Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[JMO8778]

I didn't like his book when I read it...something just didn't sit right with me.
IDI's claim we don't want to be fair,but I,and I know others,certainly were when we didn't believe what was in his book.I felt he did a good job on the autopsy analysis,but saying that JR was involved in a sex game with JB, using the garrote, was just not believable to me.I know anything is possible,but it just never sat right with me.And I didn't know the garrote wasn't functional until I started reading here.
If anything,JR would have been using the garrote on himself,and not on JB (as would an INTRUDER).But we know neither happened,as it was not usable as such.

 

[BBB167893]

SUPERDAVE

Dr. Wecht has been in allot of trouble here in Sixburgh. He does not have that great reputation here as he does over the nation.........
IMO, Wecht claimed my neighbor did suicide when it was VERY clear she was MURDERED!!! long story........

passionflower, you're proving my point. If he's so easy to take down, why don't they?

I'd like to see another NEW forensic coroner to check things again.

As would I. Unlikely though.

 

[TinaD]

Maybe Wecht was so far off track that they didn't feel threatened by his "theory"? However, Steve Thomas got too close to the truth??

 

[BBB167893]

Maybe Wecht was so far off track that they didn't feel threatened by his "theory"? However, Steve Thomas got too close to the truth??

Or, just the opposite?

 

[dalcanton]

Although I haven't let any of the main characters off the hook (it seems as if there are likely scenarios for everyone involved), I don't understand why some posters think that the fact that Patsey's or Burke's fingerprints were found on the pineapple bowl is proof that one of them murdered JBR. Those prints could've gotten there in many ways. After washing the bowl, one of them could've touched the bowl while drying/putting it away in the cupboard. Perhaps the bowl was in the refrigerator already & either P or B had their hands on it last for a snack (before JBR). Or, one of them could've been re-arranging bowls/dishes in the cupboard (I've done this plenty of times - moving things around in the cupboard because I'm looking for a particular plate/bowl, etc.). So, to me, the pineapple bowl prints really don't implicate anything. It's just speculation.

 

[BBB167893]

Although I haven't let any of the main characters off the hook (it seems as if there are likely scenarios for everyone involved), I don't understand why some posters think that the fact that Patsey's or Burke's fingerprints were found on the pineapple bowl is proof that one of them murdered JBR.

It's a tad more nuanced than that, dalcanton.

Those prints could've gotten there in many ways. After washing the bowl, one of them could've touched the bowl while drying/putting it away in the cupboard. Perhaps the bowl was in the refrigerator already & either P or B had their hands on it last for a snack (before JBR). Or, one of them could've been re-arranging bowls/dishes in the cupboard (I've done this plenty of times - moving things around in the cupboard because I'm looking for a particular plate/bowl, etc.). So, to me, the pineapple bowl prints really don't implicate anything. It's just speculation.

Alone, yes. But you illustrate one of our points: why not just say "I did such-and-such," instead of all of the denials and changed stories?

 

[DeeDee249]

Although I haven't let any of the main characters off the hook (it seems as if there are likely scenarios for everyone involved), I don't understand why some posters think that the fact that Patsey's or Burke's fingerprints were found on the pineapple bowl is proof that one of them murdered JBR. Those prints could've gotten there in many ways. After washing the bowl, one of them could've touched the bowl while drying/putting it away in the cupboard. Perhaps the bowl was in the refrigerator already & either P or B had their hands on it last for a snack (before JBR). Or, one of them could've been re-arranging bowls/dishes in the cupboard (I've done this plenty of times - moving things around in the cupboard because I'm looking for a particular plate/bowl, etc.). So, to me, the pineapple bowl prints really don't implicate anything. It's just speculation.

Well for one, the bowl wasn't found in the cupboard. It was found on the dining table, where JBR had had her last snack of pineapple. No, the prints of PR and BR on the bowl/spoon do not prove they murdered her. But they DO prove they lied about knowing she ate the pineapple. And the fact they lied about her eating the pineapple proves they had a reason to want to keep that from being associated with them. And THAT proves they also lied about her being awake when they got home (although brother BR did admit his sister was awake and walked into the house that night, the parents have denied this). And THAT proves they had something to hide about that night. There is simply no other reason to lie about giving your daughter a pineapple snack that night before she died. An innocent parent providing a snack does not need to lie about it- the snack should have nothing to do with either the kidnapping or murder.
Why lie? Here's why, IMHO:
They were shocked to find that the autopsy had disclosed the pineapple- I bet they never thought THAT would happen. Having already said she was asleep when they got home and carried to bed still asleep- they could not now go back and say that they gave her a pineapple bedtime snack. So...they had no choice but to lie and say they knew nothing about the pineapple. To me, this simple thing was one of the biggest indications that the parents KNOW what happened that night. Does it prove they killed her? Not by itself, but they KNOW what happened.

 

[cjk2009]

I posted this in the other thread, but I honestly believe that Burke was involved in some way. Why would the R's cover for him so much, and make up all these alibis and such for him? It just doesn't click for me. JMO

 

[DeeDee249]

I posted this in the other thread, but I honestly believe that Burke was involved in some way. Why would the R's cover for him so much, and make up all these alibis and such for him? It just doesn't click for me. JMO

It doesn't click for a lot of us. As a matter of fact, there are those who pin this on him, with his parents good for the coverup. I cannot rule out ANY family member present in the house that night, including members we are not aware were there. JAR and Grandpa P come to mind. Remember, a neighbor claimed to have seen JAR there Christmas Eve. Though he later recanted (pressure from Woody?) I believe he knows what he saw.
JR flew his family on charter jets. There would be no way to show they boarded a commercial flight away from Boulder before Christmas. I don't believe there has ever been any evidence presented that prove neither man was not in Boulder at the time of the killing. Only someone's word. An Rs word.
The missing/never taken (as IF) Christmas photos/videos fairly scream the fact that there is something on them the family wants to keep secret. Yet when pathetic pseudo-perp Karr, who claimed he WAS in Boulder that night (with JBR) his ex-wife came forward to say that he was in Georgia with her. We saw NO photographic proof of that, did we? Yet not a word from the RST. They didn't WANT to see that proof. They wanted that possibility to remain.

 

[JMO8778]

the neighbor seeing JAR has always bothered me.But perhaps the R's just wanted him out of there,so he would not be blamed in any way.and or because he knew too much.Recall he did reply twice that the killer should be forgiven,when asked.That is veryyy odd,IMO.
I can't really see him saying that for Patsy,but only for himself,Burke,or his father.(or perhaps an unnamed friend).

 

[Ames]

the neighbor seeing JAR has always bothered me.But perhaps the R's just wanted him out of there,so he would not be blamed in any way.and or because he knew too much.Recall he did reply twice that the killer should be forgiven,when asked.That is veryyy odd,IMO.
I can't really see him saying that for Patsy,but only for himself,Burke,or his father.(or perhaps an unnamed friend).

But, I can't see Patsy covering for JAR...he wasn't even her biological son...but, JB was her biological daughter.

 

[weasel]

Yes. Why hasn't JR taken any action?, post exhoneration.

I could only speculate. Personally, I wonder about some of Dr. Wecht's opinions. He also speculates that OJ Simpson couldn't have killed two people by himself.

 

[weasel]

What I find more interesting and most telling is that the R's never sued Dr.Cyril Wecht for his book "Who killed JonBenet Ramsey?" .

Keeping in mind that I am just speculating here, but what would be the point? If the R's filed lawsuits against everyone who accused a family member, there would still be cases pending.

 

[weasel]

Semantics?

But within the IDI theories, why can't the previous sexual abuse be unrelated to the murder of JBR that night?

hmmm ....

I know why.*
*smirk,

2 points intertwined in 'The defense of the Ramseys'.

but .... seems odd to negate the opinions of experts, even if you attribute no validity to the various Ransom note analysis that point to PR.

Just wondering, "previous sexual abuse" has never been a proven fact in this case. Sure, there's speculations and rumors, but where is the rock hard solid proof this actually occurred?

 

[weasel]

You didn't really misread it so much as it didn't give you the whole story. Like I tell a lot of people around here, you can fill volumes with what the press doesn't tell you.

But you didn't ask me for a dissertation on the news business. To put it bluntly, the case was settled. It never saw the inside of a courtroom. In order to be "successfully sued," to use your words, you have to have a legal judgment made against you. That didn't happen. (Still, what I wouldn't give to know what went on at those settlement talks!)

Moreover, they sued him for what he said about THEM, NOT what he said about the DA's office.

The best advice I can give you is to ask Tricia. She knows a lot more about it than I do.

One just has to wonder why Thomas and his publishers would choose to settle. In my opinion, they chose to settle to avoid the "legal judgment" that would have been made against them. It seems to me that Thomas would have relished the opportunity to square off with the R's in a court of law. But evidently someone somewhere along the line thought better of it. This is just my opinion, but if someone files a lawsuit against you and you settle rather than taking it to court, that to me says alot about his convictions. Having to be made to prove his allegations with solid facts instead of his opinions.

 

[weasel]

They never went after Wendy Murphy, either.

See, this supports my opinion that it would be virtually impossible for the R's to file suit against every single person out there pointing the finger.

 

[weasel]

Ummmm - it was the Ramseys that always sought out a Settlement with the lawsuits they filed.......

Do you have proof they are the ones who sought the settlement? As far as I know, that information isn't public knowledge. As a matter of fact, I don't recall ever once reading anywhere that the Ramsey's sought to settle.

 

[weasel]

<<But they DO prove they lied about knowing she ate the pineapple>>

respectfully snipped

I disagree. They lived in the house .... all of them together. My opinion, but I don't think the fingerprints on the bowl prove anything other than the fact that Patsy and Burke touched a bowl.

 

[weasel]

I posted this in the other thread, but I honestly believe that Burke was involved in some way. Why would the R's cover for him so much, and make up all these alibis and such for him? It just doesn't click for me. JMO

I don't think they "covered" for him. Cover him against what? I think they just didn't want him involved due to the fact that after all, he was a very young child himself.

 

[weasel]

the neighbor seeing JAR has always bothered me.But perhaps the R's just wanted him out of there,so he would not be blamed in any way.and or because he knew too much.Recall he did reply twice that the killer should be forgiven,when asked.That is veryyy odd,IMO.
I can't really see him saying that for Patsy,but only for himself,Burke,or his father.(or perhaps an unnamed friend).

I believe the neighbor was wrong, perhaps just mistaken about the actual day they saw him. I truly believe if JAR was actually in Boulder on that day, the police surely would be able to prove this beyond doubt.