1264 users online (271 members and 993 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 172
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha
    Posts
    19,480

    Let me hear from you if you think the R's are innocent

    For every piece of flimsy evidence that the Ramsey Spin Team says points to the Ramsey's innocence, we can easily come up with evidence that counters it.

    If you think the Ramseys are innocent I would like you to please post the evidence you think points to an outsider or the innocence of the parents.

    No flaming please. I am curious as to what misconceptions people have about this case.

    Tricia
    Help our Administrator Bessie
    Check out our Facebook page
    Follow me on Twitter

    Tricia Griffith
    triciastruecrimeradio@gmail.com
    6300 N. Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H # 214
    Park City UT
    84098






  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern Vermont
    Posts
    1,446

    I think they are innocent

    Tricia-

    I am certainly NOT an expert on this case like some of the other Websleuthers who post here (I just find it really interesting), so it will take me a bit of time to sort through what is fact and what is fiction with regards to the evidence. However, there are three things that I know are fact that IMO point to the Ramseys' innocence:


    1. Foriegn male DNA in the size 12 panties

    Somebody, somewhere (maybe here) had suggested that it could have been deposited there during the manufacturing process. Okay - I guess that is possible, except wouldn't this sort of contamination be an issue in other crimes that use DNA technology. And, even if this were the case, unless Jon Benet put these underpants on herself, the Ramsey who put them on her would have to be wearing gloves or else left some DNA. Highly unlikely!!


    2. Location of the body in the Ramsey residence

    If this act was performed by a Ramsey then why did they leave the body in the house. They were in control of this situation, right? They called the police. They could have easily removed the body and the evidence before this 911 call was made. The Ramseys don't seem to be stupid people. Scott Peterson on the other hand is stupid.


    3. No arrest has been made

    If the evidence against the Ramseys is so concrete why hasn't one or the other of them been arrested and charged with this crime? I have read Bluecrab's arguments about the Childrens Watchamacallit law in CO, but how would they have been aware of that at the time IF they were covering for him. Peterson got the death penalty on LESS evidence than what supposedly proves that the Ramseys killed their daughter. [Please note I am not a Peterson fan (see stupid comment above). In fact I think he is below slime.]


    Comments?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by bensmom98
    1. Foriegn male DNA in the size 12 panties

    Somebody, somewhere (maybe here) had suggested that it could have been deposited there during the manufacturing process. Okay - I guess that is possible, except wouldn't this sort of contamination be an issue in other crimes that use DNA technology. And, even if this were the case, unless Jon Benet put these underpants on herself, the Ramsey who put them on her would have to be wearing gloves or else left some DNA. Highly unlikely!!
    this point is certainly a valid one. i don't know enough about forensics to really comment one way or another. i do believe that the sample was quite small which may speak to the possibility that it was not from the perp, but again, i don't know enough to comment. does anyone know what this DNA came from? blood? hair? semen?


    Quote Originally Posted by bensmom98
    2. Location of the body in the Ramsey residence

    If this act was performed by a Ramsey then why did they leave the body in the house. They were in control of this situation, right? They called the police. They could have easily removed the body and the evidence before this 911 call was made. The Ramseys don't seem to be stupid people. Scott Peterson on the other hand is stupid.
    i don't think this point is convincing at all. why would they wander around the neighborhood with a dead body in the middle of the night? this piece of evidence, IMO, does nothing but STRENGTHEN a case AGAINST the ramseys.


    Quote Originally Posted by bensmom98
    3. No arrest has been made

    If the evidence against the Ramseys is so concrete why hasn't one or the other of them been arrested and charged with this crime? I have read Bluecrab's arguments about the Childrens Watchamacallit law in CO, but how would they have been aware of that at the time IF they were covering for him. Peterson got the death penalty on LESS evidence than what supposedly proves that the Ramseys killed their daughter. [Please note I am not a Peterson fan (see stupid comment above). In fact I think he is below slime.]
    this is probably the weakest of all your points. it is extremely difficult for a prosecutor to obtain a conviction in this case. an indictment may be another story, but don't forget about double jeopardy...if they lose round 1, there is not round 2, so there's no point in indicting if you can't convict. considering that we are talking about prosecuting a family member of a crime committed inside their house without a confession, what evidence would NOT be subject to reasonable doubt? certainly, no forensic evidence against a ramsey would have much of an impact. it's their house!!

    guilt and innocence inside and outside of a courtroom are two completely different animals. would you say OJ is innocent because he was acquitted? legally, yes, but really? i don't think so.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern Vermont
    Posts
    1,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    this point is certainly a valid one. i don't know enough about forensics to really comment one way or another. i do believe that the sample was quite small which may speak to the possibility that it was not from the perp, but again, i don't know enough to comment. does anyone know what this DNA came from? blood? hair? semen?
    I did some perusing and found that the unknown DNA sample was isolated from 2 spots of blood found in the size 12 underpants. Jonbenet's DNA (ie blood) was mixed in with it. Apparently, a small amount of matching unknown DNA was also found under her fingernails. I think this would probably rule out that the DNA identified was deposited during the manufacturing of the underpants otherwise how would it get under her nails. I am also not a foreniscs experts, but I am a biochemist. DNA evidence is pretty hard to dispute. I am still to this day amazed and astonished that OJ got away with murder based on all the DNA evidence they had linking him to the murders.


    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    i don't think this point is convincing at all. why would they wander around the neighborhood with a dead body in the middle of the night? this piece of evidence, IMO, does nothing but STRENGTHEN a case AGAINST the ramseys.
    Okay, I'll give you this one. My thinking was that it would be really stupid of somebody to leave the body of the person they killed in their house, or in dingdong's case in his alibi.


    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    this is probably the weakest of all your points.
    I disagree - again back to dingdong. He was essentially convicted on three things: a hair, an affair, and her body washing up in the bay where he was "fishing". (If there were other things, let me know and I will rethink this - I didn't follow this case all that closely. Got kinda sick of it.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    it is extremely difficult for a prosecutor to obtain a conviction in this case. an indictment may be another story, but don't forget about double jeopardy...if they lose round 1, there is not round 2, so there's no point in indicting if you can't convict.
    Peterson was convicted on less evidence...


    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    considering that we are talking about prosecuting a family member of a crime committed inside their house without a confession, what evidence would NOT be subject to reasonable doubt? certainly, no forensic evidence against a ramsey would have much of an impact. it's their house!!
    Couldn't Laci's hair have come from the house that she shared with Peterson and been transferred to the wrench (or whereever it was found)? My hair is all over the place - my kids, my husband, etc. - they take it everywhere. Some pregnant women shed a lot of hair. (I am NOT an SP advocate, I am just playing the devil's advocate for the moment.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    guilt and innocence inside and outside of a courtroom are two completely different animals.
    Absolutely


    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    would you say OJ is innocent because he was acquitted? legally, yes, but really? i don't think so.
    NO!!!


    IMO the DNA evidence clearly suggests that someone other than the Ramseys are responsible.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343
    bensmom98-

    first off, let me just say that i'm not trying to convince anyone that a ramsey is guilty of this crime. in fact, i'm not really that convinced myself. at the moment, the only thing which seems sure in my mind, is that the ransom note was bogus, no kidnapping was ever intended, and if it was an intruder, it was not a stranger to the ramsey family. aside from that, i'm up for objective discussion on any of this.

    i think the DNA evidence in this case is very interesting. for starters, this crime was committed in 1996. it wasn't until december of 2003 that they even had a complete sample to put into the national data banks. for all you conspiracy theorists out there, this was just days after the ramseys filed suit against FOX, and just months before john announced his candidacy for the michigan state legislature. conspiracies aside, i don't understand scientifically how the sample became "more complete" as time went on. some here are suggesting that it had to do with the FBI technology getting up to speed, but i have not read that anywhere. on top of that, the conclusions to be drawn from this sample are in dispute. JR used it as part of his campaign, claiming that it clears him completely, and is representative of the perpetrator. however, the actual scientists who analyzed the evidence don't agree...

    from thedenverchannel.com:

    That claim is disputed by the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample.

    The scientist, who talked to the Rocky Mountain News, told them it is possible the sample came from the killer, but that there are other possibilities that explain how the sample got in the underwear.

    "You have DNA that's male, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the killer's," the scientist told the News. "It could be innocent. It could be from the (undergarment's) manufacturer. It could be a lot of things. Of course it's important. But it's not more important than the rest of the investigation."

    The scientist asked that his name not be published, according to the newspaper.

    A second forensics expert, who the newspaper said is close to the case, also agreed that the significance of the DNA sample is open to interpretation.

    <end of excerpt>

    take all of this for whatever it's worth, but just remember that these people are experts, and as much as anyone here at websleuths may think they know about this crime, these people have actually dealt with the hard evidence, and probably have access to other evidence that we do not.

    as for your discussion on prosecution, more specifically regarding scott peterson, i still do not agree. scott peterson was a very different case. you are correct that evidence was slim there, but trial by jury is about theater much of the time. scott was not a likeable guy. he cheated on his wife, and he had means, motive, and opportunity. the hair was found in his boat, which laci never frequented in, and on the end of some pliers. scott had extensive information on the tides stored on his computer and was constantly trailed after laci's disappearance leading up to his arrest.

    compare that to the ramsey case...what do we really have to implicate anyone, intruder or ramsey? at this point, about 99% of the evidence is still disputed. nothing can be taken as hard fact since the police botched the investigation from day one, and the entire crime scene was contaminated...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern Vermont
    Posts
    1,446
    Voice-

    You have made some good points and have noted some things I was not aware of. I find it especially interesting that the results of the DNA analyses did not come out until JR was running for public office.

    I used to think that PDI, but ever since I have had my own kids I find it really hard too believe that a parent(s) could do that to their own child, and have changed my position. But people do terrible, horrible, awful things to their children every day, don't they? Obviously, I could be convinced that they were involved if there was a confession by one or both parent(s).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355

    the purpose of the thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    bensmom98-first off, let me just say that i'm not trying to convince anyone that a ramsey is guilty of this crime.......

    Just what is it that you're trying to do?

    I thought the purpose of this thread was to give people who think an intruder did it, an opportunity to say so and substantiate their views; not to invite argument from those whose opinions differ. Am I mistaken about this? If you don't think an intruder did it, you shouldn't be posting in this thread.

    "aside from that, i'm up for objective discussion on any of this." In other words, you've made up your mind about the ransom note, and don't want to discuss it further. Can we hold you to your word?

    "It's possible that the DNA came from the killer" Of course it is, but what we can say for certain is that it didn't come from the Ramseys; you're jumping through hoops to finger the Ramseys. We don't need a scientist to tell us that there might be an innocent explanation for the DNA; we've known that all along; that's a no-brainer. Whenever you have DNA of unknown origin, the donor is, by definition, UNKNOWN. This is an example of evidence that seems to exonerate the Ramseys, but which the anti-Ramseys are trying to find alternative, out-of-the-ordinary explanations for. To be truly objective, you have to acknowledge that you don't know WHO the DNA belongs to, and leave it at that. It doesn't belong to a Ramsey, that's for sure.

    The DNA from the underpants was ONLY found in the blood-stained areas--the spots, and not elsewhere in the panties. This suggests that it was deposited along with the blood. There are several markers in the fingernail DNA that match the markers in the panty DNA. These two facts are suggestive of an intruder (a non-Ramsey) as the perpetrator of the crime. They don't point to a garment manufacturer or packager as the donor of the DNA. We all have common sense that we aren't going to abandon just because some scientist says there may be an innocent explantion (translated to mean, the Ramseys are the killers). The common sense explantion (which is the one the jury would go with) is that whoever killed JonBenet left his DNA in her panties and under her fingernails. What you are trying to convince us of is that we can't rely on our common sense. Baloney! The DNA issue has to be resolved before the case can move forward toward a resolution.

    I suggest that you watch the 48hr mystery segment that discussed the new DNA findings, or read the transcript on the internet; then maybe you'll have a better understanding of the matter. The man who developed the new profile is working for law enforcement, not for the Ramseys. It's not wise to dismiss technology just because you don't understand it. How many of us are intimately familiar with DNA profiling; familiar enough to know, on that basis alone, that it is trustworthy? Virtually none of us has that familiarity, yet we put our trust in the people who do. That's the reality of the matter.

    If you're undecided, you shouldn't be posting here; this thread is for folks who think an intruder did it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343
    RedChief, i think you're way off-base here. this thread was started by Tricia for two reasons...

    1-to allow people who think an intruder did it voice their views
    2-to see "what misconceptions people have about this case."

    with all due respect to bensmom98, i felt that her post was not quite on the money. i addressed what i saw to be flaws in her logic. we have since engaged in DISCUSSION. this is not a forum for advocates. it's for discussion. if i see something that doesn't sit right in my mind, i address it.

    also, please reread my posts as i gave much credit to the DNA evidence as suggesting an intruder. it was mostly the other two points made that i did not agree with. i did add the possibility of unknown DNA evidence combined with a RDI theory, but only as a way to keep both sides aware of the other sides' arguments. i also made clear that i was not advocating for one side or another. why you have a problem with such objectivity is beyond me...???

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    355

    objectivity/thread title/stated purpose

    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    RedChief, i think you're way off-base here. this thread was started by Tricia for two reasons...

    1-to allow people who think an intruder did it voice their views
    2-to see "what misconceptions people have about this case."

    with all due respect to bensmom98, i felt that her post was not quite on the money. i addressed what i saw to be flaws in her logic. we have since engaged in DISCUSSION. this is not a forum for advocates. it's for discussion. if i see something that doesn't sit right in my mind, i address it.

    also, please reread my posts as i gave much credit to the DNA evidence as suggesting an intruder. it was mostly the other two points made that i did not agree with. i did add the possibility of unknown DNA evidence combined with a RDI theory, but only as a way to keep both sides aware of the other sides' arguments. i also made clear that i was not advocating for one side or another. why you have a problem with such objectivity is beyond me...???

    I have no problem with objectivity; I don't even have a problem with lack of objectivity. I don't think you're being objective in your posting here, and I expressed that impression, but the thrust of my post was to inform you what the thread is for.

    Look at the title of the thread and read the administrator's comments. The thread is CLEARLY for people who think an intruder did it. In stating their cases, the administrator hopes to notice what their misconceptions are. The thread is obviously not for those who want to dispute the intruder theorists. Heaven knows that disputation has been ensuing for years.

    I wouldn't have posted here except that you did, and claimed to be undecided. I'm undecided at this point. I'm not going to post here and dispute what the intruder theorists are saying. Let them have their say. That's the purpose of the thread. It's not for the undecided, it's for the IDI enthusiasts.

    So, I think you're way off base here.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern Vermont
    Posts
    1,446
    Quote Originally Posted by RedChief
    It's not wise to dismiss technology just because you don't understand it. How many of us are intimately familiar with DNA profiling; familiar enough to know, on that basis alone, that it is trustworthy?
    As I said in another post I am not a forensic scientist, but I am a biochemist. As long as the samples are collected correctly and not "mixed up", and the appropriate internal tests included to make sure that the analysis is performed correctly (called controls), the results are conclusive. All laboratory analyses, many of which I AM intimately familiar with, are performed with these same caveats. DNA profiling is a routine procedure these days, and I don't think that there is any reason to believe that the analysis was sloppy in this instance.

    I still maintain that the reason the Ramseys have not been charged with any crime is because the evidence was not convincing. Yes, if they were tried and found NOT guilty they could not be charged again. However, they would have been tried and probably found guilty in the public's eyes like OJ and Blake (IMO).


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,804
    Tricia - I'll state right up front that I don't know every single detail of this case, just the bulk. I don't believe the Ramsey's killed her, just based on gut feeling and based on it doesn't seem like that's a parental killing. That's a sexual predator killing.

    I recently watched a Lou Scmit (spelling?) documentary, and it may be that that was slanted or even contained disputed facts. But his points were convincing, especially the way into the basement, and his discussion of the sexual predator evidence.

    The thing is, who knows how that pineapple got there. A person who would break into a house, sit and write a ransom note within the house, and take his time brutally killing a little girl might just also be weird enough to bring pineapple with him!! That's the kind of thing pleasure killers do, weird stuff that seems out of place. Just because they're odd.

    How else can you explain that Avila monster posing little Samantha's nude body within view of his window? Sometimes predators can be unbelievably brash, because it's a pleasure to violate the victim as fully as they can. Sitting and writing a note at the desk in the house seems fully in line with what some of those monsters do.

    In the light of the recent Jessica Lunsford case, and the Danielle Van Dam case, and the Polly Klaas case and innumerable other horrible cases that haven't been solved, why does it seem so difficult to believe that some monster from the deep snuck into the house and killed her?

    What possible motive would Patsy Ramsey have for fixing a bowl of pineapple and then lying about it?
    Last edited by KatherineQ; 03-25-2005 at 01:04 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,521
    DNA under her nails & in her panties... have matched... (points towards one person)
    The fact that Smit could get in the window without much disturbance. The unknown shoe print beside her bed. The horrific way she was posed (the sexual suggestive ropes). There was ample time for the killer to linger throughout the home. I know there's more in my head... just cannot think of it all.

    AND BTW, I'm not PRO RAMSEY, I'm pro intruder theory. I think much of what they initially did casted a bad dye on them. They should have never hired lawyers. I'd go to the ends of the earth to prove I'm innocent.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Whittier, CA
    Posts
    893
    Here we go again.
    There is absolutely no evidence, not one shred, that points to any Ramsey having been involved.
    Karen

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    south of the mason dixon
    Posts
    46

    ransom note

    I would believe 100% in an intruder if it wasn't for that crazy "ransom" note!! The ransom note has always been a source of confusion for me, because I think it was written by Patsy.

    We know for a fact that intruders do enter peoples homes and kidnap and/or murder children...Jessica is just the latest victim. For a long time I was a RDI, but I just don't see any reason why they would have killed their daughter, it just does not make any sense to me. In my opinion, it seems to me that the Ramsey's dearly loved their daughter, so why kill her? I used to think one of the parents got angry and lashed out at her, accidentally killing her, but why the elaborate cover up? Why not just take her to the ER and say she fell down the steps?

    The only thing I will believe about the Ramseys is that perhaps they are covering up a horrible accident. That's my theory; it was either an accident that happened in the home (therefore NOT a murder), or it was an intruder.
    In Flanders fields the poppies blow, between the crosses, row on row...McCrae

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristabelle
    I would believe 100% in an intruder if it wasn't for that crazy "ransom" note!! The ransom note has always been a source of confusion for me, because I think it was written by Patsy.

    We know for a fact that intruders do enter peoples homes and kidnap and/or murder children...Jessica is just the latest victim. For a long time I was a RDI, but I just don't see any reason why they would have killed their daughter, it just does not make any sense to me. In my opinion, it seems to me that the Ramsey's dearly loved their daughter, so why kill her? I used to think one of the parents got angry and lashed out at her, accidentally killing her, but why the elaborate cover up? Why not just take her to the ER and say she fell down the steps?

    The only thing I will believe about the Ramseys is that perhaps they are covering up a horrible accident. That's my theory; it was either an accident that happened in the home (therefore NOT a murder), or it was an intruder.
    THE RANSOM NOTE.... another falsehood of the media that continues to report what the "other guy reported"...


    Pasty PASSED the test of the ransom note.... she scored a 4.5 out of 5... on a scale of reading that a 5 WOULD BE NO MATCH Patsy scored a 4.5. WHICH in essence means that she is all but excluded to being the writer of the ransom note. less than a 10% chance.... WHY??? because of ONE WORD "HENCE". She has been known to use the word HENCE and THAT IS THE ONLY REASON she cannot be excluded. There was NO MATCH on the style of writing.... only the question of that word.

    SIGH.... it is very frustrating arguing against the MISINFORMATION the media keeps printing......

    Patsy is NOT the writer. AND HOW could a mother disguise her handwriting to such a HUGE degree that she would not be recognized.

    It's so frustrating. IF Patsy had been determined to be the author, she would have been on trial by now.

    my 3 1/2 cents

Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast