691 users online (69 members and 622 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Ramsey Camps and Evidence

    I would say that the vast majority of people following the case have a viewpoint about who they believe killed Jonbenet. I can honestly say that I don't have a scooby-doo. I can also be entirely self-critical here and say that as a general rule, I don't like to make my mind up about anything - until I have to. I am a fencesitter in real life with regard to most issues and it infuriates my family.

    Anyway, I have a hard time making my mind up about this case. I find it impossible to imagine any scenario which resulted in the Ramseys killing Jonbenet so brutally. I truly believe she was the apple of Patsy's eye and that the Ramseys are devastated by her death. However, I also recognise that I am not suspicious by nature and during the Westerfield trial, I really struggled to imagine this man as the child killer he clarly is - so I look to the evidence and try not to be influenced by my personal feelings.

    The evidence as I see it, has problems in that much of the potential evidence cannot be accurately dated. The hit-tec print, the hair on the blanket, the palm print - these have all been cited as evidence but are possibly not related to the murder.

    Then there is the foreign DNA in her underwear and under her nails. However, the nail samples are so degraded that it seems unlikely they would ever be deemed a match in a court of law. Then we have Tom Bennett - who is the investigator on the case - saying that the DNA may NOT be from the killer. That is the official word on the DNA - it may NOT be the killer's. So basically, we are left with the ransom note and the animal hair. If Jonbenet had been covered in animal hairs - would it not be more significant - more indicative of her killer being an animal owner? Dog and cat owners are usually covered in their pets' hairs (unless like me you own a non-shedding breed!). I believe there was only one hair on JonBenet - that could have been transferred in any manner of ways and therefore, may not be related to her murder either.

    That leaves the ransom note which was written on Ramsey notepaper, with a Ramsey pen, using Ramsey language ("and hence") and Patsy cannot be eliminated as the author of the note. On top of this, despite taking over the investigation and focusing on the search for an intruder, the Boulder DA has indicated that the Ramseys have not been cleared. I am guessing that this is because the DNA evidence is not strong enough.

    So really, my heart tells me they didn't do it - but the evidence doesn't clear them 100% in my mind. So I listen to the arguments of other case followers. It is always helpful to read the thoughts of other people. Certain aspects of the case don't interest me - the pageants for example, or the Krebs affair. Other aspects of it do interest me. I am interested in behaviour and relationships because I think that ultimately, these will provide the key to JonBenet's death.

    Then we have their supporters. It has become absolutely apparent to me over the years that the majority of ramsey supporters (RST) are utterly biased. Whilst going out of their way to discredit anyone who speaks against the ramseys - or even those who do not support them 100% - the RST simultaneously appear to believe every word which comes from a Ramsey's lips. Ramsey say-so is gospel. Deep down, this makes me feel uncomfortable. My mother never criticised myself or my siblings - she always praised us, so it got that if anything really counted, we didn't ask for her opinion because we didn't trust her to give a truthful answer!

    Then during the trial of David Westerfield, something interesting happened. Many of the same posters who believed the ramseys to be innocent - also believed David Westerfield to be innocent. This was despite a mountain of evidence against him. What was almost scary was the fact that some of them concocted the most bizarre alternative scenarios to explain the evidence. I began to regard the RST with a new scepticism.

    Since then I have witnessed that some of the staunchest Ramsey supporters not only support David Westerfield - but they also support Scott Peterson and Jeffrey McDonald. Sure, if I were accused of murder, I'd want to have people believe in my innocence - but if the people who believed in my innocence were people who believed in everyone's innocence (regardless of the evidence against them) then I'd we worried that this wasn't such a good thing.

    Then there is the propaganda. "No footprints in the snow". How often have we heard that used against the BPD? The FACT is that the police officer's report is online and he did say that there were no footprints in the snow - but he didn't say that the snow was everywhere. Instead, he described where there was a covering of snow and noted that it had no footprints. Add to that the stories about how Michael kane tried to destroy evidence which pointed to an intruder (false - he requested that Lou Smit's COPIES of the evidence which he was leaking to the media be destroyed). Then there was jameson's claims that Patsy's inconclusive polygraph was due to "polygrapher error" - also a lie.

    Then there is Tracey's documentary. With hindsight and research, I now know that they are incredibly misleading. The latest documentary was nothing but an hour of misinformation, fasle speculation and one-sided propaganda.

    If the Ramseys are innocent - why the need to make them look suspicious by propagating lies about the investigation?

    The bias is clear. Only this week, the poster Dave said that he thought jameson should delete any post on her forum which promotes a RDI theory. This is the same Dave who did his own analysis of the 911 tape (multi-generational copy) using an old computer, a "Lite" version of some audio program and a little program her wrote himself. Having done so, he declared that there were no voices on the 911 tape. He wrote a lengthy report about his analysis which was full of technobabble but which fell desperately short of the basic standards required for a technical report - for example, it didn't actually include any proof of testing or any mention of adherence to Forensic Audio Standards.

    This case consists of many wheels within wheels but the bottom line is that there is evidence which does not clear the ramseys and which does not incrimate any other suspect. Whomever brutally killed JonBenet Ramsey has gotten away with murder.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    I would add

    Ramsey supporters codemn what they call the "lynch mob" whom they accuse of gossiping about and falsely accusing the Ramseys. However, the Ramsey supporters are IMO as guilty if not guiltier of gossiping about and falsely accusing everyone BUT the Ramseys. It seems to me that anything goes - as long as it's not against the Ramseys.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,644
    Jayelles:

    Everyone likes to fit Jonbenet's murder into their favorite theory. Thats what makes it popular and unresolved. The thing about the RST camp is they never seem to move forward, I've never learned much from them, and I dont bother much with their posts.

    The Ramsays could be 100% innocent, there may be some bizarre explanation why JonBenet left us that night. But to date I've not really heard one believable account.

    Way back I uncritically accepted Lou Smit's version of events, it seemed to fit the murder scene. But after reading a little I realized the crime scene is not what it appears.

    Its highly likely a Ramsey killed JonBenet, proving which one is another matter. I could sketch a scenario that points to a Ramsey and fill it in with lots of circumstantial evidence along with statistics relating to domestic homicides, but there would be no "smoking gun".

    The only theory I've never seen expanded on is the conspiracy scenario where the ramsays are involved with a 3rd party in some form of illegal behaviour, and its this that keeps them from speaking out or explaining the staging etc. Its also why I've never ruled out the possibility that an intruder did it!!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355

    they didn't do it; oh, yes they did!

    Jayelles,

    Bravo! And very well said, indeed.

    UKGuy,

    Let's explore conspiracy.

    Others,

    Will someone please open a new ransom note thread.

    Will someone please open a theory thread that contains synopses of various theories and supporting evidence.

    Thanks in adavance.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599
    Exactly my sentiments, Jayelles. Very well said.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    14,797
    I am going to be very base here. The Ramsey's are dysfunctional. The child was in a strange manipulative parental control issue. Patsy is not a normal loving mother. John has his issues, Burke has his issues. Patsy has many, many issues. JonBenet is a victim of all of these issues not a subvertive underground CIA mission but a family that is dysfunctional that caused their daughter's murder, and didn't/don't want to deal. The problem is the justice system didn't tackle it....Patsy Ramsey is not worth thoughts about higher living or anything that would suggest that. She is a baseline criminal with a need to hide her crimes cloaked in righteousness.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    I don't think people want to jump in and proclaim someone guilty when there is little to flimsy evidence to do so. In the case of Westerfield, an entire forensic science was dismissed as useless and a man who was believed to have gotten into a home ,with both parents present, not leave a carpet fiber, a clothing fiber or a hair from his obviously shedding head, was found guilty based on so little it did make a thinking person consider..hmmm..was this a plant? Not that her parents quickly discussed scraped knees and such to excuse themselves if a drop was found, and not to consider this scraped knee could have been freshly scraped the day she traipsed through his home. Not to consider that the mobile home was opened and unlocked and a considerable attraction to neighborhood kids, IMO, did leave one to think ...did they really get the right guy? There is no reason to be certain he is the killer, IMO.
    Does anyone really believe there was more evidence against Westerfield or Scott Peterson than there was against OJ? Yet OJ being found innocent is okay? These all may well be examples of our failing judicial system.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    There's lots of evidence in the Ramsey case, but people are afraid to use it for fear of ridicule. The RST sing in chorus "You're picking on that innocent little nine-year old boy" when a BDI theory is mentioned, despite evidence backing up everything that is said.

    The Ramseys have lied and covered up from day one (the enhanced 911 call) to try to distance Burke from the crime. Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple, putting him downstairs in the middle of the night with JonBenet about one hour before she died. Burke's Hi-Tec boot print was in the mold next to JonBenet's body. There was no intruder so the crime had to involve one of the three Ramseys left alive in the house, and John and Patsy have exculpatory evidence in their favor. The CBI could not eliminate Burke as the writer of the childish-sounding ransom note. Burke asked no questions when whisked away to the White's house at 7 o'clock that morning. JonBenet's little size 6 body was wiped down and re-dressed in size 12-14 panties, something John or Patsy would not have done. Burke lied to the cops about his being in bed until 7 o'clock that morning. The authorities have never cleared Burke, etc., etc.

    I won't even get into the sexual aspects. But there's enough evidence listed above to send a 300-pound man to death row, but not an innocent little 9-year-old boy. Why? Because he can't be prosecuted under the Colorado Children's Code, and it's unlawful to even release his name.

    BlueCrab

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,108
    I'm meeting with one of the lead investigators from this case this evening...

    I have some ideas of who is responsible, but now I'm going to find out the inside info of what's going on from the police point of view...

    most of what I know about this case I've learned from all of you, but if something breaks in the next week...

    whistles innocently...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,108
    do any of you have questions you would ask the police if you had the chance?


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Ramsey supporters codemn what they call the "lynch mob" whom they accuse of gossiping about and falsely accusing the Ramseys. However, the Ramsey supporters are IMO as guilty if not guiltier of gossiping about and falsely accusing everyone BUT the Ramseys. It seems to me that anything goes - as long as it's not against the Ramseys.
    I have an advantage, I told all of you that one day when the Westerfield case was going on, it became too much and I was giving up, I opened my eyes and an Angel was bending down over me, she said it was OK, they were there to help me, when I looked around the bedroom, it was filled with little angels, Danielle, Samantha, and yes jon Bonet. I asked if her parents killed her, and she said no, it was her ____.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,108
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    I don't think people want to jump in and proclaim someone guilty when there is little to flimsy evidence to do so. In the case of Westerfield, an entire forensic science was dismissed as useless and a man who was believed to have gotten into a home ,with both parents present, not leave a carpet fiber, a clothing fiber or a hair from his obviously shedding head, was found guilty based on so little it did make a thinking person consider..hmmm..was this a plant? Not that her parents quickly discussed scraped knees and such to excuse themselves if a drop was found, and not to consider this scraped knee could have been freshly scraped the day she traipsed through his home. Not to consider that the mobile home was opened and unlocked and a considerable attraction to neighborhood kids, IMO, did leave one to think ...did they really get the right guy? There is no reason to be certain he is the killer, IMO.
    Does anyone really believe there was more evidence against Westerfield or Scott Peterson than there was against OJ? Yet OJ being found innocent is okay? These all may well be examples of our failing judicial system.

    the laws changed in California after the OJ fiasco...

    that's why Peterson and Westerfield were found guilty.

    Westerfield had Danielle's hair in his bed, that sick perverted Bastrd is guilty and in line to get exactly what he deserves.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Rocky, he is likely the killer, however did the evidence convict ?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,108
    everyone knows emotions convicted Westerfield, Dusek was incredible in his closing statements.

    the evidence did convict Westerfield, but not all the evidence was heard in the trial, a few very convincing pieces were thrown out, so sorry to say, you will never be completely convinced. The judge and lawyers knew all the evidence though, that's one reason Dusek was so confident he was putting away the right man

    I'm convinced he is guilty, but did he have an accompliss?

    that is a question we might never know the answer...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,599
    Neat, Rocky, that you are going to meet with one of the investigators. A couple years ago I got to talk with an FBI agent who had some inside knowledge and told me something that finally became public.

    I'd like to know what the pictures taken at the Whites show that JB was wearing on Christmas night, and how her hair was arranged.

    I could think of a zillion questions, but those are most pressing on my mind at the moment.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast