in their x-mas cards the words were repeated in their cards due to the repetition of writing it over and over. that makes no sense either. weren't the cards sent out before the x-mas day? that explanation is not possible! poor JonBenet would have been a teenager by now:(

[guppy]

MissMisty,

I was on the fence in the Ramsey case for about a year before deciding - based on the evidence available - that they were innocent of any involvement in JonBenet's murder. I have followed the case closely since then and have seen nothing that would cause me to change my mind, notwithstanding the fact that posters like Jayelles and Imon have held my feet to the fire on the details many times over the years. (Yes, there is now, and has been, a lot of bandwidth wasted on Ramsey bashing in this forum over the years, but there have also been numerous lengthly discussions about the evidence that have helped many of us acquire a better understanding of the case.)

Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of the case, to me, personally, is why I have never, at any time, thought the Ramseys "look guilty", unlike so many other posters. For example, although I am on the fence in the Laci case, Scott Peterson certainly "looks guilty" to me. Still, it is no substitute for actual evidence of guilt. It will, however, probably keep me from ever hopping off of the fence in that case. I suspect there are many out there who don't jump off the fence in the Ramsey case for the same reason.

[K777angel]

Nearly every single murder case is "circumstantial." Meaning there are no witnesses to the crime nor a confession. There may be in some cases a "smoking gun" but it is still not an eye witness to the crime nor a confession. It is a "circumstance" of the case - albeit a powerful one.

The Ramsey case is no different. Particularly when there is staging in a crime - (as there was in this crime as the FBI has stated) - the "circumstances" are rearranged so to speak.
To throw off the authorities. Such as the note.

There are a number of reasons this case was not taken to trial and no arrests were made. It was NOT because they did not have forensic evidence indicating who the perp(s) were.
They do.
It is one thing to know who did it - it is another thing altogether to PROVE it in a court of law in front of the top lawyers in the state. Ask Marcia Clark. They knew O.J. was guilty and had the evidence to prove it - but they were outsmarted by his slick lawyers. It happens.
Alex Hunter KNEW his butt would be drug through the mud for misbehavior in this investigation ......
And the decision to indict or not - rest soley with him.
Go figure.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by shadow
what do you think about that nasty knot that was used on the garrot. i saw photos of it close up and it looks like what a sexual sadomasochistic fiend would use. i find it impossible to believe Patsy, a mother, could sit and practice and make those knots hour after hour. only someone insane would make knots like that. You have to be kidding. Steve Thomas said in one of his chats that the garrote was no complex weapon--that was all Team Ramsey propaganda. He said it's nothing but a stick with a cord wrapped around it a half-dozen times.
Take a close look at the garrote. On one end is a basic slip-knot that anyone knows how to tie, and the stick just has the cord wrapped around it 7 times with the same knot used to tie your shoes.

It's so simple a 9-year old kid could have constructed it as a toy.

[guppy]

Shylock,

> If you don't think the Ramseys look guilty, then you must also believe O.J. is innocent.

Actually, I didn't even post on the OJ case until after the verdict because it was clear to me he was guilty. Ditto Westerfield.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by guppy
Actually, I didn't even post on the OJ case until after the verdict because it was clear to me he was guilty. Ditto Westerfield. What Gup, no comment on the Ramsey actions? (or lack thereof)
Let me ask you again:

Do you see the Ramseys out there for one single second doing ANYTHING that might help find their daughter's killer?

And can you compare their actions in ANY way to people we know who actually had their child murdered by a stranger? - (the Van Damms, The Klass family, the Walsh family, etc)

[Jayelles]

I didn't think Westerfield *looked* guilty. I've said this all along. I thought he could have been the gy next door and I certainly wouldn't have been intuitively wary of him. However, I couldn't deny that the evidence against him was compelling. I still don't believe he set out to kill Danielle and I hope someday he'll tell us what really happened. My pet theory is that he went into the house thinking Brenda might be on her own and suddenly realised Damon was home. Did he hide in Danielle's bedroom? Did she waken and threaten to scream?

I don't feel 'intuitively' that the Ramseys have guilty knowledge of JonBenet's death. If it turned out that they did, I would have difficulty coming to terms with it. I can acknowledge that their reluctance to assist with the police investigation defies belief.

[guppy]

Jayelles,

I guess you could say "looking guilty" is a combination of things, not just physical appearance or body language during an interview. Someone like Westerfield clearly would "look" more guilty after learning of his activities immediately following the girl's disappearance. Also, as Shylock points out above, we are all swayed by our impressions of what a suspect doesn't do, not just what he does do.

So, I would say that a picture of OJ wouldn't lead one to believe he is a killer, but a videotape of him driving around with a gun pointed at his own head might. Or course, it is very subjective. For example, many of those who think the Ramseys are guilty see the early CNN interview as evidence to support their beliefs. With me it was just the opposite. When I finally saw that interview after hearing about it for so many months, it led me to believe that they could be innocent. Different strokes, you know...

[FULTON]

When we look at the Ramseys we don't see cold blooded killers like we are used to seeing on the tv news and on the post office bulliten board of hard crimminals.I think this is what most people have trouble with. I don't think this was a premeditated murder.I don't think it is in any Ramsey to do that,however I can't get by that ransome note and its references and a host of other factors that point to no intruder.The list pointing to this being an inside job is very long.With law enforcement giving a pass to Burke and John who is left that was in the house that night???Susan Smith who drowned her two sons was by all accounts a good mother. The boys were well cared for,neatly clothed and fed with never any signs of physical abuse.Her own husband was shocked as the rest of the world was at what really happened.

[tipper]

Fulton, you need to read up on Susan Smith's background.

[FULTON]

Tipper beleive me im very familiar with Susan Smiths background SHE was not abusive to her children however she was abused by her stepfather sexually.The police were never called to her house for child neglect or was it ever reported she was abusive to her own children.This is what I was refering to.

[ziggy]

Well geez I've been away forever but I'll agree with Jayelles and Guppy.

I came into this thinking they were guilty, lead only by what I saw on the news and in the tabs. After reading the books and getting a quick education through this and other forums I came to believe that MOST LIKELY they were innocent.

I agree with Jayelles that no one except those involved can say with absolution who is innocent and who is guilty but I will say that the intruder theory is plausible and, for me, the best explanation.

There will be no reason to query my post because I've not had time to enter any debates lately. I'll not respond or debate the case because it's been done ad nauseum and there's no point - everyone has his or her own opinion and I respect it, so please respect mine.

As for "looking guilty", I have not thought any of them "looked" guilty. I thought OJ was guilty, although in the beginning I resisted that thought because I loved him as a football hero, and in the end the evidence won me over. Westerfield - guilty - could never understand those who wanted to bash the parents and I still don't understand how the Ramseys raise such venom and hatred in people. I know in the Smart case there were many who wanted to vilify the parents too and I just don't understand the need to jump to that conclusion with absolutely no evidence.

So - sticking to the thread topic, I lean heavily toward Ramsey innocence.

[BrotherMoon]

That's a hilarious misuse of the word absolution zig.

[Saffron]

I'm usually pro-prosecution, and, after reading a Vanity Fair article a few years ago, I assumed the Ramseys were guilty. But now I'm willing to consider that the Ramseys are innocent. Disclaimer: I haven't read any books about this case, and know little about it, especially compared to the posters on these threads (who seem to have very sound reasons why they think the Ramseys are guilty). Having said that, here are the reasons I lean toward innocent:

1.) I saw "The System" on Court TV a few weeks ago, and Lou Smits explained his theory of an intruder. His ideas and evidence were compelling. This opened my eyes to the possibility that the parents were innocent -- something I simply hadn't considered before. (I realize that, if I had time to research it further, there's a possibility his evidence might be reasonably discredited.)

2.) After seeing the beginning, middle and end of both the Danielle Van Dam and Elizabeth Smart cases, I realized that an intruder will enter a home and take a child while the family sleeps. Prior to that, I would have thought it quite unlikely, if not impossible. Also, when both of these cases broke, many in the media were suspicious of the parents, especially the Van Dams. I even suspected the Van Dams due to some early reports (e.g., the father saw the sliding glass door opened in the middle of the night, but didn't check on the kids after closing it; a letter that Danielle had written to him, apologizing for making him mad, etc.). And I thought it odd that Ed Smart cried without tears, and I even believed the Nat'l Enquirer story about a gay porno ring among Ed Smart and his brothers; I believed it because I heard the editor of the NE convincing Catherine Crier on CourtTV that they had many reliable sources, and that the evidence, including Ed's journal, was with the police. Catherine Crier acknowledged that the NE had about 9 attorneys per reporter to ensure the stories were accurate. The point is, both of these families were made to look guilty in the press, and I was easily persuaded by the media's slant. Of course, we now know exactly what happened to these two girls, and that their families had nothing to do with the horrible crimes. It's really made me stop and think about how journalists and the media can sometimes shape these stories in the wrong direction, even unintentionally.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Shylock
Geeez Guppy, just what does it take? Let's for the moment not even consider how guilty they looked right after the crime, and consider the here and now: Do you think the Rammers are acting like parents who want their daughter's killer caught? Where's the web site? The tip line? The reward? The constant contact with LE to press for a larger scale investigation? Where are the press interviews asking anybody to come forth with information, instead of the usual us-us-us interviews? Do you see the Ramseys out there for one single second doing ANYTHING that might help find their daughter's killer?

If you don't think the Ramseys look guilty, then you must also believe O.J. is innocent. The Ram$eys are out looking for their daughter's killer on the 19th hole of the same golf course he is.

You don't need a degree in psychology to look at the actions of parents (whose children were REALLY killed by strangers) to see that the Ramseys don't even come close to behaving in that mannor. They wouldn't even begin to know how.

No harm intended whatsoever:...just thank you for the post(a laugh much-needed by me!)...itLOL; GOT MILK?--THINK MUCH? triggerred another chapter & different page number in this BOOK OF LIFE!...?:confused:///...surely it's a breakfast drink(BD>Boulder Dept) O.J....milk?...~~~

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by K777angel
Since I AM "open-minded" about this case, that means that I have objectively looked at every single fact of this case. I'm not talking about rumors - but the simple known facts of this case.
I am left with no other logical conclusion than to understand that of course the Ramseys were involved in the crime & cover-up.
Nothing else makes sense. Evidence and facts do not lie.

It does not mean I - or anyone else coming to this logical conclusion is a "Ramsey basher." Don't you know that when logic is not on YOUR side of the arguement that you then must resort to name calling of your opponent??
It's a way of diverting attention away from the REAL problem and the truth.

A wise Philosophy professor once said in class that there are 2 kinds of people: Those who want the truth - and those who want to be consoled.
How true.

I AGREE/APPLAUD/THANK YOU +SUM...WELL STATE/D/MENT as POSTED...ABSOLUTE TRUTH IMHO...Again, DITTO!:)

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by MissMisty
To all of you who came here for the reason I asked, thank you! I figured it would turn into a free for all, when all I wanted to know was who else supports the intruder theory. Please, if you want to debate, go somewhere else...that's not what this thread is for. Thank you, I appreciate it.
(By the way...I see no resemblance whatsoever between Patsy's writing and the author of the ransom note's. Nor is there any tangible evidence against either parent. Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Please keep this on topic...please?
Misty

RN:You can't see No Resemblance...why not? Are you "focused?" or just "I figured(ing)"? FYI(RN info):
http://www.peekaboo.net/archives/cat18/198.html
The ransom note, signed "Victory, SBTC," and claiming to come from a "small foreign faction," said the men holding JonBenet captive would only release her in return for $118,000.

The menacing note and the opening salutation of a second, practice note were later found to have come from a legal pad belonging to the Ramseys. The note cautioned the Ramseys not to contact police, with threats such as, "If you talk to a stray dog, you die."

And, ordering the Ramseys to obey instructions, the note taunted, "Don't try to grow a brain, John."

The Ramseys' latest statement announces that their advertisement and fliers of last week will be followed by a new flier and advertisement campaign featuring "some critical handwriting samples showing how the killer wrote certain letters in the ransom note." Their advertisements and fliers contained their experts' profile of JonBenet's likely killer.

In addition to the "M"s, the Ramseys will show the public how the capital letters "D" and "W" appear, as well as the "distinctive" lower-case letters "k," "w," "u," "r," and "f." Also, they will reveal some "unusual connecting letters, such as 'Th.'"

Police handwriting analysts have excluded John Ramsey as a possible author of the note. They could not conclusively exclude Patsy Ramsey.

OH BUT PLEASE READ THIS: "PROBABILITY(OH YES?)"...ANOTHER INTERESTING RN fact(read) FYI:
http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/note/index.html

Heads or Tails?

Not very many people are familiar with statistical mathematics, or the mathematical ratio of odds. You can witness this any day of the year by the hundreds of thousands of people who throw money away in Las Vegas, making bets on game tables where the odds virtually guarantee you will lose The following is a simple lesson which will give you the basics you need to know.

Every coin has two sides. The odds that a coin toss will land on "heads" is a simple ratio of 1 in 2 possibilities, which is normally represented as 2:1 odds. The odds of two consecutive tosses resulting in heads is 2:1 x 2:1 = 4:1. The odds of three consecutive tosses resulting in heads is 2:1 x 2:1 x 2:1 = 8:1. And...If you're foolish to bet that heads will come up five times in a row, the odds are:

2:1 x 2:1 x 2:1 x 2:1 x 2:1 = 32:1.

Powerball Anyone?

In the midwestern United States, several states have joined together to run a multi-state "Powerball" lottery with huge jackpots. Since so many people can play, they need a game with large odds against winning. In the Powerball lottery game, the winner has to pick the correct five numbers from a set of 50 numbered balls, and they have to pick the correct "Powerball" number from a separate set of 36 balls. The Powerball multiplies the odds of the regular 50-ball lottery by the number of "power balls"--in this case 36. If we were to apply a Powerball lottery to our five coin toss example above the resulting odds would be:

36:1 x (2:1 x 2:1 x 2:1 x 2:1 x 2:1) = 1152:1

Obviously, the smart person who wouldn't bet on five coin tosses resulting in heads at 32:1 odds

...OK MAYBE YOU CAN DO THE MATH ABOVE...??? Hopefully you're not BLIND--and if you ARE BLIND--please FILE FOR DISABILITY IMMEDIATELY ok!...; here's another FYI read:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/sh/news/stories/nat-news-20000410-151114.html
NewsNet5 reports that 73 potential suspects' handwriting samples were ruled out during the investigation.

Again, only one person -- Patsy -- could not be ruled out as the author because the way the As in the letter match Patsy's As.

"In Patsy's pre-homicide writings she consistently used what we called the lower-case manuscript. In the ransom note, almost exclusively the lower--case manuscript A was used -- I think -- 98 percent of the time was used," he said.

After the Ramseys were given a copy of the note, Thomas said that Patsy changed her As to the lower-case cursive As.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by shadow


1) the look on Patsy's face is not the look of a murderer. as far as the Ramseys "hiding behind their attorneys" or "hiring a PR firm", this is how the wealthy conduct themselves.
2) they are going to hire attorneys to protect their rights and since they had no history of criminality/molestation in their family, they were not used to being maligned by anyone. that is why they felt the need to hire a PR firm.
3) Betty Broderick hired a PR firm as well when she went to jail. they feel they are not portrayed correctly to the public and are able to afford representation to help with their defenses. footage is available now showing Patsy & John at JonBenet's grave.
4) reports were that the grave was unmarked and they never went to visit. this is incorrect information.

why is it so hard to believe some pervert saw JonBenet at a pageant or around Boulder and got in the house?

1)Why did Patsy have a "face-life"?
2)Why...whose "rights had priority"? JonBenet or her parents?... it's not something normal/average "get used to...".
3)There's a KILLER ON THE LOOSE(Patsy's words)...what does this matter(PR firm?)?
4)Going to JonBenet's grave...omg-hard? NOT;it's a control thing...(minor to the R's)...who is dead here???

FWIW...IMHO JonBenet DESERVED LIFE -- JONBENET DESERVED AND HAD EVERY RIGHT TO LIVE ON AND ON ...!!!)!!!

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Saffron
I'm usually pro-prosecution, and, after reading a Vanity Fair article a few years ago, I assumed the Ramseys were guilty. But but now I'm willing to consider that the Ramseys are innocent. Disclaimer: I haven't read any books about this case, and know little about it, especially compared to the posters on these threads (who seem to have very sound reasons why they think the Ramseys are guilty). Having said that, here are the reasons I lean toward innocent:

1.) I saw "The System" on Court TV a few weeks ago, and Lou Smits explained his theory of an intruder. His ideas and evidence were compelling. This opened my eyes to the possibility that the parents were innocent -- something I simply hadn't considered before. (I realize that, if I had time to research it further, there's a possibility his evidence might be reasonably discredited.)

2.) After seeing the beginning, middle and end of both the Danielle Van Dam and Elizabeth Smart cases, I realized that an intruder will enter a home and take a child while the family sleeps. Prior to that, I would have thought it quite unlikely, if not impossible. Also, when both of these cases broke, many in the media were suspicious of the parents, especially the Van Dams. I even suspected the Van Dams due to some early reports (e.g., the father saw the sliding glass door opened in the middle of the night, but didn't check on the kids after closing it; a letter that Danielle had written to him, apologizing for making him mad, etc.). And I thought it odd that Ed Smart cried without tears, and I even believed the Nat'l Enquirer story about a gay porno ring among Ed Smart and his brothers; I believed it because I heard the editor of the NE convincing Catherine Crier on CourtTV that they had many reliable sources, and that the evidence, including Ed's journal, was with the police. Catherine Crier acknowledged that the NE had about 9 attorneys per reporter to ensure the stories were accurate. The point is, both of these families were made to look guilty in the press, and I was easily persuaded by the media's slant. Of course, we now know exactly what happened to these two girls, and that their families had nothing to do with the horrible crimes. It's really made me stop and think about how journalists and the media can sometimes shape these stories in the wrong direction, even unintentionally.

Why would you (someone/anyone) not READ ANY BOOKS ON THIS CASE? ... IMHO there's a reason JonBenet's dad told us she(JonBenet) couldn't read that day (XMAS)(referenced in DOI) ... it's a major clue to me/mine...IMHO THAT WE SHOULD ALL READ FOR HER(JONBENET) and then we will know what happened/THE TRUTH!!! :cool: :) ;)

[Maxi]

Originally posted by BrotherMoon
That's a hilarious misuse of the word absolution zig.

:waitasec: Gee, I hope we've made it clear that no one on this forum needs absolution just cause they don't hold the majority view! :blowkiss: Just funnin' with ya, zig! :)

[Maxi]

Originally posted by Saffron
...
2.) After seeing the beginning, middle and end of both the Danielle Van Dam and Elizabeth Smart cases, I realized that an intruder will enter a home and take a child while the family sleeps....

The operant word here is "take".

There have been many cases in which a child has been taken from her home without her parents being aware of it. There have even been cases in which a child has been murdered horribly in her home while the parents slept. But no one has been able to find a case in which a ransom note and a dead child were left in the home while the parents slept. The closest parallels are those cases in which a family member kills a child and then fakes a kidnapping. In those cases, the child's body is sometimes hidden in the home.

[Toltec]

John said that he would spend every waking hour and every last dime he has to find JonBenet's killer....?

The reason why none of the Ramseys have been prosecuted is because they do not know who exactly struck JonBenet over the head, who molested her, and who strangled her. It could have been Patsy alone, John alone, or Burke alone. It could have been John and Patsy, Patsy and Burke, John and Burke....

One of my many theories of what occured that night is this:

Burke and JonBenet went downstairs for a snack. Burke served JonBenet pineapple while he had a glass of tea. They sat at the breakfast table and ate and drank their snack. They then went upstairs to Burke's room to play Nintendo. They decide to play Doctor.

Patsy comes downstairs with a flashlight and catches the two and scolds Burke and JonBenet. Patsy tells Burke to go to sleep and being frightened, Burke complies.

Patsy sets out to put JonBenet to bed. She is upset that JonBenet allowed Burke to play Doctor with her. She takes JonBenet into her bathroom, pulls down her panties and proceeds to violently wipe her down. JonBenet resists and angers Patsy to the point where Patsy loses it and strikes JonBenet over the head with the flashlight.

Its panic and self-preservation that motivates Patsy to stage a crime.

Do I think the Ramseys are innocent? NO WAY!

This is my opinion only and may not be quoted and posted on any other forum.

[cantaloupe]

I do not blieve that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenet. There was such a strong bond between this mother and child. I do not think Patsy capable of anything more than a light spanking as discipline. They both loved participating in the pageants as a mother/daughter activity. There was never a hint of anything but deep motherly love on Patsy's side.

John Ramsey, however, is a different case altogether. Cold, calculating, agressive and abusive in business, nasty to colleagues, deceptive to his first wife, I think Ramsey was capable of killing JonBenet. But not purposely. I think it was a molestation gone way bad. The gentle tightening of the garotte became something else, with John under pressure and under the influence of a large dose of Vodka the night of the murder.

After the "accident", I believe he woke Patsy up and forced her to write the note and engage in the coverup under threat of grave bodily harm, and later, divorce.

Patsy, confused, bereft, frightened, and out of her mind with grief, complied.

JMHO, of course.

[BrotherMoon]

Ah sex, Freud rears his ugly head again.

Down below the second chakra is the coiled serpent. Beware the waking of the dragon as it will wind itself up through all seven chakras.

Read this post Misty, it speaks of Evil.

All chakras are covered in this crime; the large panties, the vaginal penetration, the pineapple, the red heart, the strangulation, the blow to the head and the references to The Psalms-118, Victory!, S.B.T.C .

Get over Freud's bulwark against the rising tide of occultism, sex is only one part of the crime.

That was really insipid cantaloupe.

[Nehemiah]

"Down below the second chakra is the coiled serpent. Beware the waking of the dragon as it will wind itself up through all seven chakras."

What does this mean? I am totally lost.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Maxi
The operant word here is "take".

There have been many cases in which a child has been taken from her home without her parents being aware of it. There have even been cases in which a child has been murdered horribly in her home while the parents slept. But no one has been able to find a case in which a ransom note and a dead child were left in the home while the parents slept. The closest parallels are those cases in which a family member kills a child and then fakes a kidnapping. In those cases, the child's body is sometimes hidden in the home.

Exactly my thoughts ... using my thinking-head, 'common sense tells me so'!...that this was Patsy's win/way out with glory/power?

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by cantaloupe
I do not blieve that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenet. There was such a strong bond between this mother and child. I do not think Patsy capable of anything more than a light spanking as discipline. They both loved participating in the pageants as a mother/daughter activity. There was never a hint of anything but deep motherly love on Patsy's side.

John Ramsey, however, is a different case altogether. Cold, calculating, agressive and abusive in business, nasty to colleagues, deceptive to his first wife, I think Ramsey was capable of killing JonBenet. But not purposely. I think it was a molestation gone way bad. The gentle tightening of the garotte became something else, with John under pressure and under the influence of a large dose of Vodka the night of the murder.

After the "accident", I believe he woke Patsy up and forced her to write the note and engage in the coverup under threat of grave bodily harm, and later, divorce.

Patsy, confused, bereft, frightened, and out of her mind with grief, complied.

JMHO, of course.
Interesting thought/belief... but it takes two sticks to create a fire...something abnormal went on in the Ramsey's house Xmas night and I think it could have been avoided if all involved had/did deal with their "overwelming emotions"!

So...read any books regarding JonBenet's murder/death?:)

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Nehemiah
"Down below the second chakra is the coiled serpent. Beware the waking of the dragon as it will wind itself up through all seven chakras."

What does this mean? I am totally lost.
Me too--Ditto!; Help--what does the above 7dragon serpent stuf mean? I did look up/learn the word INSIPID though...THANKS!
hee hee LOL!!!

Main Entry: in·sip·id
Pronunciation: in-'si-p&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: French & Late Latin; French insipide, from Late Latin insipidus, from Latin in- + sapidus savory, from sapere to taste —more at SAGE
Date: 1609
1 : lacking taste or savor : TASTELESS
2 : lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate, or challenge : DULL, FLAT
- in·si·pid·i·ty /"in-s&-'pi-d&-tE/ noun
- in·sip·id·ly /in-'si-p&d-lE/ adverb
synonyms INSIPID, VAPID, FLAT, JEJUNE, BANAL, INANE mean devoid of qualities that make for spirit and character. INSIPID implies a lack of sufficient taste or savor to please or interest <an insipid romance with platitudes on every page>. VAPID suggests a lack of liveliness, force, or spirit <an exciting story given a vapid treatment>. FLAT applies to things that have lost their sparkle or zest <although well-regarded in its day, the novel now seems flat>. JEJUNE suggests a lack of rewarding or satisfying substance <a jejune and gassy speech>. BANAL stresses the complete absence of freshness, novelty, or immediacy <a banal tale of unrequited love>. INANE implies a lack of any significant or convincing quality <an inane interpretation of the play>.

[Texana]

I'm on the fence about the Ramseys. The police simply botched so much that I don't know if the case will ever be solved.

The pineapple bothers me. The attitude of John Ramsey doesn't provide any evidence. It can make someone feel this is a person capable of killing their child, perhaps, but in and of itself, isn't evidence.

Some of the things people point to as evidence of this murderous attitude--"not going to the grave--" I have a nephew who died as an infant. (born prematurely and never came home from the hospital.) His mother never visits the grave. I have a friend whose son died at two years old (medical.) They live in another state now, but she makes sure his grave is decorated for holidays and they talk about him a lot in the family. I don't think the first person is handling the death of the child in a healthy way, but it is proof that different people handle the death of a child in very different ways.

Please don't pile up on me all at once. As Piglet says, I'm a very small animal.

The only way this will ever be solved is by confession. I am literally on the fence completely about this--I can believe they are innocent and I can believe the Ramseys are guilty (or one of them, or a combo, whatever. )

[Jeana (DP)]

Originally posted by MissMisty
I never visit the Jonbenét forum because I can't stand to read all the evil things said about this family, but today I am curious about something. If you are open-minded and believe that there isn't evidence pointing to the Ramsey's guilt or even if you are on the fence, I would love to hear from you. I could probably figure it out by reading through some of the threads but I don't the time or the stomach for that. I don't have any ulterior motives here and since I am aware that the majority here are Ramsey bashers, you can send me an e-mail at my private address which is listed on my profile. I just want to know how many, like me, believe the intruder theory.
And for those of you who are just going to post evil remarks, know that you will be wasting your time because I will scroll right past them. Thanks in advance!
Misty

I don't think they're guilty Misty.

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Shylock
And can you compare their actions in ANY way to people we know who actually had their child murdered by a stranger? - (the Van Damms, The Klass family, the Walsh family, etc)

Here is an example, if you care to look it up, the lindberg kidnapping/murder.

The Lindberg's were long suspected of murdering their only child. Mostly because of their complacent public attitude and seeming lack of concern.

Of course, we all know now that was wrong, right?

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Toltec

Patsy comes downstairs with a flashlight and catches the two and scolds Burke and JonBenet. Patsy tells Burke to go to sleep and being frightened, Burke complies.


Why would PR then kill JBR stage it to look like a kidnapping/murder and innocently let Burke go to sleep?

Burke would be the older and seemingly more mature one, why not punish him, too?

[LvsAMystry]

I saw a special on this case last week sometime and it renewed my interest again in the whole thing. I read Perfect Murder when it came out, but haven't really read up on any recent happenings, or even rehashed old ones, lately.

I am pretty much on the fence regarding the Ramsey's, also. I have seen the handwriting and it could be said to be similar I suppose, but for every similarity there is disimilarity, if that makes sense.

Anyway, my biggest thing is this. Out of the two of them, the only one I would even be remotely suspicious of is Patsy. I really don't see this as something John Ramsey was involved in. Which leads me to the big question in my mind. I could see Patsy covering for John to maintain "status quo" so to speak, but I can't picture John Ramsey covering for Patsy in this. For what purpose? That's what has always made me take things with a grain of salt.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by ajt400
The Lindberg's were long suspected of murdering their only child. Mostly because of their complacent public attitude and seeming lack of concern.
How do you figure that? I read a lot about the Lindberg murder and it really wasn't until modern time that people started to wonder about it. There WAS a ladder found up against the house, and unlike the Ramsey case it WAS an actual kidnapping.
Also consider that Charles Lindberg was a household name. They had shunned the public attention well before the crime. Nobody ever heard of John or Patsy before their crime.

[ajt400]

Originally posted by LvsAMystry
[BAnyway, my biggest thing is this. Out of the two of them, the only one I would even be remotely suspicious of is Patsy. I really don't see this as something John Ramsey was involved in. Which leads me to the big question in my mind. I could see Patsy covering for John to maintain "status quo" so to speak, but I can't picture John Ramsey covering for Patsy in this. For what purpose? That's what has always made me take things with a grain of salt. [/B]

Yes, if either of the parents were to be the culprit, PR seems like a better suspect than JR does.

She seems a bit fruity (if you get my drift)---John may just have been along for the ride....BTW, if she did it, do you think he knew?

Do you think PR could have staged all of it by herself?

[ajt400]

Originally posted by Shylock
How do you figure that? I read a lot about the Lindberg murder and it really wasn't until modern time that people started to wonder about it. There WAS a ladder found up against the house, and unlike the Ramsey case it WAS an actual kidnapping.
Also consider that Charles Lindberg was a household name. They had shunned the public attention well before the crime. Nobody ever heard of John or Patsy before their crime.

I have read a few on this too, it has been my understanding that the Lindberg's seemed stand-offish and emotionally distant.
Yes, it was an actual kidnapping, but no one really knows if the child was killed directly afterwards....But seriously, I don't know much about it.....

Do you have any good books dealing with the subject to request?

I would be interested to read them....

[Ivy]

ajt, here's a link to what appears to be a good source of info on the Lindbergh case. I haven't explored the site fully yet, but so far it seems quite good.

http://www.nj.com/lindbergh/

[Dawn]

Originally Posted by Jayelles

I'd never heard of a case like this before - I always thought that a man who would abuse a daughter, would abuse all of them.


I'm not at all surprised that this man would abuse only one daughter. By abusing only one daughter it is his word against hers. This type of scenario is probably more prevalent than we might think. This way he can be seen as a model parent and citizen and only he, the child being abused and God are privy to the true activity taking place making it less believable by others that this may be happening as witnessed by the unbelief of the sisters.

[Imon128]

Drat! Edited to keep Misty's thread on topic. Got all swooped up there, for a minute. Sorry. :(

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Britt
I cannot envisage any parent killing their child... and yet they do.

Like Barbara, I resent being called a Ramsey basher... actually, I don't resent it... I don't really care... but it's a silly dismissive term that means nothing. I'm a basher of liars and of manglers of justice.

Finally, I want to know what Imon said before she edited her post. I probably agree with whatever it was :D

:eek: Ditto!; share Imon,,,please...what was it?...or do I/we want to know?(are we spared such...?)'; please share anyway/how...!!!

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Britt
I cannot envisage any parent killing their child... and yet they do.

Like Barbara, I resent being called a Ramsey basher... actually, I don't resent it... I don't really care... but it's a silly dismissive term that means nothing. I'm a basher of liars and of manglers of justice.

Finally, I want to know what Imon said before she edited her post. I probably agree with whatever it was :D

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Imon128
Drat! Edited to keep Misty's thread on topic. Got all swooped up there, for a minute. Sorry. :(

Imon...we need you/fill in the blanks/holes...iif you will???(see above please...thanks!)...~~~:cool: :cool: :cool: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :o :o :o : : :) :) ;) ;) :mad: :mad: :eek: :eek: :confused: :confused:

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by ajt400
Here is an example, if you care to look it up, the lindberg kidnapping/murder.

The Lindberg's were long suspected of murdering their only child. Mostly because of their complacent public attitude and seeming lack of concern.

Of course, we all know now that was wrong, right?
OH SURELY...RIGHT...WE ... I'm soryy I AGREE TO DISAGREE!; speak for yourself;! URL please/for info!
... :dontknow: :confused: :eek: :(

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Texana
I'm on the fence about the Ramseys. The police simply botched so much that I don't know if the case will ever be solved.

The pineapple bothers me. The attitude of John Ramsey doesn't provide any evidence. It can make someone feel this is a person capable of killing their child, perhaps, but in and of itself, isn't evidence.

Some of the things people point to as evidence of this murderous attitude--"not going to the grave--" I have a nephew who died as an infant. (born prematurely and never came home from the hospital.) His mother never visits the grave. I have a friend whose son died at two years old (medical.) They live in another state now, but she makes sure his grave is decorated for holidays and they talk about him a lot in the family. I don't think the first person is handling the death of the child in a healthy way, but it is proof that different people handle the death of a child in very different ways.
WE PRAY FOR THOSE GONE BEFORE US...AND AMONG US!!!; speak for you/yours....URL please...for info-THANK YOU!!!

Please don't pile up on me all at once. As Piglet says, 'm a very small animal. he only way this will ever be solved is by confession. I am literally on the fence completely about this--I can believe they are innocent and I can believe the Ramseys are guilty (or one of them, or a combo, whatever. )

TEXARCANA(sp?)...WELCOME TO HERE!!!... (I)WE? PRAY/SPEAK FOR YOU/YOURS... ; please furnish URL &/or any info regarding message(s)... please...THANK YOU!!!~~~

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by ajt400
Here is an example, if you care to look it up, the lindberg kidnapping/murder.

The Lindberg's were long suspected of murdering their only child. Mostly because of their complacent public attitude and seeming lack of concern.

Of course, we all know now that was wrong, right?

FYI...Lindberg info...care to look it up??? ... here free info FWIW...

http://www.lindberghfoundation.org/history/calbio.html

Tragedy struck the Lindberghs in 1932 when their first child, Charles, Jr., was kidnapped. Greatly distressed by the loss of their child and the sensational publicity it was given, they sought privacy in England and, later, France. Charles and Anne had five more children, Jon, Land, Anne, Scott, and Reeve. It was in France that Lindbergh and noted French surgeon Dr. Alexis Carrel continued the work they had begun earlier on an "artificial heart" -- a perfusion pump to keep organs alive outside the body by providing them with necessary blood and air. By 1935 Lindbergh and Carrel had perfected the perfusion pump. Their invention paved the way for surgeons to perform organ transplants and open heart surgery. Lindbergh's success in designing the perfusion pump demonstrates the breadth of his interests and mechanical aptitude, and led to his philosophy that the survival and progress of mankind depends on a balance between technological advancement and preservation of both the natural and human environment.


... as you can read/see... the (Lindbergs) progressed on/went on to make it better for all INVOLVED ... ... ... right???
;) ;) ;) :) :) :D :D :D ;) ;) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)xxxooo he was a VIRGO!?Yeah!

[Blazeboy3]

http://www.nj.com/lindbergh/galleries/index.frame

Yet sometime between 8 and 10 PM on the night of Tuesday, March 1, the child was taken from his second-floor nursery by a kidnapper who left no fingerprints but did leave a note demanding $50,000 in ransom -- a fortune in those Depression times. Finding the baby was gone, Lindbergh searched the grounds, and called the State Police. The Township of East Amwell, where the Lindbergh house was located, had no local police then or now.
http://www.nj.com/lindbergh/galleries/

http://www.lindberghfoundation.org/history/calbio.html
The Lindberghs Photo # 1 of 3
Charles A. Lindbergh (Hunterdon County Democrat)
In 1932, when his son disappeared, Lindbergh was the most famous man on the planet, due to his historic 1927 flight. His fame was both a blessing and a curse. It brought great fortune, but it also made him a target. After the Hauptmann trial the Lindberghs and their son Jon left America for Britain, to escape the media. They returned when WWII began, but Lindbergh’s reputation had been tarnished by his positive pre-war comments about Nazi Germany. He helped to train combat pilots in the Pacific theater, and after the war developed interests in medicine and the environment.

» The Lindberghs Thumbnails
» Photo Galleries
FYI*

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by ajt400
Here is an example, if you care to look it up, the lindberg kidnapping/murder.

The Lindberg's were long suspected of murdering their only child. Mostly because of their complacent public attitude and seeming lack of concern.

Of course, we all know now that was wrong, right?

Ok, I'm open-minded all ears/eyes...but can't find/see "Where the example" is that you reference? on the Lindberg Kidnapping/ Murder case... HELP/PLEASE?...:dontknow:

[Texana]

Bruno Hauptmann, the Lindbergh kidnapper, received a lot of favorable post-trial/execution publicity about his innocence, but when you read the details of the case, you find he was discovered with the ransom money in his garage--for which he had no explanation.

The best and simplest explanation for the Lindbergh child's death was that the kidnapper dropped the child as he carried the baby down the ladder. Wouldn't be that easy to carry a baby and maintain a grip on a ladder rung at the same time.

It's a fair point to bring up that the public reactions of people are not necessarily an indicator of guilt or innocence, although some actions are so egregious as to immediately spark a "he/she must be guilty or crazy" reaction--such as Darlie Routier literally dancing with silly string on her sons' graves, or Scott Peterson hastening to sell his home and his wife's car before even six months had passed. Those were actions, though, not attitudes, and I think attitudes can be misread--another reason we can't use that as indicator of guilt. (Not saying the Ramseys are innocent, just that I don't think their behavior can be used as a sign one way or the other.)

Thank you for the nice welcome to the JBR forum!

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Texana
Bruno Hauptmann, the Lindbergh kidnapper, received a lot of favorable post-trial/execution publicity about his innocence, but when you read the details of the case, you find he was discovered with the ransom money in his garage--for which he had no explanation.

The best and simplest explanation for the Lindbergh child's death was that the kidnapper dropped the child as he carried the baby down the ladder. Wouldn't be that easy to carry a baby and maintain a grip on a ladder rung at the same time.

It's a fair point to bring up that the public reactions of people are not necessarily an indicator of guilt or innocence, although some actions are so egregious as to immediately spark a "he/she must be guilty or crazy" reaction--such as Darlie Routier literally dancing with silly string on her sons' graves, or Scott Peterson hastening to sell his home and his wife's car before even six months had passed. Those were actions, though, not attitudes, and I think attitudes can be misread--another reason we can't use that as indicator of guilt. (Not saying the Ramseys are innocent, just that I don't think their behavior can be used as a sign one way or the other.)

Thank you for the nice welcome to the JBR forum!

Lindberg info:Thanks.I still wonder why they're are so/TOO many questions unanswered regarding JonBenet...1996 (so much had/ s advanced in this area/murder-solving methods...ya know?)?
:dontknow: :confused: :mad: :rolleyes:
HOW RARE IS IT TO NOT-SOLVE-THE-ONLY-MURDER-OF-1996 IN BOULDER COLORADO? ... or is this COMMON / NORMAL OCCURRENCE(s) ???
:dontknow: :confused: :eek: :nono:

[Texana]

Well, it did help that Hauptmann pretty much papered his garage with the ransom money.

Has it every been discussed in detail on this forum, that the Boulder police chief trained under Lee P. Brown, the police chief in Atlanta during the child murders there, and now lame-duck term mayor in Houston, Texas? I think it's in the Steve Thomas book where the police chief brags "I was trained under Lee P. Brown."

Lee Brown is a living example of the Peter Principle--promoted beyond his competence. Way beyond. He's completely incompetent. It remains to be seen whether Houston can recover from his mismanagement--The police chief he appointed presided over a debacle of a crime lab that is now having all its evidence retested, and several major cases involving DNA are on the line. (Lee Brown was police chief before, so we can't blame it ALL on the chief he appointed.)

I just wondered how much attention was paid to that fact.

If you don't secure the crime scene, how can any evidence be reliable?

[gretchen]

Originally posted by Texana
Well, it did help that Hauptmann pretty much papered his garage with the ransom money.

Has it every been discussed in detail on this forum, that the Boulder police chief trained under Lee P. Brown, the police chief in Atlanta during the child murders there, and now lame-duck term mayor in Houston, Texas? I think it's in the Steve Thomas book where the police chief brags "I was trained under Lee P. Brown."

Lee Brown is a living example of the Peter Principle--promoted beyond his competence. Way beyond. He's completely incompetent. It remains to be seen whether Houston can recover from his mismanagement--The police chief he appointed presided over a debacle of a crime lab that is now having all its evidence retested, and several major cases involving DNA are on the line. (Lee Brown was police chief before, so we can't blame it ALL on the chief he appointed.)

I just wondered how much attention was paid to that fact.

If you don't secure the crime scene, how can any evidence be reliable? Yep, any evidence found is probably going to be thrown out because the crime scene was mishandled. To make matters worse, Pam Paugh was allowed to retrieve items from the home. Under no circumstances should that have been allowed to happen. This case will never be prosecuted because of these issues. I have no confidence at all about Mary Keenan either.

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by gretchen
Yep, any evidence found is probably going to be thrown out because the crime scene was mishandled. To make matters worse, Pam Paugh was allowed to retrieve items from the home. Under no circumstances should that have been allowed to happen. This case will never be prosecuted because of these issues. I have no confidence at all about Mary Keenan either.

Could be that this case w/never be solved...BUT WHY IN THIS DAY/AGE? IMHO "COMMON SENSE SAYS THIS MURDER CASE--THE ONLY ONE in 1996 SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY SOLVEABLE!!!,,,...
or maybe it's all about money=wealth=treatment=justice=(don't go there pal?)=(we can and will find you stated by John Ramsey... "CAN AND WILL FIND YOU" is what I can't get passed(have difficulty understanding) here,to date... help anyone w/translation? :dontknow: :confused:

[Blazeboy3]

Anyone here remember this past history truth/info:
http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpidEQ339870AMPdomain_idEQ1856AMPmeta_idE Q1

The Franklin Cover-Up : Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska (Paperback, 1996)
Author: John W. Decamp

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0963215809/103-7734342-7122263
I live in Omaha and I well remember when this story broke in the press. It was big news; Lindbergh baby headlines, in fact. When I saw this book was available, I knew I had to read it and find out the information that the press refused to carry. John DeCamp names names and skewers people with little regard for his own personal safety.

I won't go into too much detail on what happened. Read the book to find that out. It is sufficient to say that there were many allegations of child abuse, homosexual encounters, drug abuse and embezzlement of monies involved. The people accused of the abuse were very prominent people in Omaha society, and still are today. DeCamp lays it all out for everyone to see. He cites sources and makes devastating charges against all those involved. He even indicts the federal government as a willing participant in this cover-up. DeCamp is most impressive when he outlines the scandals of Bob Kerrey's tenure as Nebraska governor in the early and mid 1980's. Several bank scandals and questionable loans cast Kerrey in a fairly sinister light. DeCamp says Kerrey used NIFA (Nebraska Investment Finance Authority) to make loans to his buddies and corporate interests. This is the same thing Bill Clinton did in Arkansas with the ADFA while he was governor, around the same time! Those wacky Democrats! What will they come up with next!

http://www.ftrbooks.net/psych/cia_mind_control/franklin.htm
Customer Comments

A reader from USA, July 8, 1999
It is all true.
I helped investigative this case and, unfortunately, everything in the book is true. I hope that someday justice will be done. For now, however, those of us whose lives were involved in the investigation of this case will still have to accept that, "They were too big, and we were too small."

A reader from midwest region, July 4, 1999
SHOCKING.... must be read.
I grew up in Omaha, Nebraska in the 1980's and had no clue as to what was happening. This book will open your eyes. It will change the way you look at our government and the world in general. There seems to be evil everywhere and our children need to be protected.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0963215809/kamurj0b/103-7734342-7122263
The Franklin Cover-Up by John W. Decamp 2000

The Franklin Cover Up has a news update.The author John DeCamp recently won a million dollar lawsuit for two of the children discussed in the book.We plan to bring him to speak in Maine ..Interested readers should contact Bella English of the Boston Globe Newspaper.She authored a recent article... Read more

[ajt400]

As far as the Wayne Williams case goes in Atl, he was caught leaving a bridge after cops heard a big splash over a bridge. No one else was on the bridge at the time, and they soon found another body of another child. IMO you can test DNA all day long, but what explanation can he give for that. (It was a big splash, not like someone urinating, etc.)

[dauberdoo]

I think the Ramsey's are innocent and that the crime was commited by someone outside the family.

To have a Male's DNA on her underwear that comes from a stranger is very powerful to me.Show me who it belongs to and then we can talk some more.

Until then that evidence would create resaonable doubt in just about any jury.

[Shylock]

Originally posted by dauberdoo
To have a Male's DNA on her underwear that comes from a stranger is very powerful to me.Show me who it belongs to and then we can talk some more. You should read-up on the case more. According to the experts at CellMark, the DNA you mentioned might not even exist at all. It might be a by-product of the testing process itself.

This isn't a DNA case. Hopefully now that the underwear has been given to the FBI they will make that perfectly clear to the public.

[txsvicki]

I've always been on the fence. Not sure either way. Some of the behavior in the beginning was very suspicious to me. I can not understand why John and Patsy did not run searching every inch of that house when Jon Benet was found to be missing. Why did they not look over each room looking for open windows, doors, etc. If they found a note, then thought a kidnapping took place, why not more reason to run to the basement exits. Then, later, they let friends take Burk away. Most women would be terrified for their other child and not let him out of her sight. They didn't even know whether the friends could have possibly be involved. Then at the memorial, Patsy had on makeup. I can't imagine even being up and walking around much less being able to apply or have makeup applied.

[sissi]

You should read-up on the case more. According to the experts at CellMark, the DNA you mentioned might not even exist at all. It might be a by-product of the testing process itself.

This isn't a DNA case. Hopefully now that the underwear has been given to the FBI they will make that perfectly clear to the public.

I've read every book ,short of the "esoteric type",and strongly disagree with your statement. This news concerning the DNA is CURRENT and accurate,no one,not one tab or tab news show , is going to be able to "slosh" around misinformation with the fbi handling this dna. It was accepted because it met the criteria!
IMO JMO

[haypaula]

I cannot support the Ramseys because there are lingering questions which defy the intruder theory. I have many more but will post a few to save space:

Who fed JonBenet pineapple and how did they know she liked it?

Who put the dish which had contained the pineapple that PR said she never bought, on the kitchen table?

Why did Fleet White, a long time friend of the Ramseys, distance himself from them and suspect them after he accompanied JR and found JBR's body behind a door in a room that JR said was never used?

What person would stay in someone's house for hours wating for the Ramseys to come home and go to sleep before molesting JBR?

What person would risk writing a long ransom note in the person's home with their stationery, their pen and only request $118,000 from a multi-millionaire, which BTW, was the exact amount of JR's bonus?

What stranger would know about a room in the house that the family's maid didn't even know existed?

What stranger would redress JBR and and cover her?

Why would a neighbor hear JBR's screams yet her family did not?

What 5 year old little girl has repeated vaginal inflammation? (This along with repeated bedwetting, which JBR had, are telltale signs of sexual abuse)

I have many, many more such questions, which defy logic, but refrained from making such a lengthy post.

[sissi]

I cannot support the Ramseys because there are lingering questions which defy the intruder theory. I have many more but will post a few to save space:

Who fed JonBenet pineapple and how did they know she liked it?
The hours involved in digestion suggest the pineapple was eaten hours before her murder....science will eventually prevail with this question.

Who put the dish which had contained the pineapple that PR said she never bought, on the kitchen table?( not sure it is part of the crime)

Why did Fleet White, a long time friend of the Ramseys, distance himself from them and suspect them after he accompanied JR and found JBR's body behind a door in a room that JR said was never used? (he was afraid the suspicioun would point toward him)

What person would stay in someone's house for hours wating for the Ramseys to come home and go to sleep before molesting JBR?
(the killer)
What person would risk writing a long ransom note in the person's home with their stationery, their pen and only request $118,000 from a multi-millionaire, which BTW, was the exact amount of JR's bonus?
(the killer)
What stranger would know about a room in the house that the family's maid didn't even know existed?
(ditto above)
What stranger would redress JBR and and cover her?( redress??)

Why would a neighbor hear JBR's screams yet her family did not?
(the vent led outside,makes sense)

What 5 year old little girl has repeated vaginal inflammation? (This along with repeated bedwetting, which JBR had, are telltale signs of sexual abuse)
(both of the children were bedwetters until around this age,the inflammation is indicative of nothing suggesting child abuse)

I have many, many more such questions, which defy logic, but refrained from making such a lengthy post.
(Keep them coming,I am waiting for one that makes me go hmmm,so far in all of these years,I see absolutely nothing that suggests a Ramsey killed their chld)

Nothing personal,IMO,the Ramseys are innocent!!!!

[Shylock]

I've read every book ,short of the "esoteric type",and strongly disagree with your statement. This news concerning the DNA is CURRENT and accurate,no one,not one tab or tab news show , is going to be able to "slosh" around misinformation with the fbi handling this dna. It was accepted because it met the criteria!
IMO JMOI think you missed the point. Just because it was sent to the FBI doesn't mean it has to exist. This garbage DNA barely made the minumim requirement to be submitted. There is NO PROOF this DNA is even related to the crime. It might be stutter effect. It might be contamination from Meyer's lab or any number of places. It might have been in the underwear before she even put them on. All THAT makes this NOT a DNA case--period.

[Shylock]

(Keep them coming,I am waiting for one that makes me go hmmm,so far in all of these years,I see absolutely nothing that suggests a Ramsey killed their chld)Then you need to get your butt over to FFJ and view Darnay Hoffman's court evidence of Patsy's handwriting compared to the ransom note. If you do that and you're not convinced that Patsy wrote the note, then you either need your vision corrected or you're some stooge that's on the Ramsey payroll. Maybe you're that psycho Susan (the dyke) Stein...LOL

[Afton]

I really am surprised at how many fence sitters or posters that believe the Ramseys are innocent posted on your thread. I just started posting case again and don't know how long I will last , but I didn't see any fence sitters or Ramseys supporters on the thread I posted on, so I will post my thoughts here. And thanks for your thread and the eye opener. :)

Cold Case Files
Just the fact that it is entered into the FBI Database is a real plus....Cold Cases can be solved years later....

Intruders are brazen enough to enter homes ...Elizabeth Smart and Polly Klaas are just two examples.

Roy Black had a case in Flordia where the father was accused of killing his daughter and it turned out to be the next door neighbor's carpet cleaner.

Quote: "Test results in 1997 and 1999 were not of high-enough quality to submit to the database, but a new DNA profile was worked up and submitted last month, Wood said.

Keenan would say only that DNA information in the case has been sent to the database. Wood was more specific: The test results are from DNA from a male unrelated to the Ramseys that was found intermingled with JonBenet’s blood in her underwear."

And I give Lin Wood Credit, they should have had him from the beginning as their attorney...When the "no foot prints in the snow" and other innuendoes flew fast and furious to paint the Ramseys as their daughter's killer.

Murdered and left in the home

There are plenty of people that are murdered and left in their homes. How many children that happened to however, maybe small in numbers (if any--I have never checked with the many states and databases to see), but IMO it could happen in this case as well as in other cases. The Roy Black case in Florida may have been one...Roy Black was on TV and the case interested me and I posted about it

no subject

In the year 2525 the DNA in the FBI database just might match --and there were fibers that were not matched, but setting that aside until the year 2525..

From the Protess & Warden book written about the Dowaliby case, "In each case, the police targeted the parents based on two assumptions that proved wrong---first, that missing children invariably are taken by family members, and second, that strangers cannot enter homes in the middle of the night and snatch children without awakening parents. It is a fact and is also well within the behavior range of intruder child killings.... The DA will have to prove that no one else could have entered the house."Serra Mesa, California:

Another case:

Eight-year old Alicia" was abducted on May 8, 1989, by an intruder who entered her home through a window, took her out of her bed raped her, and put her back.... Her father was charged with rape.... while he was awaitng trial, forensic tests exonerated him and implicated a man with prior convictions for child molestation.

This child told investigators from the very beginning that a man had entered her bedroom window. In the end, DNA from semen found on her panties matched him to a known pedophile who had used the same method of entry in other cases and who lived near Alicia and her family
Many such cases are unsolved.

The point being that murders and crime scenes can be a first. Do you remember the List case....The meek accountant that killed his wife, children and his mother in law and left a note...Vanished and was not found until many years later when it was profiled on TV and an a cast was made of his face from photographs using the aging process. I don't recall another case like that.

[PinkPanther]

I hope the Ramsey's had nothing to do with JonBenet's death. It is difficult for me to believe her parent(s) could be involved in killing their beautiful child. IF one of the family IS guilty, I believe it would be Patsy because of the note and her erratic behavior. However, if the Ramseys are innocent, they have suffered horribly by losing their precious child as well as being accused of killing her. I hope eventually we will all find out the truth.

Happy New Year to WebSleuths from WebDetectives!

[txsvicki]

The whole thing seems almost like the killer could be a teenager.

[sissi]

Then you need to get your butt over to FFJ and view Darnay Hoffman's court evidence of Patsy's handwriting compared to the ransom note. If you do that and you're not convinced that Patsy wrote the note, then you either need your vision corrected or you're some stooge that's on the Ramsey payroll. Maybe you're that psycho Susan (the dyke) Stein...LOL


Goodness! I will not respond to name calling Shylock!

As far as the print is concerned,it's the overall picture,the way a note/letter is formatted,the pressure of the pen,the amount of steadiness,the vocabulary used,etc...there is so much more than suggesting one's printed "y" looks suspicious.
Heck,JT's was almost identical,Santa's was in question, others were called back,but true,not as often as Patsy,they really wanted her to be guilty.

JMO IMO
and darn,I better get the pink angora out..the rumors "ya know"

[sissi]

I really am surprised at how many fence sitters or posters that believe the Ramseys are innocent posted on your thread. I just started posting case again and don't know how long I will last , but I didn't see any fence sitters or Ramseys supporters on the thread I posted on, so I will post my thoughts here. And thanks for your thread and the eye opener. :)

Cold Case Files
Just the fact that it is entered into the FBI Database is a real plus....Cold Cases can be solved years later....

Intruders are brazen enough to enter homes ...Elizabeth Smart and Polly Klaas are just two examples.

Roy Black had a case in Flordia where the father was accused of killing his daughter and it turned out to be the next door neighbor's carpet cleaner.

Quote: "Test results in 1997 and 1999 were not of high-enough quality to submit to the database, but a new DNA profile was worked up and submitted last month, Wood said.

Keenan would say only that DNA information in the case has been sent to the database. Wood was more specific: The test results are from DNA from a male unrelated to the Ramseys that was found intermingled with JonBenet’s blood in her underwear."

And I give Lin Wood Credit, they should have had him from the beginning as their attorney...When the "no foot prints in the snow" and other innuendoes flew fast and furious to paint the Ramseys as their daughter's killer.

Murdered and left in the home

There are plenty of people that are murdered and left in their homes. How many children that happened to however, maybe small in numbers (if any--I have never checked with the many states and databases to see), but IMO it could happen in this case as well as in other cases. The Roy Black case in Florida may have been one...Roy Black was on TV and the case interested me and I posted about it

no subject

In the year 2525 the DNA in the FBI database just might match --and there were fibers that were not matched, but setting that aside until the year 2525..

From the Protess & Warden book written about the Dowaliby case, "In each case, the police targeted the parents based on two assumptions that proved wrong---first, that missing children invariably are taken by family members, and second, that strangers cannot enter homes in the middle of the night and snatch children without awakening parents. It is a fact and is also well within the behavior range of intruder child killings.... The DA will have to prove that no one else could have entered the house."Serra Mesa, California:

Another case:

Eight-year old Alicia" was abducted on May 8, 1989, by an intruder who entered her home through a window, took her out of her bed raped her, and put her back.... Her father was charged with rape.... while he was awaitng trial, forensic tests exonerated him and implicated a man with prior convictions for child molestation.

This child told investigators from the very beginning that a man had entered her bedroom window. In the end, DNA from semen found on her panties matched him to a known pedophile who had used the same method of entry in other cases and who lived near Alicia and her family
Many such cases are unsolved.

The point being that murders and crime scenes can be a first. Do you remember the List case....The meek accountant that killed his wife, children and his mother in law and left a note...Vanished and was not found until many years later when it was profiled on TV and an a cast was made of his face from photographs using the aging process. I don't recall another case like that.

AFTON,I remember you as being thorough and sensible,I guess my memory isn't as bad as I though:-)
I have to add one,Westerfield! Not a fiber,not a hair dropped in that house,no dna on the body,and his first and last (as far as we know) kidnapping and murder! His first crime!
IMO

[Afton]

I am glad you mentioned Westerfield not leaving any DNA, hair or fibers in the house. Seems the sticking point is that some thinks there should be another crime committed with a child left in the house and a ransom note...However I don't buy that...This is a unique crime just as many more are unique --some parts of other crimes are similar and some parts of the crimes are not repeated elsewhere. It would be interesting for crime scene investigators to do a data base on crime scene clues that are unique to one crime only.

[Texana]

Well, I'm on the fence, but I haven't decided the Ramseys are innocent. That's what "on the fence" means.

My biggest problem with considering the evidence against the Ramseys is the contaminated crime scene.

As I see it, there are three possible scenarios--if you were doing a logic path chart it would go like this: A) Ramseys are guilty, one killed JB, and both staged the scene B) One of the Ramseys is guilty, and staged the scene, the other (s) family members don't know this C) An intruder, either known to the family or unknown, killed JB. You can change the family members in each of A and B, but the general paths remain the same.

All chart paths seem to be more or less equal at this point in terms of evidence.

[Maxi]

If I recall correctly, Westerfield didn't spend much time in the house. Didn't the evidence indicate that he had killed Danielle in his mobile home?

OTOH, whoever killed JBR seems to have spent a good deal of time in the Ramsey home that night. It seems to be pretty certain that JBR was molested and killed in her home, and it seems most likely that the killer also took the time to write the ransom note there.

The longer a perp is in the home, the more chance there is that he will leave physical evidence.

[Afton]

Yet there is still unidentified fiber(s), DNA and a shoeprint -- or has the fibers and shoeprint been definitely identified?

[Ivy]

Fibers consistent with fibers from the black wool shirt made in Israel that John wore to the Whites' were found in JonBenet's crotch area, and fibers consistent with Patsy's jacket fibers were found ENTWINED in the garotte knot. The shoe print found near JonBenet's body has been identified as Burke Ramsey's.

Edited to add: The palm print on the basement door has been identified as belonging to John's daughter Melinda, and I believe I read that the axillary hair found in association with JonBenet's body belonged to Melinda as well.

[Britt]

...whoever killed JBR seems to have spent a good deal of time in the Ramsey home that night. ...The longer a perp is in the home, the more chance there is that he will leave physical evidence.
Right, Maxi. Plus... this was a staged crime. Even if one believes there was an intruder, the crime scene was staged, with a phony ransom note for a non-kidnapping.

Since it was a staged crime, case studiers should be studying other staged crimes. Staged crimes are the only relevant comps here. VanDam, Klaas etc do not qualify and are not comparable.

[Geno]

a most comfortable place to be...considering most of us regular folks aren't privy at this writing to a legit presentation of the facts as known in this case.

I hope that fence straddlers are still welcome on at least one forum that remains from our original cadre of "JBR" boards.

very nice premise for a thread, MissMisty...hopefully gets the new and improved Forum off to a good start for this new year.

[tipper]

Fibers consistent with fibers from the black wool shirt made in Israel that John wore to the Whites' were found in JonBenet's crotch area, and fibers consistent with Patsy's jacket fibers were found ENTWINED in the garotte knot. The shoe print found near JonBenet's body has been identified as Burke Ramsey's.

Edited to add: The palm print on the basement door has been identified as belonging to John's daughter Melinda, and I believe I read that the axillary hair found in association with JonBenet's body belonged to Melinda as well.

I think I'll wait until this information has been verified by an official source. Anonymous sources and possible police interrogation tactics aren't sufficient.

[sissi]

I think I'll wait until this information has been verified by an official source. Anonymous sources and possible police interrogation tactics aren't sufficient.

sounds reasonable to me...I'll pass until verified...as well!

[Maikai]

is the only thing I see the Ramseys guilty of. There was a broken window that was never fixed, which appears to be at least the entry point to the home, with an unsecured window grate, and there was not a user-friendly good security system installed at the time the home was remodelled. There should have been more control as to who keys were given to. There was a lot of criminal activity going on in the University Hill area. Considering the wealth of the Ramseys and their high visibility, including the pageants and related activities, their house should have been made more secure against intruders. That is the only area in which I'm critical of the Ramseys, and something I'm sure has haunted them, since the murder.

[Barbara]

is the only thing I see the Ramseys guilty of. There was a broken window that was never fixed, which appears to be at least the entry point to the home, with an unsecured window grate, and there was not a user-friendly good security system installed at the time the home was remodelled. There should have been more control as to who keys were given to. There was a lot of criminal activity going on in the University Hill area. Considering the wealth of the Ramseys and their high visibility, including the pageants and related activities, their house should have been made more secure against intruders. That is the only area in which I'm critical of the Ramseys, and something I'm sure has haunted them, since the murder.

I have to disagree. If they were haunted by their error, then what is the story with them continuing to leave their NEW home unsecured with an UNLOCKED gun cabinet?

As far as the DNA goes, I'll go with Dr. Lee's opinion rather than those on the forums. Maybe in 2525 we'll have an answer? The DNA will match nobody as it is likely unrelated to the murder, but it is quite the convenience for the RST and the Ramseys to take themselves out from under that umbrella and continue the lawsuits.

It is painfully obvious that Mary Keenan will do everything BUT clear them as suspects. Just enough to prevent a lawsuit. Similar to Hunter "not clearing" Burke, but stating he was never a suspect. Nobody is a suspect according to LE

But whatever works for you

[Afton]

I heard Dr. Lee say it wasn't a DNA case--years back when I was posting--because there wasn't enough markers to identify anyone, only to rule out. The tests are more sophisticated now, so now is the time to ask him if he still thinks that. The reason for the FBI database is to identify the perp. The FBI would not take samples unless they meet their criteria to identify...

[Shylock]

I heard Dr. Lee say it wasn't a DNA case--years back when I was posting--because there wasn't enough markers to identify anyone, only to rule out. The tests are more sophisticated now, so now is the time to ask him if he still thinks that. The reason for the FBI database is to identify the perp. The FBI would not take samples unless they meet their criteria to identify...Afton, since you were away for a while, have you read this article?: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/ramsey/article/0,1299,DRMN_1296_1554639,00.html

The fact that the FBI takes in samples for identification has nothing to do with whether or not the DNA is related to the crime. I believe Dr. Lee made the statement that "this is not a DNA case" because there was nothing to indicate to him that the DNA, no matter how many markers it had, was even related to the crime and not just some form of contamination.

[Afton]

for making a good valid point because it is true:

the speculation that is was at the point of manufacturer will be argued by the prosecution.

Also true that the defense will argue that it came from the perp.

A big reason why they weren't indicted

1...until the markers match a perp who has no alibi for that night
2...whose handwriting matches the ransom note
3...turns out to be a known molester or killer
4...or a jail cell confession to an inmate

We can only speculate whether the DNA is from the perp or contamination elsewhere. I don't believe the prosecution or the defense can be absolutely sure they will convince a jury of their opinion.

Same with the ransom note, it is not clearly from Patsy--IMO after killing your child, a mother would not have the presence of mind to write a note like that...Also I thought the CBI had her on the lower end of the scale as a match. Some may want to take Darnay's expert as gospel, but IMO he had his own agenda.

It is in our hearts and minds after all these years as to who one thinks killed Jon Benet.. I don't think that will be changed by a post from me or anyone else. Misty's thread showed me, there are far more fence sitters then I thought at Websleuths--will any of us change our mind? I doubt it.

If we know that we are not convincing anyone, then why do we (including me) post?

[Barbara]

It is in our hearts and minds after all these years as to who one thinks killed Jon Benet.. I don't think that will be changed by a post from me or anyone else. Misty's thread showed me, there are far more fence sitters then I thought at Websleuths--will any of us change our mind? I doubt it.

If we know that we are not convincing anyone, then why do we (including me) post?

You are so right Afton. It will take more than any poster's post to make anyone change their feelings at this point in time.

I think although most of us really believe that this case will never be solved, there's always that minute chance that something will happen of significance to break the case.

I guess we all just live with that small little tidbit of hope that we'll actually be active on the forums when something real happens. OR...
maybe Lin is right and we really are a disturbed group of individuals :crazy:

[Imon128]

Barbara....LOL, who, us? :crazy:

Good one.... :laugh:

[Barbara]

Barbara....LOL, who, us? :crazy:

Good one.... :laugh:

Yes, I'm afraid it is US. At least I feel I'm in great company :blowkiss: