PDA

View Full Version : Are they innocent?


River
02-14-2004, 06:26 PM
Interestingly enough, this case was a topic at lunch today.

The question was asked, do you think that there is a chance that John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey are innocent?

I had to think about that. I can not state that they are 100% guilty. That said, is there any credible evidence that points to their innocence?

The "foreign" DNA- no one knows if it is really foreign.
The "Beaver" hairs could have come from Patsy's boots.

Seriously, are there any CREDIBLE facts that point to their innocence?

Shylock
02-14-2004, 06:54 PM
Seriously, are there any CREDIBLE facts that point to their innocence?
There is nothing that proves they are positively innocent of all aspects of the crime. If there was, they would have been cleared long ago.

John, Patsy, and Burke will be the prime suspects in this case until they day they are lowered in the grave. And even then, people will continue to debate the case LONG after they're gone.

BlueCrab
02-14-2004, 07:05 PM
Seriously, are there any CREDIBLE facts that point to their innocence?


Yes, there's credible handwriting examination evidence that neither John nor Patsy wrote the ransom note. And there's credible polygraph evidence that neither John nor Patsy killed JonBenet and that Patsy didn't write the ransom note.

JMO

LovelyPigeon
02-14-2004, 07:24 PM
There is also credible evidence that the male DNA found under JonBenét's fingernails and in her panties, mixed with spots of her blood, belongs to an as yet unidentified intruder. It does not match John, Burke, JAR, or any extended family member.

The male DNA was found in not just one spot of blood on her panty's crotch, but on two spots of her blood. The first spot's analysis did not produce enough of a band of DNA markers to submit to the FBI's CODIS databank, but the analysis of the second spot of blood did.

There is also credible evidence that pairs of marks found on JonBenét's back and on the right side of her face were made by a stun gun. No stun gun was found on the premises, nor was any evidence found that the Ramseys had ever owned or been in possesion of a stun gun.

There is also the fact there is no pathological or historical evidence to indicate the parents or Burke would have ever been involved in sexual assault or murder.

BrotherMoon
02-14-2004, 10:46 PM
No. 1234567

sissi
02-15-2004, 12:33 AM
The fur in her hands was never identified,fibers on her and her body weren't sourced to the house,and Patsy never owned beaver fur boots.
A piece of the paintbrush was taken as a souvenir,along with the items he brought,tape and cord (typically sociopathic ,after all they were HIS).
The door to the butler kitchen was ajar,there was a discarded baseball bat in the yard bearing fibers from the basement,footprints at the grated window as well as in the basement that ,regardless of speculation, have not been matched.
The Ramseys were surrounded by odd,odd people,people, that most of us would shun out of pure fear ,they accepted into their lives. From the Santa,the Whites ,the photographers,to the fanatical Christian groupies,this naive family embraced them all.
JMO

Shylock
02-15-2004, 06:25 AM
Well let's see... So far only BrotherMoon and I are the only ones to post the correct answer.
It seems BlueCrab, LovelyPigeon, and Sissi all failed to even understand the question.

The question was: "are there any CREDIBLE facts that point to their innocence?"
The answer can only be "NO", or the Ramseys would no longer be suspects in ANYBODY'S book.
How interesting is it that so few people understand the meaning of the phrase "CREDIBLE facts"...

Barbara
02-15-2004, 11:01 AM
The Ramseys were surrounded by odd,odd people,people, that most of us would shun out of pure fear ,they accepted into their lives. From the Santa,the Whites ,the photographers,to the fanatical Christian groupies,this naive family embraced them all.
JMO

If there is one thing the Ramseys AREN'T is naive

sissi
02-15-2004, 12:14 PM
I would say it was naive in the same sense that Catholics sent their boys off to grade school not considering a church run by many "celibate" men could have "issues" with child safety.
LHP was aware,she was not naive,she knew that children could not be raised in the style of the fifties ....talking to neighbors,strangers and being out of sight while freely playing away from the yard. She voiced her fears to Patsy.
Trusting your new friends,your children's playmates parents,your clergy,your doctor,your neighbors or even your "santa" to spend unsupervised time alone with your child is naive in today's world IMO

Barbara
02-15-2004, 06:12 PM
I would say it was naive in the same sense that Catholics sent their boys off to grade school not considering a church run by many "celibate" men could have "issues" with child safety.
LHP was aware,she was not naive,she knew that children could not be raised in the style of the fifties ....talking to neighbors,strangers and being out of sight while freely playing away from the yard. She voiced her fears to Patsy.
Trusting your new friends,your children's playmates parents,your clergy,your doctor,your neighbors or even your "santa" to spend unsupervised time alone with your child is naive in today's world IMO

I don't disagree with you sissi, in today's world, it is naive to think your children are safe the way we used to think so.

Sooooo, after they moved to Atlanta, why do you think they continued to keep their doors unlocked, their alarms unarmed, and their GUN CABINET unlocked as well? Is it naivety or is it the knowledge that they knew they were safe from the foreign faction?

WolfmarsGirl
02-15-2004, 09:18 PM
...

There is also credible evidence that pairs of marks found on JonBenét's back and on the right side of her face were made by a stun gun. No stun gun was found on the premises, nor was any evidence found that the Ramseys had ever owned or been in possesion of a stun gun...

LP, I hate to differ with you but, I sincerely don't think the marks were made with a stun-gun.

If you haven't done so already, please take a look at my link below. Even if you have seen my 'hand' pictures, look again...I have added some more photos that I think you need to see:

http://www.geocities.com/wolfchick942003/photopage.html

Please notice the green abrasion. Yes, I made it green, but that is not the point. The point is that no stun gun will make a pattern within an abrasion like the one you see in this photo . Plain and simple.

If you can explain the distinct pattern with the 'stun gun' theory, please do so. If you cannot, then there was no stun gun.



...There is also the fact there is no pathological or historical evidence to indicate the parents or Burke would have ever been involved in sexual assault or murder.

I am sorry, LP, but you seem far too educated and intelligent to make and believe a statement like this one. Would you like me to start naming names of parents who kill their kids with no previous 'historical evidence?' Why don't we start with Maryln Lemak and Susan Smith?

I do agree with you that there was probably no sexual assault of either of the Ramsey children prior to this night. Molestation is something that occurs again and again and you are correct, the children display evidence of their assaults. Murder happens only once to a person, and hence, no 'historical evidence' is present...

LovelyPigeon
02-15-2004, 09:58 PM
Wolfsmargirl, I wasn't familar with Maryln Lemak's case but it only took seconds with Google to find that she had been clinically depressed, on medication, her marriage a shambles, her friends aware of her husband's infidility, etc

Susan Smith had a long sad history of emotional instability, a broken marriage, a boy friend who didn't want the responsibility of her children, ongoing incestual relationship with a stepfather, etc

That isn't said as an excuse for either woman--neither had the right to kill their children out of revenge, desperation, or any other reason--but the pathology was there when each woman's life was examined.

That pathology, that kind of history is not in the Ramsey's life.

As for the stun gun theory, it has been scientifically demonstrated that marks like those found on the dead JonBenét can be reproduced on piglets by using a stun gun, then killing the piglets. The marks remain on the dead piglets, and are similar in size, distance apart, and coloration as those found on JBR's dead body.

The pairs of marks on JonBenét are also similar in appearance to marks made by stun guns on other victims' dead bodies, from other cases.

LovelyPigeon
02-15-2004, 10:18 PM
Here are some of my pages about stun gun marks--on JonBenét, and other cases. The photos are graphic, from autopsies. One page is my attempt to illustrate how stun gun marks can be made on skin, on how the measurements of those marks can vary.

http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeon/stun_gun_comparisons.html
http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeon/stungun_face_back_compare_distance.html
http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeon/stungun_illustration.html
http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeon/stungun_prisoner.html

WolfmarsGirl
02-15-2004, 10:31 PM
Wolfsmargirl, I wasn't familar with Maryln Lemak's case but it only took seconds with Google to find that she had been clinically depressed, on medication, her marriage a shambles, her friends aware of her husband's infidility, etc

Susan Smith had a long sad history of emotional instability, a broken marriage, a boy friend who didn't want the responsibility of her children, ongoing incestual relationship with a stepfather, etc

That isn't said as an excuse for either woman--neither had the right to kill their children out of revenge, desperation, or any other reason--but the pathology was there when each woman's life was examined.

That pathology, that kind of history is not in the Ramsey's life.

As for the stun gun theory, it has been scientifically demonstrated that marks like those found on the dead JonBenét can be reproduced on piglets by using a stun gun, then killing the piglets. The marks remain on the dead piglets, and are similar in size, distance apart, and coloration as those found on JBR's dead body.

The pairs of marks on JonBenét are also similar in appearance to marks made by stun guns on other victims' dead bodies, from other cases.

You are right, both of these women had a history of depression, etc, etc. However, neither one of them had a depressing past that included nearly-terminal cancer that could (and did) return at any time. We don't know about Patsy's inner-most thoughts. Some people do not seek treatment for depression until it is too late.

A few of the reports about Lemak that I read tell about how she worked at the kids' school, was always pleasant and happy, etc. Previous to the husband's departure, this was a normal, well-adjusted woman. Even as soon as a week before the murders, she was volunteering at the school and showed no signs that this horrific plot was forming in her head. No one knew.

Patsy had other stressors. I can only guess what they were beyond the cancer...I have a strange feeling that the older Ramsey children were not held as dearly by Patsy as we are made to believe, but that is just speculation and we can all speculate...

Regarding the pig/stun gun tests: Yes, the marks on the pigs do look like the marks on JB's back. However, please explain to me how the ring marks on my hand look any less like the marks on JBR's back.

My experiment was as scientific as the 'pig' experiment and both provide logical explanations for the abrasions. The difference is that most people do wear rings and most people do not carry stun guns.

Another difference is that my theory explains exactly why the marks occur where they do, unlike the stun gun theory. In fact, an adult could probably not hold (in a rocking position) a small child without placing their fingers on those exact spots and at the same exact angle on the child's body. A stun gun can hit anywhere.

If you have a small child, pick him or her up and try this. Try to rock the child on her back and kind of facing you. Where do your hands end up? On the child's back, where would two rings hit if they were on your middle and ring finger? Where is your other hand...On her cheek or on her neck? Check it out for yourself...It is amazing.

Also, as I mentioned in my last post, a stun gun does not, can not, leave the pattern in the large abrasion on the cheek. See it? It looks like two eyes and a nose (that is how I saw it first). What part on a stun gun could leave such a mark?

We know Patsy did and does wear rings. To me, it is clear that the pattern of one of her rings probably matches the pattern in the large abrasion. Look at my diagram in my link...

No one who believes in the stun gun theory has been able to explain the pattern in the abrasion to me yet...Can you?

sissi
02-15-2004, 10:48 PM
I don't disagree with you sissi, in today's world, it is naive to think your children are safe the way we used to think so.

Sooooo, after they moved to Atlanta, why do you think they continued to keep their doors unlocked, their alarms unarmed, and their GUN CABINET unlocked as well? Is it naivety or is it the knowledge that they knew they were safe from the foreign faction?

Okay,Barbara,if this is true,I do wonder why? Does anyone know the "story" behind this?
JMO

LovelyPigeon
02-15-2004, 11:19 PM
Patsy never presented as a depressed victim to anyone who knew her. In fact, she believed that not only had medical science come to her rescue, but that divine intervention had healed her.

Whether one agrees with Patsy or not about her medical/Godly healing, Patsy believed in it and was not depressed but was spiritually encouraged and looking forward to continued life. These 10+ years later, Patsy has been proven to be on the positive side of belief.

WolfmarsGirl
02-16-2004, 12:44 AM
Patsy never presented as a depressed victim to anyone who knew her. In fact, she believed that not only had medical science come to her rescue, but that divine intervention had healed her.

Whether one agrees with Patsy or not about her medical/Godly healing, Patsy believed in it and was not depressed but was spiritually encouraged and looking forward to continued life. These 10+ years later, Patsy has been proven to be on the positive side of belief.

LP, I do know that good parents kill their children and good men and women kill each other with no prior history of psychosis or depression. It happens.

I think Patsy was, at the least, stressed. I think her kids were a bit more of a handful than we have been led to believe. I think the trip on the 26th was the last thing Patsy really wanted to do the day after Christmas. I think JB woke up, or was never asleep at all. The mother and child fought. It happens. Patsy was bigger, so she 'won' the fight...

Also, I did look at the links you posted. None of the marks resemble the marks on JB, especially the one on her face. Once again, the photos of the rings pressed to my hand more closely resemble JB's back marks than any other photo I have seen so far. And, the cluster ring fits so exactly into the mark on her face.

Now, if you can show me a stun gun mark that looks as much like the cause of the face mark as my ring diagram, then I might consider it. The truth is, there is no way a stun gun can make a mark like the one on her cheek. If it can, then tell me how it can...

BlueCrab
02-16-2004, 08:34 AM
The truth is, there is no way a stun gun can make a mark like the one on her cheek. If it can, then tell me how it can...


The burn mark left on the skin, if any, after being shocked with a stun gun is proportionate to the amount of time the prongs were held against the skin with the trigger pulled. The longer the hit, the more severe the burn.

For instance, a one-second hit probably wouldn't leave a noticeable burn on the skin. A three-second hit would likely leave the typical "signature mark" (the shape of the business end of the two prongs) on the skin. A 15-second hit would severely burn the skin, and likely leave the ugly kind of "cooked" mark on the skin that JonBenet had.

There are other considerations of course, such as the amperage of the gun, the angle of the hit, and the conductivity of the skin at the spot being stun gunned, but the length of the hit is the primary cause of different-looking stun gun marks. No two stun gun hits will look the same.

JMO

Barbara
02-16-2004, 08:53 AM
Okay,Barbara,if this is true,I do wonder why? Does anyone know the "story" behind this?
JMO

I hope I understand your question correctly. I refer to the now infamous Atlanta break in. After they moved to Atlanta, they were once again having "work" done on the house, kept their doors unlocked, and once again, a "burglar, intruder if you will" came into the house where their son Burke lived with an UNLOCKED gun cabinet, the alarms off, the locks unlocked, etc. John was supposedly locked in the bathroom while the "intruder" left with Patsy's K Mart jewelry, etc.

One can only speculate as to why the Ramseys didn't fear any more "intruders" from this foreign faction that murdered their daughter once they moved to Atlanta with their only other child. Personally, my belief is that they knew they had nothing to fear.

Most of us, if innocent, would spend the rest of their life looking over their shoulder for the "foreign faction" that murdered their child. Most of us, if innocent, would spend the rest of their life watching out for their remaining child. Most of us, if innocent, would never be able to "get on with our lives" knowing that someone was after them and their children.

Most of us, if innocent, would be running scared forever.

But then again, most of us, would have done everything we could to cooperate with the investigation.

Barbara
02-16-2004, 09:01 AM
Patsy never presented as a depressed victim to anyone who knew her. In fact, she believed that not only had medical science come to her rescue, but that divine intervention had healed her.

Whether one agrees with Patsy or not about her medical/Godly healing, Patsy believed in it and was not depressed but was spiritually encouraged and looking forward to continued life. These 10+ years later, Patsy has been proven to be on the positive side of belief.

The KEY word in your first sentence is PRESENTED. Many people "PRESENT" much differently than what actually is.

As far as your last sentence, just how has Patsy PROVEN to be on the positive side of belief? How can anyone prove a belief? Because she says so? Proves nothing.

Anorexic people believe they are fat. Schizophrenic people believe they are God, Superman, Ghandi, Churchill, etc.

THEY believe they are fine. Unless Patsy is not human, her word that she is just fine means nothing. Deep down, people with cancer are more likely to be depressed than others, despite their protestations.

LP Moderator
02-16-2004, 09:20 AM
Interestingly enough, this case was a topic at lunch today.

The question was asked, do you think that there is a chance that John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey are innocent?

I had to think about that. I can not state that they are 100% guilty. That said, is there any credible evidence that points to their innocence?

The "foreign" DNA- no one knows if it is really foreign.
The "Beaver" hairs could have come from Patsy's boots.

Seriously, are there any CREDIBLE facts that point to their innocence?

I think they're absolutely innocent as I see no "credible" evidence that points to their guilt!!

River
02-16-2004, 09:29 AM
I think they're absolutely innocent as I see no "credible" evidence that points to their guilt!!

DP, we'll just have to disagree on this one. I think that the evidence shows that the Ramsey's should have, at the very least, taken the FBI polygraph. That would have exonerated them.

LP Moderator
02-16-2004, 09:35 AM
DP, we'll just have to disagree on this one. I think that the evidence shows that the Ramsey's should have, at the very least, taken the FBI polygraph. That would have exonerated them.


River - what are you doing here?? Get to work!! ;) ;) ;)

BlueCrab
02-16-2004, 09:45 AM
I refer to the now infamous Atlanta break in. After they moved to Atlanta, they were once again having "work" done on the house, kept their doors unlocked, and once again, a "burglar, intruder if you will" came into the house where their son Burke lived with an UNLOCKED gun cabinet, the alarms off, the locks unlocked, etc. John was supposedly locked in the bathroom while the "intruder" left with Patsy's K Mart jewelry, etc.


It's impossible to get locked INTO a bathroom. Bathroom locks are on the inside. A person can be locked OUT of a bathroom, but cannot be locked INTO a bathroom.

JMO

Barbara
02-16-2004, 09:46 AM
DP, we'll just have to disagree on this one. I think that the evidence shows that the Ramsey's should have, at the very least, taken the FBI polygraph. That would have exonerated them.

I think at the very least, that they shouldn't have waited four months to be interviewed by the investigative officials. I think that would have helped them a whole lot.

Old Broad
02-16-2004, 10:22 AM
I've read here for quite a while but have never posted.
While there have been things done by the Ramseys I've questioned, I've never thought they are guilty of this murder.
Did they make some mistakes in dealing with LE? Yes.

LP Moderator
02-16-2004, 10:28 AM
Old Broad, I don't post much about this case either, but I may disagree with you a bit on your stmt. I think while their actions may have cast suspicion on themselves, its precisely those actions that have kept them out of prison for something they didn't do. While the idea of "lawyering up" doesn't sit well with most people, I think its the smart thing to do. In this case, however, an attorney who just happened to be a friend of the family is the one who arranged for them to be represented in the first place. Had this not happened, they may have faced a trial for something they didn't do.

Barbara
02-16-2004, 11:21 AM
Old Broad, I don't post much about this case either, but I may disagree with you a bit on your stmt. I think while their actions may have cast suspicion on themselves, its precisely those actions that have kept them out of prison for something they didn't do. While the idea of "lawyering up" doesn't sit well with most people, I think its the smart thing to do. In this case, however, an attorney who just happened to be a friend of the family is the one who arranged for them to be represented in the first place. Had this not happened, they may have faced a trial for something they didn't do.

OR...they may have faced a trial for something they DID do. I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

LP Moderator
02-16-2004, 11:26 AM
OR...they may have faced a trial for something they DID do. I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

true, Barbara. I don't think we will either. Whomever did it will end up paying one day, being judged by a higher being??????

Brefie
02-16-2004, 11:53 AM
Hi all. I am new to this discussion, but I wanted to say that I am blown away with everything you all know about this case... It's very impressive. :clap: :clap: :clap:

While the idea of "lawyering up" doesn't sit well with most people, I think its the smart thing to do.

Hi, LP Mod, I think it doesn't sit well with people because, who thinks to do such a thing if they are innocent?
Laci Peterson's family now have lawyers, but didn't straight away....they were too busy doing anything and everything LE told them to do....IMO.

Barbara
02-16-2004, 12:04 PM
I think I speak for many when I say that the Ramseys "lawyering up" is not the MAIN problem.

Anyone, anyone, who is likely to become a suspect in a murder case has every right to an attorney and they should exercise their rights. No problem.

The problem I have, as do many, is that despite having a TEAM of attorneys, they continued to avoid the police interviews and cooperate with the investigation

There is no reason why they couldn't lawyer up and still cooperate

THAT is what is suspicious. The RST would have the posters believe that many of us take issue with the attorneys. Just not so. We take issue with their seemingly lack of wanting to help find the murderer/s of JonBenet Ramsey, even with attornies.

LP Moderator
02-16-2004, 12:32 PM
Hi all. I am new to this discussion, but I wanted to say that I am blown away with everything you all know about this case... It's very impressive. :clap: :clap: :clap:



Hi, LP Mod, I think it doesn't sit well with people because, who thinks to do such a thing if they are innocent?
Laci Peterson's family now have lawyers, but didn't straight away....they were too busy doing anything and everything LE told them to do....IMO.


Its my understanding that they didn't "think to do it," but it was an attorney friend of theirs who "thought to do it."

LP Moderator
02-16-2004, 12:33 PM
I think I speak for many when I say that the Ramseys "lawyering up" is not the MAIN problem.

Anyone, anyone, who is likely to become a suspect in a murder case has every right to an attorney and they should exercise their rights. No problem.

The problem I have, as do many, is that despite having a TEAM of attorneys, they continued to avoid the police interviews and cooperate with the investigation

There is no reason why they couldn't lawyer up and still cooperate

THAT is what is suspicious. The RST would have the posters believe that many of us take issue with the attorneys. Just not so. We take issue with their seemingly lack of wanting to help find the murderer/s of JonBenet Ramsey, even with attornies.

Barbara, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not here to debate with you, just wanted to answer the question posed in this thread. ;)

BrotherMoon
02-16-2004, 01:21 PM
The fantasy based culture of Boulder Colorado is more responsible for the Ramsey's freedom than their lawyers are.

The difference between the mindset and approach of Steve Thomas and Tom Koby deliniates the difference between the fantasy based culture of Boulder and that of the greater world outside. Boulder has been invaded by a post hippie neo-eastern philosophy that is ultimately infantile regressive.

Hear no Evil, see no Evil, speak no Evil and dream of perfection.

Brefie
02-16-2004, 01:35 PM
Its my understanding that they didn't "think to do it," but it was an attorney friend of theirs who "thought to do it."


I see your point, however, once lawyered up, why not cooperate with the investigation in to who killed your baby? Ain't no lawyer in the world could stop me doing that. NONE.

SisterSocks
02-16-2004, 01:40 PM
There is nothing that proves they are positively innocent of all aspects of the crime. If there was, they would have been cleared long ago.

John, Patsy, and Burke will be the prime suspects in this case until they day they are lowered in the grave. And even then, people will continue to debate the case LONG after they're gone.


Are we all so Jaded----- The Rams said they were not guilty!

By not believing them, does it make us lairs?? :eek:

LP Moderator
02-16-2004, 01:46 PM
I see your point, however, once lawyered up, why not cooperate with the investigation in to who killed your baby? Ain't no lawyer in the world could stop me doing that. NONE.


Once I saw what the police were trying to do in the Sabrena Aisenberg case my mind completely changed about what I might do. Of course, until it actually happens to you, you really don't know. When my sister disappeared my entire family did everything and anything the police asked us to do, including polygraph tests. However, the Ramseys knew what the police were trying to do early on, so I'm not so sure I could blame them for not cooperating, especially after the police were not even going to release the body for burial.

WolfmarsGirl
02-16-2004, 02:54 PM
The burn mark left on the skin, if any, after being shocked with a stun gun is proportionate to the amount of time the prongs were held against the skin with the trigger pulled. The longer the hit, the more severe the burn....
JMO

BC,

I think you might be misunderstanding me here. I am not refering to the severity of the abrasion. I am talking about the pattern within the abrasion.

If you get a chance, take my link again. Check out the green-colored photo of the mark on JB's cheek. You will see a large abrasion with a distinct, clear pattern within the mark.

I am contending that the cluster-ring has a pattern that is so close to the pattern in the abrasion that it has to be the cause of the mark.

If a stun gun does not produce a pattern within the burn-mark it leaves, then it is impossible for a stun gun to be responsible for this injury.

K777angel
02-16-2004, 03:13 PM
As for the reported "animal hair" in JonBenet's hands (which the autopsy by the way never mentions) - John Ramsey, in his book, describes the little boots JonBenet WORE the day she died. He describes them as being little black boots that zip up the front with "animal hair" around the top.

Secondly, I find so much credible evidence that the Ramseys are involved in the crime - that it overwhelmingly overshadows any circumstance that they are innocent. There cannot be "credible evidence" of their innocence - and at the same time be much "credible evidence" of their guilt.
That does not make sense - unless you replace the word "evidence" with
the word "circumstance."
Keeping in mind of course that at EVERY crime scene there are artifacts or circumstances seeming to point somewhere other than the real perp(s) - but that in fact have absolutely nothing to do with the crime.
~Angel~

Shylock
02-16-2004, 03:35 PM
However, the Ramseys knew what the police were trying to do early on, so I'm not so sure I could blame them for not cooperating, especially after the police were not even going to release the body for burial.This has nothing to do with the hiring of lawyers. Hiring lawyers is just scratching the surface when talking about the Ramsey mentality. From the moment they drove away from the house that day, everything John and Patsy have done has been about THEM. They haven't given JonBenet a second thought since her body was carried up from the basement and thrown on the floor.

Poor Patsy, too emotionally unstable after the death of her daughter to cooperate with the police, but feeling well enough to do a CNN interview. Hey, a former beauty queen knows enough to never miss an opportunity to get your face on camera again!

And lawyers? What about investigators? Investigators who were hired to keep John and Patsy out of jail and didn't spend a single minute investigating who might have killed their daughter.

And how about the FAKE web page and tip-line which no longer exist. I guess the 50 bucks a month those cost were too much for the dirt-poor Ramseys to spend in finding their daughter's killer, right?

And let's write a book about US! Forget JonBenet, we've "moved on" from that part of our life. The world wants to know about John and Patsy!

No innocent parent of a murdered child has ever acted like John and Patsy Ramsey. The key word is "innocent"...

LP Moderator
02-16-2004, 03:47 PM
Ok Shylock!!! Thanks for sharing!

sissi
02-16-2004, 05:27 PM
What would you do if your child was murdered and you lived away from home and family?
I "think" I know what I would do.
I would grab my husband,together, we would march to the police station,and offer any possible assistance ,then I would get the heck out of that town and go home.
I would be more than willing to talk to the police,with my husband. Together we would share anything ,build on each others hunches,together discuss anything or anyone strange that made us feel uncomfortable on that day and on the days preceding the crime. Together ,we would feed the police any information no matter how minor that could lead to the arrest of the killer. Separate us!!!!!!!! We would consider the investigation was aimed at our being guilty ,because separate we could NEVER be as fruitful as our "two heads" together in finding the murderer of our child. Separate us, and we would know there was no real investigation,that they "wanted" one of us,meanwhile letting the killer get a head start and the case getting colder.
It's easy to say,take the polygraph,do this..lalala..do that lalala..clear yourselves so the investigation can focus on finding the killer. NO,this investigation ended the minute the body was found,the hunches,gut feelings centered on a Ramsey, and the egotistical bunch of blunderers couldn't let it go for fear of losing face. Face was more important than finding the real killer. From there they went to the media ,leaked enough garbage as to convince 80% of the population that the parents were killers.
Without evidence of parental abuse,without pathology within a family,why wouldn't they listen to these parents together as a team,why would they insist on interrogations. IMO the way the BPD handled the entire case,was very wrong.

(the fur that wasn't sourced in her hands btw,clearly wasn't sourced to any clothing belonging to either of the children or the parents)
IMO

LovelyPigeon
02-16-2004, 07:27 PM
Barbara & WolfsmarGirl, I hope you'll bring us some cases to look at where good birth parents with no prior history of psychosis or depression killed their children. Several JBR posters have been looking for just such an example for years.

Patsy isn't perfect, any more than any of us are, but she is a positive person. At the time of JonBenét's death Patsy was not depressed, was in remission, and believed she had been healed from cancer. She was happy to be alive, to be healthy, to enjoy her life, her family, her children. There was no pathology, no prior history found in Patsy's life to even suggest she was capable of what happened to JonBenét..

BlueCrab
02-16-2004, 07:40 PM
What would you do if your child was murdered ... I "think" I know what I would do. I would grab my husband,together, we would march to the police station,and offer any possible assistance ... I would be more than willing to talk to the police,with my husband. Together ,we would feed the police any information no matter how minor that could lead to the arrest of the killer.


Correct! And so would anyone else. But the Ramseys didn't. The Ramseys launched an immediate coverup to protect someone, and rightfully became immediate suspects.

JMO

tuppence
02-16-2004, 08:19 PM
Interestingly enough, this case was a topic at lunch today.

The question was asked, do you think that there is a chance that John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey are innocent?

I had to think about that. I can not state that they are 100% guilty. That said, is there any credible evidence that points to their innocence?

The "foreign" DNA- no one knows if it is really foreign.
The "Beaver" hairs could have come from Patsy's boots.

Seriously, are there any CREDIBLE facts that point to their innocence?


I think this is a great question for those who are convinced of guilt to consider. I'm not an expert on this case at all but I think the liklihood that this was an intruder is extremely remote. That said, here are the things that would convince me to reconsider:

1) If the abrasions were proven to be stun gun marks (body should have been exhumed).

2) If a credible DNA expert testified that the DNA found was probably meaningful to the case (unlikely to have come from casual contact) and excluded the Ramseys. I see alot of people arguing this issue and its hard to get a clear picture but my sense is that the DNA is most likely not meaningful.

3) Convincing handwriting analysis was published by an expert that Patsy was not the writer of the note. This is more iffy - I'm just not sure how credible this type of analysis is in general. I know there were experts that evaluated her based on a point system and she didn't score close but others have contradicted this. I would love to see the supposed "expert" tested.

Britt
02-16-2004, 08:29 PM
There was no pathology, no prior history found in Patsy's life to even suggest she was capable of what happened to JonBenét..
How do we know that what happened that night wasn't a manifestation of a "pathology" or "history" which we would now be citing as (Ramsey) pathology/history were we to know the truth?

IOW, how can an unknown be cited as evidence of nonpathology? Not to mention: there's a first time for everything.

The family, including John's first family, lawyered up, drugged up and shut up. Who would tell us, or the BPD, about any pathology/prior history?

Personally, I think John was a child (daughter) molester/incester. But two of his three daughters are dead, and the ex-wife and other daughter were shielded by lawyers, not that either of them would ever reveal such a horrible secret to the masses anyway.

Even if Patsy had no pathology, how can we know she didn't stumble into a nightmare instigated by John... and JonBenet was unintentionally injured/killed as a result? "Why would she cover for him?" you might ask. She might if SHE were the one who struck the fatal blow and she decided, with John's help, that self and family and image preservation were more important than telling the truth.

sissi
02-16-2004, 08:55 PM
Correct! And so would anyone else. But the Ramseys didn't. The Ramseys launched an immediate coverup to protect someone, and rightfully became immediate suspects.

JMO

This is where I believe the information gets "fuzzy",I believe THEY were willing as a couple to be interviewed,however,the BPD made ground rules as to where and when,then insisted the interviews be separate. It screamed of "interrogation".
It is now,and has been my opinion ,since I discovered there was no snow in which to leave prints,that the Ramseys are innocent.

Old Broad
02-17-2004, 01:44 AM
Old Broad, I don't post much about this case either, but I may disagree with you a bit on your stmt. I think while their actions may have cast suspicion on themselves, its precisely those actions that have kept them out of prison for something they didn't do. While the idea of "lawyering up" doesn't sit well with most people, I think its the smart thing to do. In this case, however, an attorney who just happened to be a friend of the family is the one who arranged for them to be represented in the first place. Had this not happened, they may have faced a trial for something they didn't do.

LP I understand your point about it being necessary to have legal councel and no doubt, if I ever find myself in a situation I would want a lawyer to help me right away!!
I do feel tho, that somewhere along the way both the Ramseys and LE could have and should have been able to work something out. I don't blame the parents for all of this, I do believe the LE did not want to be seen as giving in to them.

Shylock
02-17-2004, 08:42 AM
Old Broad,
If you read Steve Thomas' book, you'll know exactly why this case went down the tubes. There was a political feud going on between LE and the DA's office.

LP Moderator
02-17-2004, 08:48 AM
LP I understand your point about it being necessary to have legal councel and no doubt, if I ever find myself in a situation I would want a lawyer to help me right away!!
I do feel tho, that somewhere along the way both the Ramseys and LE could have and should have been able to work something out. I don't blame the parents for all of this, I do believe the LE did not want to be seen as giving in to them.


Well LE was in a hurry to solve the case - I understand the pressure they were under to do so. Statistics also show that most crimes of this kind are done by someone known to the victim. However, we all know mistakes were made by just about everyone involved. That's a sad fact of a lot of cases.

Barbara
02-17-2004, 09:03 AM
Barbara & WolfsmarGirl, I hope you'll bring us some cases to look at where good birth parents with no prior history of psychosis or depression killed their children. Several JBR posters have been looking for just such an example for years.

Patsy isn't perfect, any more than any of us are, but she is a positive person. At the time of JonBenét's death Patsy was not depressed, was in remission, and believed she had been healed from cancer. She was happy to be alive, to be healthy, to enjoy her life, her family, her children. There was no pathology, no prior history found in Patsy's life to even suggest she was capable of what happened to JonBenét..

I am not one of the JBR posters looking for any examples of prior history. There is no need. Prior history of psychosis, depression is only a history IF IT IS DOCUMENTED. There are many people who go into depression, etc. and never see a doctor, and nobody knows. I am also one of the posters who never found a real problem with the pageants. However, the level of importance Patsy placed on the pageants and JonBenet could be considered some pathology by many and is one area where pathology can be well hidden, although in this case, was not hidden at all.

As for the rest, what Britt said. Although I don't think John was molesting JBR.

BlueCrab
02-17-2004, 09:46 AM
BC,

I think you might be misunderstanding me here. I am not refering to the severity of the abrasion. I am talking about the pattern within the abrasion.

If you get a chance, take my link again. Check out the green-colored photo of the mark on JB's cheek. You will see a large abrasion with a distinct, clear pattern within the mark.

I am contending that the cluster-ring has a pattern that is so close to the pattern in the abrasion that it has to be the cause of the mark.

If a stun gun does not produce a pattern within the burn-mark it leaves, then it is impossible for a stun gun to be responsible for this injury.


I agree there's a pattern of some kind in the injury on the face, but it may or may not have been from a ring. It's unknown whether the face injury is an abrasion, or a burn, or both. A severe stun gun burn could also form a pattern of some kind.

JMO

Curious
02-17-2004, 10:50 AM
I have only recently started reading about this case. Have just ordered Steve's book. I've seen the Ramsey interviews, seen the 20/20 features, etc. At first, I didn't think the Ramey's had anything to do with the crime. But the more I learn about the details of the case, the more I am convinced SOMEONE within the family committed the crime. I'm no so sure I have all the details worked out in my theory, but it goes something to the effect that neither John nor Patsy actually killed JBR, but know who did and are eye-ball deep in the coverup. I think that's why they don't ever want to be interviewed seperately...Patsy might slip. I'm leaning more toward an extended family member molesting/accidentally killing JBR, or Burke & friend molesting/accidentally killing her. Either way, John and Patsy covering up.

Lately I find that I don't have much faith in the court system in this country. Especiallly when politics come into play, as in this case. Famous and/or wealthy defendants seem to be able to 'buy' their way out of responsibility for their crimes. Innoscent people being found guilty for crimes they didn't commit, only to be exhonerated by DNA years later. Media/tabliods' biased or outright false, unverified reporting solely to increase ratings or circulation. It's hard to know what is the truth anymore. I say all of this just to say that even if someone does go to trial for JRB's murder, I don't necessarily think it will be the right verdict, or even the right person(s).

tipper
02-17-2004, 01:28 PM
Actually the best book to start with for this case is Perfect Murder, Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller. It gives a relatively unbiased overview of the case and the politics that went on behind the scene. Then read Thomas' and the Ramsey's books. Also CrimeLibrary.com has a relatively long article on it.

TLynn
02-17-2004, 01:40 PM
I remember looking at the marks on JonBenet and seeing one of the "rectangular squares" was angled differently than the other.

Not so on the pig example - both squares were angled the same way.

BlueCrab
02-17-2004, 01:57 PM
I remember looking at the marks on JonBenet and seeing one of the "rectangular squares" was angled differently than the other.

Not so on the pig example - both squares were angled the same way.


The little rectangular burn marks on the pig were uniform and aligned because the pig's skin was tough, rigid, relatively flat, and the pig was kept from moving. On JonBenet the skin was soft, pliable, curved, and she was likely squirming when the stun gun was pressed against her.

JMO

Ivy
02-17-2004, 02:08 PM
Stun gun? What stun gun? It has never been established that a stun gun was used on JonBenet.

IMO

WolfmarsGirl
02-17-2004, 02:42 PM
I remember looking at the marks on JonBenet and seeing one of the "rectangular squares" was angled differently than the other.

Not so on the pig example - both squares were angled the same way.

Yes, I agree.

Take a look at my 'hand' photo. You will see the same shapes as on JB's back.

http://www.geocities.com/wolfchick942003/photopage.html

WolfmarsGirl
02-17-2004, 02:47 PM
I agree there's a pattern of some kind in the injury on the face, but it may or may not have been from a ring. It's unknown whether the face injury is an abrasion, or a burn, or both. A severe stun gun burn could also form a pattern of some kind.

JMO


Sure, maybe some type of a pattern, but, not the pattern I see in JBR's abrasion.

There are tiny little squares here, each angled just slightly...like a cluster-ring setting...

Believe me, I checked out everything from clothing snaps to buttons to screws and bolts...Nothing else comes close.

Now, I sound like a broken record, lol. :rolleyes:

WolfmarsGirl
02-17-2004, 03:19 PM
Here you go LP, an article about mothers, oh, excuse, me good BIRTH mothers who kill.

I snipped quite a bit of it, since the main focus was 'why aren't men and women treated equally when they kill,' or something along those lines:

http://www.fathers.ca/women_that_kill.htm

"Mothers who kill"

"Why do women direct their most violent impulses toward their own children?

By Dahlia Lithwick
SLATE.COM

March 13 — *Women do not, by and large, make terrific criminals. In the United States, women commit only two crimes as frequently as men. The first is shoplifting. The second is the murder of their own children. Andrea Yates, the Houston mother whose trial for the murders of three of her children ended Tuesday in a guilty verdict, and Marilyn Lemak, the Chicago nurse recently convicted of killing her three children, are not at all statistical anomalies. Somehow, women — who commit less than 13 percent of all violent crimes in the United States — commit about 50 percent of all parental murders. Why do so many women direct their most violent impulses toward their own children?
* ...
***** *
***** *
THE MENTAL-ILLNESS FACTOR
***** *The scholars, the media, and most of the studies do their best to persuade us that these murderous moms really are ill. Perhaps it comforts us to believe that anyone who violates the sacred mother-child bond is simply crazy; it would be unimaginable if these mothers were making rational criminal choices. And since women are not violent in other contexts, most scholars, including Oberman, argue that the majority of maternal murderers suffer from depression, postpartum psychoses, and other mental afflictions...
***** *The problem with the “illness” theory is that it only goes partway toward explaining why women kill their babies. Illness may explain how some women eventually snap and behave violently. But it doesn’t begin to explain why they direct this madness so disproportionately toward their own offspring. Even taking into account that some small fraction of the mental illnesses associated with maternal filicide — most notably postpartum depression — are triggered by the births themselves, the illness theory doesn’t explain why mothers suffering from other mental illnesses, or who aren’t ill at all, act out with their own children rather than strangers...
***** *
CRIMES AGAINST ‘PROPERTY’
Women who murder their own children are more likely to be hospitalized, whereas men who do so are more likely to go to prison.

* * * * *Pulling murderous mothers out of the field of ordinary criminology and viewing them as fundamentally different raises more questions than it answers. Perhaps murderous mothers are no crazier than fathers. Perhaps murderous fathers are even crazier than mothers. Either way, the failure to view these crimes as morally or legally equivalent reflects a more central legal truth: We still view children as the mother’s property. Since destroying one’s own property is considered crazy while destroying someone else’s property is criminal, women who murder their own children are sent to hospitals, whereas their husbands are criminals, who go to jail or the electric chair...
* * * *
THE NUMBERS, THE MEDIA
* * * *Children under the age of 5 in the United States are more likely to be killed by their parents than anyone else. Contrary to popular mythology, they are rarely killed by a sex-crazed stranger. FBI crime statistics show that in 1999 parents were responsible for 57 percent of these murders, with family friends and acquaintances accounting for another 30 percent and other family members accounting for 8 percent. Crime statistics further reveal that of the children under 5 killed by their own parents from 1976 to 1999, 30 percent were murdered by their mothers while 31 percent were killed by their fathers. And while the strangers, acquaintances, and other family members who kill children skew heavily toward males (as does the entire class of murderers), children are as likely to be murdered by their fathers as by their mothers.
Cases involving mothers who kill their children seem to get an inordinate amount of media attention...

* * *
* * * *
THE MOTIVES
* * * *The same studies that have been used to prove that murderous mothers are “sick” can as readily be used to support the theory that both mothers and fathers consider children to be a woman’s property. Social science research and FBI crime statistics show that men and women differ in the reasons they kill their children, in the methods they employ, and in the ways they behave following such murders. None of this data proves that fathers are crazier than mothers. Much of it suggests that we all simply believe children “belong” to their moms.
* A small stuffed animal and other items are placed on the Texas gravesite of one of the five children who were drowned by their mother, Andrea Yates.
* * Researchers, building on the work of Phillip Resnick, have shown that women tend to kill their own offspring for one of several reasons: because the child is unwanted; out of mercy; as a result of some mental illness in the mother; in retaliation against a spouse; as a result of abuse. Frequent themes are that they themselves deserved to be punished, that killing the children would be an altruistic or loving act, or that children need to be “erased” in order to save or preserve a relationship. Contrast this with the reasons men kill their children: ... The consistent idea is that women usually kill their children either because they are angry at themselves or because they want to destroy that which they created, whereas more often than not, men kill their children to get back at a woman ...
* * * *According to a recent article by Elizabeth Fernandez in the San Francisco Chronicle, studies further reveal that fathers are far more likely to commit suicide after killing their children. Mothers attempt post-filicide suicide but rarely succeed. Some scholars suggest this is because mothers tend to view their children as mere extensions of themselves and that these homicides are in fact suicidal.
* * * *
METHODS OF MURDER
* * * *Perhaps more revealing than the differences in why they kill their offspring are the differences between how fathers and mothers do so. For one thing, parental murderers tend to be highly physical. According to a 1988 survey done by the U.S. Justice Department, while 61 percent of all murder defendants used a gun in 1988, only 20 percent of the parents who killed their children used one. Children were drowned and shaken, beaten, poisoned, stabbed, and suffocated. These methods betray a certain “craziness” in both genders — they betray an intense passion and a lack of planning.
*
* *

The Yates trial

More on the case and postpartum depression:


•* Mom who drowned five kids found guilty
•* Beyond the baby blues
•* Breaking Bioethics: Taking reproductive responsibility
•* Mothers warn about postpartum depression

* * * *But a study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children shows that fathers are far more violent. And mothers frequently dispose of the corpses in what researchers call a “womblike” fashion. Bodies are swaddled, submerged in water, or wrapped in plastic. Moreover, the NCMEC study showed that while the victims of maternal killings are almost always found either in or close to the home, fathers will, on average, dispose of the bodies hundreds of miles away. All these behaviors suggest that women associate these murders with themselves, their homes, and their bodies
* * * ... while complete psychotic breaks explain why some of this homicidal rage and violence is turned upon one’s own children, it doesn’t account for either the staggering numbers of maternal homicides...

* * * * ... Women still believe that they have sole dominion over so little property that arson and armed robbery and rape make no intuitive sense to them. But the destruction and control of something deemed to be a woman’s sole property sends a powerful message about who’s really in charge, and this message hasn’t changed since the time of Jason and Medea. It would, of course, help if we could stop thinking of children as anyone’s property.
* * * *It does nothing to advance the feminist cause to simply assume that all mothers who kill their children must necessarily be crazy...."

*

*(emphasis mine)

WolfmarsGirl
02-18-2004, 03:15 AM
Here's another story about parents killing kids. Sorry, I don't have names and locations.

I think you have to define 'history' of psychosis. I mean, to me, Patsy Ramsey always comes across as being a few cards short of a deck, if you get my meaning :crazy:

How about Darlie Routier??? Who knew with her?

You've got to understand, with stats like they are with parental killings, not everyone who kills their babies can be given their '15 minutes of fame.' And hence, no news coverage.

What I do know is that parents lose control frequently, especially under stress. Even good-kind-loving-All-American-white-God Fearing-blonde-haired-blue-eyed-birth parents snap from time to time.

Of course, there aren't any useful statistics for the evil-hateful-foreign-non-white-atheist-adoptive parents out there. After all, we naturally expect, them to abuse their kids, right??? ;)

Yes, I am still fuming from that remark...Don't worry, LP, I will get over it. I am just kind of prodding at you light-heartedly... :furious:

http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2001/07/09/p3s1.htm

"...Though few incidents attain the notoriety of the Yates case, filicide is fairly prevalent in American society. A study in the 1960s found that 1 in 22 homicides in the US was committed by a parent who killed his or her child. More recently, an FBI study of data from 1976 to 1997 showed that a parent is most often the culprit whenever a child younger than 12 is killed.

Worldwide, the figure may be higher. Larry Milner, a Chicago physician who has written extensively on filicide patterns throughout the ages, estimates that 10 percent of all children die at the hand of a parent - either from abuse or from a single, sudden event.

Many experts draw a sharp distinction in motive between parents who kill their babies soon after they are born and those who do so after a child's role in the family has been established. Those latter cases, they say, fall into five categories: altruistic, delusional, unwanted, accidental, and vengeful..."

(emphasis mine)

I don't know...take your pick. I always thought this was an accident. I didn't know we had five choices...

SisterSocks
02-22-2004, 05:43 PM
Stun gun? What stun gun? It has never been established that a stun gun was used on JonBenet.

IMO

Stun gun was used IMO Ivy--- What makes you think one was NOT used?
Socks :D

Shylock
02-22-2004, 08:10 PM
Stun gun was used IMO Ivy--- What makes you think one was NOT used?

So tell us Socks, was the stun gun used before or after he fed her the pineapple? Or maybe he used the stun gun to cause her to swallow the pineapple when she wasn't hungry!...LOL :croc:

BlueCrab
02-22-2004, 10:10 PM
So tell us, was the stun gun used before or after he fed her the pineapple?


I know you meant it in jest Shylock and it wasn't addressed to me, but I'm gonna answer your question anyway.

The answer is AFTER, and in my opinion it was by Burke or his friend (the fifth person in the house that night). There's strong evidence a stun gun was used on JonBenet, but it didn't have to have been administered by an unknown intruder. A Ramsey could have done it.

The marks on JonBenet sure looked like stun gun injuries, and a host of board certified forensic pathologists agreed the injuries were consistent with a stun gun -- including the only one who saw the injuries in person, Dr. John Meyer.

JMO

sissi
02-23-2004, 02:31 PM
How do we feel about this statement.
"DNA clears suspects in the Jonbenet Ramsey case"

sissi
02-23-2004, 02:54 PM
this search is a cache for those that don't want to be identified(tracked) for looking at the site over "yonder" as it's called......
note the stun gun marks on the dead man..are the similar in both appearance and placement?
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:O6yPQBd4ugMJ:www.*******245.com/doc2usa.htm+garrotte+pictures+rope&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

twilight
02-23-2004, 03:03 PM
How do we feel about this statement.
"DNA clears suspects in the Jonbenet Ramsey case"

Of what?

Writing the note?
Garrotting JonBenét?
Bludgeoning JonBenét?
Posing her body?
Entering/exiting through the window?
Feeding her pineapple?

LovelyPigeon
02-23-2004, 03:47 PM
Wolfsmargirl, we're still waiting for that specific case where a birth mother with no history, no pathology killed her own child or children.

I've never said that mothers and fathers don't kill their own children, and I've never seen anyone else say so, either. You may be missing the distinction.

why_nutt
02-23-2004, 04:13 PM
Wolfsmargirl, we're still waiting for that specific case where a birth mother with no history, no pathology killed her own child or children.

I've never said that mothers and fathers don't kill their own children, and I've never seen anyone else say so, either. You may be missing the distinction.

For future purposes of discussion, I would like you to make clear your position on a certain issue. If a person is taking antidepressants such as Paxil, Prozac or Klonopin, is that person to be considered as having a pathology? In other words, would you consider that person to be experiencing mental illness? And if that person was prescribed the medication at X time, would you consider the illness meant to be treated started only on the day the medication was prescribed, or would you say the illness predated the beginning of medication?

Britt
02-23-2004, 04:25 PM
However, the level of importance Patsy placed on the pageants and JonBenet could be considered some pathology by many and is one area where pathology can be well hidden, although in this case, was not hidden at all.
Exactly, and IMO Patsy's "merging" with JonBenet was a pathology. IMO Patsy used JB as an extension of herself to a pathological degree. There is the "pathology," the visible one that is. (Not that one is even necessary.) But I also believe there was another "pathology" at play here which was just as obvious if one pays attention to the clues JB's body revealed. That poor kid never had a chance with those two pervs for parents. IMO!

sissi
02-23-2004, 04:26 PM
Of what?

Writing the note?
Garrotting JonBenét?
Bludgeoning JonBenét?
Posing her body?
Entering/exiting through the window?
Feeding her pineapple?

No,simply,I have it on solid information that the "prophet" was cleared through dna,we have all heard that Wolfe and other's have been cleared by the same dna. How can we explain this? How can "stutter","degraded",or factory dna clear anyone?
Writing the note.....doesn't every office have one employee that they can call in to forge one forgotten signature out of 10 that was overlooked during signing?
Garrotting Jonbenet...? any one of the suspects could have done that
Bludgeoning............."""""""
Posing ?
entering/exiting..anyone
feeding her pineapple....not sure what part it played..is anyone?
JMO

Shylock
02-23-2004, 04:26 PM
this search is a cache

Your link doesn't work, sissi. But judging from what you wrote I assume you are refering to the Boggs photos--which the swamp like to show off and always fails to mention that the marks on his body looked NOTHING like those on JonBenet until he was buried in the ground for almost a year. Typical swamp propaganda...

twilight
02-23-2004, 04:40 PM
No,simply,I have it on solid information that the "prophet" was cleared through dna,we have all heard that Wolfe and other's have been cleared by the same dna. How can we explain this? How can "stutter","degraded",or factory dna clear anyone?
Writing the note.....doesn't every office have one employee that they can call in to forge one forgotten signature out of 10 that was overlooked during signing?
Garrotting Jonbenet...? any one of the suspects could have done that
Bludgeoning............."""""""
Posing ?
entering/exiting..anyone
feeding her pineapple....not sure what part it played..is anyone?
JMO

Sissi - here's how it works. Let's say your DNA profile is as follows:

AAABBBNMTZXOWP

Only these letters can or ever will appear in your DNA profile - being YOU.

Let's say that the degraded DNA from JB looks something like this:

BABBBBNTZOXPPY

Here's the problem. You cannot be a Y. Ever, ever.

Now, let's say they know that JB was a:

BBAATTZOPPNTTA

Then the Y does not belong to her either.

And that's how it works. The Y belongs to the other sample or whatever the degraded substance is. I purposely chose a 'y' because this would indicate a male. Male what, however, is very much in question.

___________________

Now, this is my point. Because you did not contribute to the DNA sample does not mean you did not write the ransom note, or bludgeon the victim, or strangle the victim, or pose the victim, or enter/exit the window, or feed her pineapple. Get it? It means - simply, and irrevocably, that you did not contribute to the DNA sample.

sissi
02-23-2004, 04:50 PM
Your link doesn't work, sissi. But judging from what you wrote I assume you are refering to the Boggs photos--which the swamp like to show off and always fails to mention that the marks on his body looked NOTHING like those on JonBenet until he was buried in the ground for almost a year. Typical swamp propaganda...

I can't get the darn link to post correctly,sorry!
Yes,the Boggs photos!
Here is where I must have missed something. I understand he was exhumed for the purpose of testing the skin,however,I recall there were autopsy pictures taken at the time of his death showing these marks . These marks were reason enough to exhume him for further skin testing which proved the gun was used.
IMO

sissi
02-23-2004, 05:01 PM
Twilight,
I do understand, you are saying,this dna belonged to the killer.

SisterSocks
02-23-2004, 05:24 PM
So tell us Socks, was the stun gun used before or after he fed her the pineapple? Or maybe he used the stun gun to cause her to swallow the pineapple when she wasn't hungry!...LOL :croc:


This could be a plausable explaination--- Stunning her in to eating the pine apple Hum :rolleyes: LOL

Its just that as a fence sitter, I would like to hear more views other than Bent on Rams guilt. Yanno? No offence to any Poster I do enjoy them all.


Socks ;)

LovelyPigeon
02-23-2004, 05:31 PM
The Boggs case was a murder case, so autopsy photos were taken. Marks on the face were noted in the autopsy, but the cause of those marks was not known. The marks were not recognized at the time as having been made by a stun gun.

After the suspected killer was found to be in possession of a stun gun the body was exhumed to see if that stun gun's configuration of probes fit the pair of marks on Bogg's face.

In the photos taken postexhumation, one of the pair of marks is quite large & dark, and is on the side of the face right beside the ear. The other mark is smaller, lighter in color, and on the earlobe.

Photos were made of the stun gun held to the pair of marks to demonstrate that the configuration of the gun's probes were consistent with that particular gun.

SisterSocks
02-23-2004, 05:40 PM
The Boggs case was a murder case, so autopsy photos were taken. Marks on the face were noted in the autopsy, but the cause of those marks was not known. The marks were not recognized at the time as having been made by a stun gun.

After the suspected killer was found to be in possession of a stun gun the body was exhumed to see if that stun gun's configuration of probes fit the pair of marks on Bogg's face.

In the photos taken postexhumation, one of the pair of marks is quite large & dark, and is on the side of the face right beside the ear. The other mark is smaller, lighter in color, and on the earlobe.

Photos were made of the stun gun held to the pair of marks to demonstrate that the configuration of the gun's probes were consistent with that particular gun.

Thank you LP!
This is just the posts I enjoy-- Facts--- although, opinion are what makes this group special.

Socks

Shylock
02-23-2004, 05:48 PM
How can we explain this? How can "stutter","degraded",or factory dna clear anyone?

We can't, it can't, and it hasn't. You're mistaken in thinking that anyone has been "cleared" by the DNA. There is no way to do that since (as you pointed out) the DNA can't be proven to be part of the crime.

Take for example Chris Wolf. In his depo, Beckner clearly states Wolf did not match ANY of the DNA found at the crime scene. But when asked if Wolf has been cleared by the DNA, Beckner replies, "You're using the word cleared. We've never cleared Chris Wolf." He goes on to say that Wolf has only been removed from under the famous "umbrella of suspicion".

Shylock
02-23-2004, 06:02 PM
In the photos taken postexhumation, one of the pair of marks is quite large & dark,

Exactly. Except you forgot to mention that NONE of the marks, prior to the exhumation of his body 10 months after his death, looked the least bit like any of the marks on JonBenet.

txsvicki
02-24-2004, 10:44 PM
I don't understand about the marks on JonBenet's body being from the rings. What is the theory of how that much pressure was applied and how it happened? thanks,

I'm not sure the Ramsey's did it either, but have no facts to prove it. I do agree they could have and lots of facts point to them, but know that there are some perverts out there that could get into someone's house and do something like this.

sissi
02-24-2004, 10:51 PM
I don't understand about the marks on JonBenet's body being from the rings. What is the theory of how that much pressure was applied and how it happened? thanks,

I'm not sure the Ramsey's did it either, but have no facts to prove it. I do agree they could have and lots of facts point to them, but know that there are some perverts out there that could get into someone's house and do something like this.

I wonder about this,as well,in the theory would the ring have to be twisted to the inside of the hand?
IMO

txsvicki
02-24-2004, 11:37 PM
Yes, I remember someone pointing out that Patsy's rings were twisted around like that in some photo. I was just wondering if the theory would be that Patsy was carrying JonBenet after death and made the marks or how they got there?

WolfmarsGirl
02-25-2004, 12:01 AM
Yes, I remember someone pointing out that Patsy's rings were twisted around like that in some photo. I was just wondering if the theory would be that Patsy was carrying JonBenet after death and made the marks or how they got there?

Well, you asked for it...My theory again:


...I sat on the floor with my child in my lap, with her
legs both hanging over my left leg. She was kind of
sitting up, laying her weight on her left hip, facing
me. I held her head in my right hand and the fingers
on my right hand ended up on her right cheek and/or or
on her neck. So, I gave her a kiss on the nose, lol...

My left arm was over her right side and my left hand
ended up, quite naturally, on the lower, left side of
her back.

This is typically how I hold her when I 'rock' my
great-big baby girl, or when I carry her quickly in a
rain-storm (when walking would be too slow), or any
other time I have to move her in a hurry and I want to
get a good grip on her and hold her close at the same
time.

Try it with your own child. Make sure his or her face
is close to your face (and don't forget the kiss on
the nose.) This hug kind of looks like holding a
guitar.

Now, back to Patsy's rings (or not). Now, if PR
accidentally killed (or thought she killed) JB, there
would have been a lot of squeezing and rocking with
mother and child in this exact position. If PR was
wearing two or more rings on each hand AND she held,
and squeezed JB in this manner, (a little too hard out
of grief and overwhelming anguish) would those rings
leave marks similar to the "stun gun" marks? I think
so.

The positioning of where a grown-up's fingers would
land on a child of JB's size match up perfectly to
where the marks were found on her body. AND, the
distance between the marks (within each set of marks)
is just about the distance between two adult fingers.

Of course, the rings would most likely have been on
backward. That is the only problem I have with this
theory. However, as I am typing, two of my rings are
reversed and they swing around constantly.

I even thought about trying this trick with four
smiley-faced-stamper rings. But, since I don't want my
poor little girl to be too severely emotionally
scarred by my obsessive sleuthing, lol, I didn't
conduct this further experiment.


I did conduct an additional 'experiment.' I am
posting a link to marks I made on the smooth part of
my right hand. I squeezed my right hand with my left
hand. I had two, round-cut rings on my left hand.
Both rings are mounted with four-prongs.

Please see the link below:

http://www.geocities.com/wolfchick942003/photopage.html

With very little effort, I was able to reproduce the
exact markings I see on the autopsy photos of Jonbenet
Ramsey.

In addition, the marks fell approximately 3.5
centimeters apart.

As I outlined in my forum post, the angle of the marks
on Jonbenet (from the autopsy photos) line up in an
identical pattern and angle to where an adult's
fingers would rest if that adult was holding a child
as I described. It is crucial to note that this is a
very common position for a parent (typically a mom) to
hold and/or rock their small child.

The positions are the same. The markings made by me
are nearly identical to the marks on Jonbenet's body.

One more piece of evidence had occurred to me: Patsy
Ramsey wore, at one point, a large ring on the 2nd
finger of her right hand. This larger ring would fall into the position of the large mark on Jonbenet's cheek, if Patsy did, in fact, hold and squeeze the child prior to death.


Once again:
*The positions of the marks can be explained, within a
fraction of an inch.
*The distance between two marks of either pair of
marks can be explained.
*The angle of the marks (extremely important!) can be
explained.
*The 'weapon' or cause of the marks can be explained.
* If Patsy's rings made the marks, then evidence, or
at least witnesses can testify to their existence.
*Both the occurrence of the marks and the location of
the marks can be easily re-created in any court room.
* This theory explains why 'stun gun' marks are NOT
equidistant (as they would be expected to be) on the
body of Jonbenet.

New info:

I was looking over the autopsy photos of JBR at ACandyRose and I noticed a close-up of her face and the mark on her face.

Inside of the large mark, I could see a definite, clear pattern. So, I pulled up the picture of Patsy's ring and I saw a pattern ON the ring that matched, in my opinion, exactly to the pattern in abrasion.

The Patsy photo is not very clear, so I tried to blow it up for a better look. The enlargement only distorts the photo. However, I can tell the ring is a cluster ring with the stones forming somewhat of an 'x' pattern (just like the pattern in the abrasion).

I found a similar ring on another website and I took out the colors and made a negative image of the ring.

When I put the adjusted photo of JBR's abrasion and the adjusted photo of the cluster ring (not Patsy's but close), the patterns matched!

So, in the link you will see my 'hand' experiment, plus the ring, JBR's face mark and the patterns I see in both.

My idea is this: If we can find the ring Patsy had on her right hand on the night of the murder and we have a clear photo of the abrasion on JBR's cheek in evidence somewhere (I hope), then LE can match the ring to the abrasion.

If the patterns line up (and I think they will), then the ring print is just about as good as a fingerprint, IMO.

http://www.geocities.com/wolfchick942003/photopage.html

TLynn
02-25-2004, 01:44 AM
I sooooo want to see the pictures from the White's dinner. In those, we could possibly see if Patsy was wearing her rings. I'd also like to know how JonBenet's hair was done. If it was in the two ponytails.

Nehemiah
02-25-2004, 08:02 AM
I sooooo want to see the pictures from the White's dinner. In those, we could possibly see if Patsy was wearing her rings. I'd also like to know how JonBenet's hair was done. If it was in the two ponytails.

What do you think would be the reasoning for those pictures never being released? I think they must hold some good evidence, but what?

IMO

Britt
02-25-2004, 01:57 PM
I'd also like to know how JonBenet's hair was done. If it was in the two ponytails.
That's one of the things I wonder about, too. Maybe her hairstyle was different at the Whites' dinner. If so, it would explain law enforcement's focus on Patsy as the perp. Not only would it prove JB was awake upon coming home, unless we were to believe Patsy fixed JB's hair without waking her up (right), it would also implicate Patsy, specifically, in the crime because it's obviously more believable that Patsy would arrange JB's hair, rather than John or Burke or (lol) an intruder.

And remember the hair ties strewn about JB's room? (Isn't there a photo somewhere?) Evidence of a mom-daughter scuffle?