If your child were murdered…

Your reaction? Does it matter?

  • My reaction would be closer to the Goldmans.

    Votes: 86 73.5%

  • My reaction would be closer to the Ramseys.

    Votes: 6 5.1%

  • Behavior subsequent to a crime is relevant with respect to guilt or innocence.

    Votes: 43 36.8%

  • Behavior subsequent to a crime is irrelevant with respect to guilt or innocence.

    Votes: 10 8.5%
  • Total voters
    117

New Posts

Mysteeri said:
The problem is I don`t know how the Ramsey`s behaved, really. How should they have behaved? The "Patsy looked at me in a weird way" is tabloid stuff to me. Condemnig John for reading mail and calling his lawyer is taking things out of context. Their daughter had been kidnapped, the lawyer was their friend, there might be some message or clue in the mail. It would be strange not to do anything for hours.

That`s what I have to stick with- don`t know much about the Ramseys, can`t answer the poll either.
Click to expand...

John was missing for two hours...."checking his mail". How long does it take to check your mail? Would you check your mail for two hours, when the "kidnapper" that has your child, said that he would be calling to give your further instructions?? Or would you be planted right there near a phone?
 
Ames said:
John was missing for two hours...."checking his mail". How long does it take to check your mail? Would you check your mail for two hours, when the "kidnapper" that has your child, said that he would be calling to give your further instructions?? Or would you be planted right there near a phone?
Click to expand...

Not only that, but it wasn't that PR was "looking at Officer French funny." She was checking to see if he believed that she was really in anguish.
 
SuperDave said:
Not only that, but it wasn't that PR was "looking at Officer French funny." She was checking to see if he believed that she was really in anguish.
Click to expand...


Exactly! I hardly call looking at someone through "splayed fingers" (that was covering her supposedly crying eyes), looking at someone "funny". She was peeking through her fingers to see if he was buying her actiing session.
 
my answer isnt on there .. i wouldnt CARE how anyone thinks id react because my reason for living would be OVER .. my children are my world and id belong in a rubber room if they got killed
 
I would be so grief stricken, I doubt if I could function.
Life would stop for me. I would need my family and counseling BIG time.
 
Don't post here often, only once I think, but just to add new or probably already posted viewpoints, at first when this case was new, thought that there were too many things that pointed to family being involved, like the obvious: who does not wake up their 9 yr old son? and ask wheres you sister, did you see or hear anything? I know that my kids at 9 yrs old were very astute in telling me facts, who, after their child was abducted would try to plan a flight out? That is not right. I would not even be able to think straight. As much as it is good to have close friends, who would think about calling them all over to share your misery right off the get go? But then, after reading more facts and autopsy reports, I wavered to no way a mom or dad could stage such a brutal thing, was way beyond my comprehension, like I am sure it stretches peoples reasoning to the brink, but the more sleuthing I did, seems like the improbability of an IDI far outweighs the improbability of RDI. I abhor to think that happened, but I think that happened, and I belive legally the case will never be solved, I do believe that something will come out, in years ahead, that we may know what truly happened to the beautiful life of JBR.
 
Don't post here often, only once I think, but just to add new or probably already posted viewpoints, at first when this case was new, thought that there were too many things that pointed to family being involved, like the obvious: who does not wake up their 9 yr old son? and ask wheres you sister, did you see or hear anything? I know that my kids at 9 yrs old were very astute in telling me facts, who, after their child was abducted would try to plan a flight out? That is not right. I would not even be able to think straight. As much as it is good to have close friends, who would think about calling them all over to share your misery right off the get go? But then, after reading more facts and autopsy reports, I wavered to no way a mom or dad could stage such a brutal thing, was way beyond my comprehension, like I am sure it stretches peoples reasoning to the brink, but the more sleuthing I did, seems like the improbability of an IDI far outweighs the improbability of RDI. I abhor to think that happened, but I think that happened, and I belive legally the case will never be solved, I do believe that something will come out, in years ahead, that we may know what truly happened to the beautiful life of JBR.
 
Mysteeri said:
The problem is I don`t know how the Ramsey`s behaved, really. How should they have behaved? The "Patsy looked at me in a weird way" is tabloid stuff to me. Condemnig John for reading mail and calling his lawyer is taking things out of context. Their daughter had been kidnapped, the lawyer was their friend, there might be some message or clue in the mail. It would be strange not to do anything for hours.

That`s what I have to stick with- don`t know much about the Ramseys, can`t answer the poll either.
Click to expand...

It isn't the actions themselves, otherwise mundane. It's the circumsances surrounding them.
Calling your lawyer, even one who is a friend, before talking to police when your child is killed IS suspicious. If you are innocent, why refuse to talk to police? The other thing is we can't be sure WHEN they called him, and that is more important than much else in this case. Here's why: IF they called him in the middle of the night, then we KNOW they know exactly who and how their daughter was killed- because they supposedly thought it was a "kidnapping" until JR "found his daughter's body that afternoon. Calling their lawyer, friend or not, before they'd supposedly found the ransom note assures their guilt. We will never know the truth about that phone call either. The DA refused police request for the R's phone records. When LE was able to get them, about a year later, the December calls had "disappeared". That, in and of itself, stinks of guilt to me.
About the "getting the mail" myth- we have NO proof that JR went to "get his mail" The family got their mail through a mail slot in the front door. He did not have to outside the house at all to get the mail. He simply had to walk to his front door and look down.
It was Det. Arndt who began that whole myth, because she JR went missing from her sight for TWO HOURS that morning. She SUPPOSED he had gone to "get his mail" because when he did resurface, she allegedly saw him looking through some mail. She had no idea, actually, whether he had gone anywhere outside the home. I mean, he didn't even have an outside mailbox.
To those who might say that because the family planned to be away they may have had their mail held at the Post Office and could have gone to get it when it became obvious they were not going anywhere. This would be an EXTREMELY suspicious action for the innocent parent of a missing child who at that time was still thought to be a kidnap victim. Would a parent who was supposed to be waiting for a call from his daughter's kidnappers GO anywhere outside the house while he was waiting for their call? He could have sent some one else to get it if he thought there was something important in the mail.
 
DeeDee249 said:
It isn't the actions themselves, otherwise mundane. It's the circumsances surrounding them.
Calling your lawyer, even one who is a friend, before talking to police when your child is killed IS suspicious. If you are innocent, why refuse to talk to police? The other thing is we can't be sure WHEN they called him, and that is more important than much else in this case. Here's why: IF they called him in the middle of the night, then we KNOW they know exactly who and how their daughter was killed- because they supposedly thought it was a "kidnapping" until JR "found his daughter's body that afternoon. Calling their lawyer, friend or not, before they'd supposedly found the ransom note assures their guilt. We will never know the truth about that phone call either. The DA refused police request for the R's phone records. When LE was able to get them, about a year later, the December calls had "disappeared". That, in and of itself, stinks of guilt to me.
About the "getting the mail" myth- we have NO proof that JR went to "get his mail" The family got their mail through a mail slot in the front door. He did not have to outside the house at all to get the mail. He simply had to walk to his front door and look down.
It was Det. Arndt who began that whole myth, because she JR went missing from her sight for TWO HOURS that morning. She SUPPOSED he had gone to "get his mail" because when he did resurface, she allegedly saw him looking through some mail. She had no idea, actually, whether he had gone anywhere outside the home. I mean, he didn't even have an outside mailbox.
To those who might say that because the family planned to be away they may have had their mail held at the Post Office and could have gone to get it when it became obvious they were not going anywhere. This would be an EXTREMELY suspicious action for the innocent parent of a missing child who at that time was still thought to be a kidnap victim. Would a parent who was supposed to be waiting for a call from his daughter's kidnappers GO anywhere outside the house while he was waiting for their call? He could have sent some one else to get it if he thought there was something important in the mail.
Click to expand...

That whole looking through his mail to see if the kidnapper had sent him some info. is pretty stupid anyway. Like a kidnapper is going to MAIL more info. to the Ramsey's. This would mean that the kidnapper would have had to have known exactly how long it would have taken for the mail to get there. NOBODY can do that, especially at Christmas time...with all of the delays. So, he sits down and writes and mails a letter to the Ramsey's days before the killing? Then goes into the Ramsey home, and writes an almost three page ransom note, using the Ramsey's own paper pad, and sharpie pen?? The whole fact that John would have gone through his mail, looking for some more info. on the "kidnapping", is ridiuculous beyond belief. Like he had nothing better to do...than go through his mail that day.
 
I don't think the Ramseys' actions that day were all that suspicious, but they fit their life and personalities:

John being in a different room with the men is not odd. He's very intelligent and was probably trying to think of what to do. John and Patsy spent so much time with friends and apart. His actions seem like what a man with his lifestyle, money, and occupation could do.

Patsy looking through splayed fingers doesn't seem odd.

John could already tell that they were suspected and wanted help.

And, if a crazed unknown, uncaught killer murdered one of my family I definitely would not be spewing venomous hatred and threats over the airways about him. I blame the ridiculous "forgiveness" of the killer on the trend of new age thinking preachers telling followers that they have to forgive.

Burke was just a kid and couldn't process it all.

John wanting to get his family out of there doesn't seem odd either since he had a plane, family elsewhere, and plenty of money.

I think it was normal to check his mail for any clues, if he did.

Some other things they did during and after do seem strange, but many of the things that people make so much of don't seem that out of place to me.
 
txsvicki said:
I don't think the Ramseys' actions that day were all that suspicious, but they fit their life and personalities:

John being in a different room with the men is not odd. He's very intelligent and was probably trying to think of what to do. John and Patsy spent so much time with friends and apart. His actions seem like what a man with his lifestyle, money, and occupation could do.

Patsy looking through splayed fingers doesn't seem odd.

John could already tell that they were suspected and wanted help.

And, if a crazed unknown, uncaught killer murdered one of my family I definitely would not be spewing venomous hatred and threats over the airways about him. I blame the ridiculous "forgiveness" of the killer on the trend of new age thinking preachers telling followers that they have to forgive.

Burke was just a kid and couldn't process it all.

John wanting to get his family out of there doesn't seem odd either since he had a plane, family elsewhere, and plenty of money.

I think it was normal to check his mail for any clues, if he did.

Some other things they did during and after do seem strange, but many of the things that people make so much of don't seem that out of place to me.
Click to expand...

Burke was nine years old....old enough for his parents to have woke him up to ask him if he had seen or heard anything....but they didn't. If they really thought that an intruder had entered their home, and kidnapped their daughter...where was their concern for Burke? Afterall, the "kidnapper" could be hiding out in Burke's room...in his closet, under his bed...etc. If it had of been a true kidnapping..they would have not only jerked his butt out of bed, and started asking him questions about what he had seen or heard...but, to also get him out of that room...and with them. I mean...geesh...the intruder could still be in the home!!! No proof that the small foreign faction isn't still around somewhere. While John was in another room, with his friends...Patsy was sitting on the couch with HER friends, looking through a photo album of JonBenet's pictures. When John "found" JB, and Fleet was right behind him....Fleet ran up the stairs of the basement, screaming.."WE FOUND HER! CALL AN AMBULANCE!". If you heard those words, would you just assume that your "kidnapped" daughter had been murdered? Or would you think..."OMG, she has been found, and she is hurt very badly, I must get to her, and see if I can help her!" Patsy just sat there...didn't even budge. Do you not find that just the least bit odd?? Fleet did say....Call an ambulance, afterall. NOT...WE FOUND HER! SHE'S DEAD!!
 
There have been some excellent examples of suspect behaviour already mentioned on the thread. The five things that always raise red flags for me are:

1. Patsy pretending to cry while 'eyeballing' Officer French through splayed fingers.

2. Their not giving a thought to the legitimacy of the threats in the RN. According to their own testimony, they didn't consider not calling the police despite the dread threats in the RN. I imagine that most people would conclude that they needed help from LE but they would use mobile phones that weren't capable of being monitored and would explain the need for discretion to the police. This can't be explained by pure panic because John recounts his first thought on reading the RN to be that at least he can do something about this whereas he couldn't do anything to help Beth. He shows that he was thinking clearly early on. This mistake was compounded by their calling for assistance from friends.

3. Patsy's assumption that JBR was dead when FW initially tried to call an ambulance, something which would make most mothers come running in case they could help their baby.

4. The demeanour of the Ramseys persuading one of the voluntary ladies that they were divorced. No effort to comfort each other, blame each other, cry togther etc.

5. The 'Raise my baby' outburst has the patina of a rehearsed, dramatic reaction.
 
Sophie said:
There have been some excellent examples of suspect behaviour already mentioned on the thread. The five things that always raise red flags for me are:

1. Patsy pretending to cry while 'eyeballing' Officer French through splayed fingers.

2. Their not giving a thought to the legitimacy of the threats in the RN. According to their own testimony, they didn't consider not calling the police despite the dread threats in the RN. I imagine that most people would conclude that they needed help from LE but they would use mobile phones that weren't capable of being monitored and would explain the need for discretion to the police. This can't be explained by pure panic because John recounts his first thought on reading the RN to be that at least he can do something about this whereas he couldn't do anything to help Beth. He shows that he was thinking clearly early on. This mistake was compounded by their calling for assistance from friends.

3. Patsy's assumption that JBR was dead when FW initially tried to call an ambulance, something which would make most mothers come running in case they could help their baby.

4. The demeanour of the Ramseys persuading one of the voluntary ladies that they were divorced. No effort to comfort each other, blame each other, cry togther etc.

5. The 'Raise my baby' outburst has the patina of a rehearsed, dramatic reaction.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with them all. ONE more thing that even Haney thought was odd, when he interviewed Patsy. She said more than once that after she found the RN, and let John read it...that he remained calm, cool and collected. Haney wondered....why then was "hysterical" Patsy the one to call 911? Didn't make any sense to him....and it makes no sense to me. Have you read that part of the interview? If not, I will find it for you. I thought that it was very interesting.
 
Thank you, Ames. I don't think I have seen that part of the interview.
 
Ames said:
John was missing for two hours...."checking his mail". How long does it take to check your mail? Would you check your mail for two hours, when the "kidnapper" that has your child, said that he would be calling to give your further instructions?? Or would you be planted right there near a phone?
Click to expand...

Well, I`m not sure he was missing for two hours, there`s conflicting information. The problem is, I don`t know what is true. To me there`s not any real, unbiased evidence of incriminating behaviour from that morning, just interpretation. moo.
 
Mysteeri said:
Well, I`m not sure he was missing for two hours, there`s conflicting information. The problem is, I don`t know what is true. To me there`s not any real, unbiased evidence of incriminating behaviour from that morning, just interpretation. moo.
Click to expand...

It was Detective Linda Arndt who stated JR was missing two hours, between 10 am and noon, specifically.
 
DeeDee249 said:
It was Detective Linda Arndt who stated JR was missing two hours, between 10 am and noon, specifically.
Click to expand...


The mind boggles to think of what he could have done during that time......
Possibly more than Pam did during her one woman raid.
 
"I never considered not cooperating and I never considered hiring a lawyer. We bring these children into this world and its our duty then to do whatever we can to protect them and that includes totally cooperating with law enforcement right down the line"
"It is only when you hire a lawyer that it becomes apparent, if not obvious that you are hiding something"
"I don't believe there was an intruder inside the Ramsey house that evening I believe the evidence as we know it is pretty clear-cut. The only logical explanation for that ransom note is if it came from within the household itself."
-Mark Klaas
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kuu_IfYOX7U[/ame]
 
cynic said:
"I never considered not cooperating and I never considered hiring a lawyer. We bring these children into this world and its our duty then to do whatever we can to protect them and that includes totally cooperating with law enforcement right down the line"
"It is only when you hire a lawyer that it becomes apparent, if not obvious that you are hiding something"
"I don't believe there was an intruder inside the Ramsey house that evening I believe the evidence as we know it is pretty clear-cut. The only logical explanation for that ransom note is if it came from within the household itself."
-Mark Klaas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kuu_IfYOX7U
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I was on a chat board one time with Mark Klaas, and asked him about the JBR case. And he said the same thing to me, as your quote from him. He said, "No intruder, it was someone that lived in that house".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 71 more.
Total: 1,236 (members: 72, guests: 1,164)

Online statistics

Members online
72
Guests online
1,164
Total visitors
1,236
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,784
Messages
17,958,858
Members
228,606
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top