993 users online (145 members and 848 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    272

    Guilt by Silence

    "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It's minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can't just jump to conclusion it's positive proof that will trace back to the killer."

    This is the point where an innocent John Ramsey would raise hell and start yelling, "WAIT A MINUTE! - If the DNA might not be from the killer why are you eliminating suspects based on the DNA?!!!... All those people you eliminated should still be suspects if the DNA is not related to the crime!!!... Your investigation is FLAWED!!!"

    This is how an innocent parent would react to Tom Bennett's statement. But you won't hear that coming from mouth of John Ramsey. He wants to continue hiding behind the myth that the DNA belongs to the killer - because it's the best way of pointing the crime away from his guilty family.

    Time and time again, it's what those damn Ramseys DON'T say that proves their involvement in JonBenet's death...

  2. #2
    EXACTLY!! I don't know how many times over the years I have repeated those same (more or less) words to almost any supporter of Ramsey innocence.Like it or not ,spin it or not, defend them any way you can, their behavior from the beginning points to them...only them.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599
    Or at the very least, Lin and Katie would...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    272
    Here's a big hint...

    The Ramseys discontinued the telephone tip line and their family web page.
    Scott Peterson sold Laci's car and began using the nursery for a storage room.

    Actions speak louder than words...

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by aRnd2it
    Time and time again, it's what those damn Ramseys DON'T say that proves their involvement in JonBenet's death...
    this statement just goes to show that you realize you have no hard evidence to support your position of assumed guilt.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by My Take
    this statement just goes to show that you realize you have no hard evidence to support your position of assumed guilt.
    What I have, is no hard evidence that anyone other than the three surviving Ramseys was in the house that night.

    Oh, and then there's the ransom note with so many letters that match Patsy's exemplars that a trained monkey could pick them out... (I almost forgot that no-brainer... )

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Mid-West
    Posts
    3,868
    Quote Originally Posted by aRnd2it
    "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It's minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze. ... You can't just jump to conclusion it's positive proof that will trace back to the killer."

    This is the point where an innocent John Ramsey would raise hell and start yelling, "WAIT A MINUTE! - If the DNA might not be from the killer why are you eliminating suspects based on the DNA?!!!... All those people you eliminated should still be suspects if the DNA is not related to the crime!!!... Your investigation is FLAWED!!!"

    This is how an innocent parent would react to Tom Bennett's statement. But you won't hear that coming from mouth of John Ramsey. He wants to continue hiding behind the myth that the DNA belongs to the killer - because it's the best way of pointing the crime away from his guilty family.

    Time and time again, it's what those damn Ramseys DON'T say that proves their involvement in JonBenet's death...
    Yep....which is why not one little peep of protest came from John and Patsy when Hodges and Wecht wrote not one but TWO books each, naming the Rams as the killers!!!!

    Woody sues FOX over a 'no intruder' statement and ignore the hundreds of pages condeming the Ramseys in these books.
    -
    My opinion and nothing but my opinion.

    Tor:Con Index link below. Will show you the probability of a tornado happening in your area.
    http://www.weather.com/news/tornado-torcon-index

    FEMA's link for Emergency Supplies list below or what you need to survive for three days in case help is not immediately available to you.
    http://www.ready.gov/document/family-supply-list

    You can also purchase a weather radio which will inform you of severe weather even if your electricity goes out. Runs on batteries of course.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,061

    Welllllllll

    The Ramsey's seemed to know that if JOHN ran for office he had to VOICE his qualifications for running, and he did.

    BUT, and there is always a but, the only VOICE that was heard LOUD and clear immediately after JonBenets murder was to trudge OFF to CNN and VOICE thus Passing BPD and collecting monopoly dollars.

    I don't care who you are or what status on the social ladder you are IF IF IF you loved your child, and YOU did not have any part in the killing of your child, you would NOT SHUT UP - EVER. YOU WOULD NOT STOP HOLLERING - EVER.

    Great point, Lin is tooooooooooooooo quiet as well. SO much to choose from eeny meeny miny moe, lets pick FOX cuz they have MORE money.

    Hey but why ALL of the silence on the investigation for EIGHT YEARS! Jes pay the lawyer and it will all GO AWAY, dear.

    WELLLLLLLLLL, ISP talked too much didn't he, he paid for the prison cell with his own mouth.

    Ramseys in their own book quoted Hitler as saying, speak a lie long enough and people will believe it. SO the attorney keeps the lie going, and we are supposed to believe it, hmmm.

    I might remind us all yet again, that the Enquirer in the EARLY days, offered ONE MILLION dollars to the RAmseys IF IF IF they would take a lie detector test. NOPEY NOPE, Mark Klass would have, John Walsh would have, heck both of them did without taking any money. YOU see both of these men REALLY REALLY WANTED the killer of their child found.

    Get your magnifying glass out and look again at their inactions in finding the killer/s of their daughter.

    THEY have sued to have Burkes name cleared and GOTTEN money for that multiple times. YEP BPD clearly and REPEATEDLY told the press that BURKE HAD BEEN CLEARED. HUH, whats up with the suits.

    NOW they want us all to believe there was an INVADER, naw, come on now! REALLY, hmmm.

    DNA cleared others, now it won't work, whatsupwiththat!!! YOU have to be kidding me!!!!

    Henry Lee even said, arr naw a dna cazze!



    .
    Opinions expressed by me, are mine, based on life experience, and known facts of any given case.





    """I am just a pixel in the universal plan."""

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Detroit 'Burb
    Posts
    2,832

    On the Other Hand,

    From an extremely quiet person's point of view, the hurt may have shut them up. Some people, I for one, do react to bad things by clamming up and becoming somewhat withdrawn, not that the Ramseys were at either extreme. They were definitely not Scott Peterson-uncaring. I can see where getting on with their lives, going through the motions, would help some people. Sort of like being in denial.

    Patsy's religious faith was strong enough to get her healed, (TWICE !) from cancer, which is a lot better than any of us could do, let's face it.

    Doesn't mean she was any more perfect than we are, but she's certainly not a murderer, and that little girl was her everything ! ("That child.")

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    9,183
    Patsy's religious faith was strong enough to get her healed, (TWICE !) from cancer, which is a lot better than any of us could do, let's face it.

    Patsys religous beliefs had nothing do to with her surviving cancer. When your numbers up....your numbers up
    Lots of religious people die every day from cancer and whatever else......it just wasnt Patsy's time and still isnt it would seem....


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Camper

    YEP BPD clearly and REPEATEDLY told the press that BURKE HAD BEEN CLEARED.

    Camper,

    One little correction. Burke has never been cleared.

    It's an uninformed media that keeps this myth alive. You won't find it written anywhere by any Boulder official that Burke has been cleared. The media and some others, tricked by Alex Hunter's fraudulent affidavit of October 20, 2000, consistently translate the term "not a suspect" into the word "cleared." In regard to siblings, only Melinda and JAR have been cleared. Burke has not.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,061

    Ohh Yoo Hoo BlueCrab

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Camper,

    One little correction. Burke has never been cleared.

    It's an uninformed media that keeps this myth alive. You won't find it written anywhere by any Boulder official that Burke has been cleared. The media and some others, tricked by Alex Hunter's fraudulent affidavit of October 20, 2000, consistently translate the term "not a suspect" into the word "cleared." In regard to siblings, only Melinda and JAR have been cleared. Burke has not.


    ------------->>>BlueCrab, would you please post that entire quote for me, I do believe that I never posted what you have attributed to me to have posted.

    Thank you, yes you are correct that anything that was wafted about was through the media, VIA Alex Hunter and his way with words. No runs, no hits and no charges filed to date.

    An illiterate media person not familiar with the age requirement for filing murder charges against a child of 10 in the state of Colorado. Naturally then Alex Hunter's tongue was tied with going into any further explanations without making a young child appear guilty.



    .

    ,
    Opinions expressed by me, are mine, based on life experience, and known facts of any given case.





    """I am just a pixel in the universal plan."""