683 users online (67 members and 616 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 193
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Team JonBenet

    (the Danger of a Closed Mind thread was getting long)

    JonBenet was a darling child who was brutally murdered in her own home less than 24 hours after the most magical day of the year for a child. Most of us are here because we feel a great deal of compassion for this tiny victim and because we are outraged at her killer getting away with it.

    The evidence is muddy - it neither incriminates nor clears anyone absolutely. For that reason above any other, I belileve we owe it to Jonbenet not to close our minds to ANY suspect unless he or she has been absolutely cleared by an ironclad alibi (or until the perp has been nailed). JonBenet was the victim - this is all about finding justice for her.

    There is NO doubt in my mind that JonBenet knew her killer. I don't *think* it was a parent but I do think it was someone close to the family. I don't think it was a parent because I simply don't think the Ramseys were violent towards their children. All I have read indicates that they were quite the opposite - lenient even. That is something I can identify with. I am pretty laid back and no matter what my children did, I never found myself in a position where I would have harmed them and I cannot imagine being there. Most parents who harm their children have other stuff going on - alchohol, drugs, money problems. I think the Ramseys had too many friends, a close knit family, high profile social life for them to get strung up about a tantrum or a wet bed. The don't fit the profile for parents who kill their children yet it is this very self same lifestyle and social standing which I can believe would make them attempt to cover up an ugly accident at any cost.

    The facts that we know are that the evidence doesn't clear the Ramseys and that appearances can be deceptive. I personally knew someone who was regarded as a pillar of the community and who turned out to be a drug dealer and that kind of experience makes you question your ability to judge character...

    ...We also know that the vast majority of people were puzzled by their reluctance to co-operate with police and failure to use their wealth and social standing to push the investigation.

    Despite my feelings that they are innocent of their daughter's murder, I cannot reconcile the latter in my mind as many seem able to do. I cannot rationalise some of their behaviour at all. I look at other parents of murdered children and imagine the kind of impact the Ramseys *could* have on the investigation had if they had chosen to work with police instead of against them.

    Either way, regardless of whether the Ramseys were pillars of the community or potential child killers, we know that they had friends who are out and out fruitcakes. Friends who exhibited mightily odd behaviour before and after the murder which cannot be attributed to shock. Friends who found it amusing to pretend to be another woman's husband's mistress "for fun". Friends who found it amusing to sign up for e-mail impersonating the Chief of Police and spend THREE YEARS sending fake e-mails pretending to believe in the Ramseys' guilt! I cannot understand the mind which thinks like this at all.

    I am on JonBenet's side. I am and always have been a neutral observer and my mind remains open to all possibilities. Incidentally, I also think Tom Bennett is neutral. He has remained professionally silent and has said virtually nothing about the case unless it was to set the record straight about the fact that the DNA might not be the killer's when the media were stating it was as a fact.

    I think it will be a neutral party who will solve this case. Someone who is on JonBenet's side - and ONLY JonBenet's side. Someone who is willing to follow the evidence no matter where it leads them. Someone who won't give the parents a "pass" because of the "kind of people we are"[b]and who won't give the Ramsey friends a pass because ... well because they are the Ramseys' friends. I think one of them is getting away with murder.

    The Ramseys have their friends and their supporters - and I'm glad they do because in the eyes of the Law, they are innocent people. How awful to lose your beloved child and then spend the rest of your life being wrongly blamed for another's evil actions?

    However, the fact is that they remain suspects who have not been cleared absolutely in their daughter's murder and for that reason, we need to keep an open mind for Jonbenet's sake.

    We need to keep an open mind if we want to be part of Team JonBenet.
    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
    Posts
    6,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    (the Danger of a Closed Mind thread was getting long)

    JonBenet was a darling child who was brutally murdered in her own home less than 24 hours after the most magical day of the year for a child. Most of us are here because we feel a great deal of compassion for this tiny victim and because we are outraged at her killer getting away with it.

    The evidence is muddy - it neither incriminates nor clears anyone absolutely. For that reason above any other, I belileve we owe it to Jonbenet not to close our minds to ANY suspect unless he or she has been absolutely cleared by an ironclad alibi (or until the perp has been nailed). JonBenet was the victim - this is all about finding justice for her.

    There is NO doubt in my mind that JonBenet knew her killer. I don't *think* it was a parent but I do think it was someone close to the family. I don't think it was a parent because I simply don't think the Ramseys were violent towards their children. All I have read indicates that they were quite the opposite - lenient even. That is something I can identify with. I am pretty laid back and no matter what my children did, I never found myself in a position where I would have harmed them and I cannot imagine being there. Most parents who harm their children have other stuff going on - alchohol, drugs, money problems. I think the Ramseys had too many friends, a close knit family, high profile social life for them to get strung up about a tantrum or a wet bed. The don't fit the profile for parents who kill their children yet it is this very self same lifestyle and social standing which I can believe would make them attempt to cover up an ugly accident at any cost.

    The facts that we know are that the evidence doesn't clear the Ramseys and that appearances can be deceptive. I personally knew someone who was regarded as a pillar of the community and who turned out to be a drug dealer and that kind of experience makes you question your ability to judge character...

    ...We also know that the vast majority of people were puzzled by their reluctance to co-operate with police and failure to use their wealth and social standing to push the investigation.

    Despite my feelings that they are innocent of their daughter's murder, I cannot reconcile the latter in my mind as many seem able to do. I cannot rationalise some of their behaviour at all. I look at other parents of murdered children and imagine the kind of impact the Ramseys *could* have on the investigation had if they had chosen to work with police instead of against them.

    Either way, regardless of whether the Ramseys were pillars of the community or potential child killers, we know that they had friends who are out and out fruitcakes. Friends who exhibited mightily odd behaviour before and after the murder which cannot be attributed to shock. Friends who found it amusing to pretend to be another woman's husband's mistress "for fun". Friends who found it amusing to sign up for e-mail impersonating the Chief of Police and spend THREE YEARS sending fake e-mails pretending to believe in the Ramseys' guilt! I cannot understand the mind which thinks like this at all.

    I am on JonBenet's side. I am and always have been a neutral observer and my mind remains open to all possibilities. Incidentally, I also think Tom Bennett is neutral. He has remained professionally silent and has said virtually nothing about the case unless it was to set the record straight about the fact that the DNA might not be the killer's when the media were stating it was as a fact.

    I think it will be a neutral party who will solve this case. Someone who is on JonBenet's side - and ONLY JonBenet's side. Someone who is willing to follow the evidence no matter where it leads them. Someone who won't give the parents a "pass" because of the "kind of people we are"[b]and who won't give the Ramsey friends a pass because ... well because they are the Ramseys' friends. I think one of them is getting away with murder.

    The Ramseys have their friends and their supporters - and I'm glad they do because in the eyes of the Law, they are innocent people. How awful to lose your beloved child and then spend the rest of your life being wrongly blamed for another's evil actions?

    However, the fact is that they remain suspects who have not been cleared absolutely in their daughter's murder and for that reason, we need to keep an open mind for Jonbenet's sake.

    We need to keep an open mind if we want to be part of Team JonBenet.
    A nice post.

    As for your "not being able to rationalize some of their (the Ramseys) behavior", different people will react very differently in high stress situations. No matter what the high-profile case is, someone will say something akin to: "I don't understand why they behaved that way. I would not have. I "feel" that their guilty". (guilt via emotion)

    Pick a high-profile case, then check the threads for statements regarding behavior differences. Someone is always going to be on the otherside.

    Behavior was used to convict people in Salem, 1692. Of course, the people who had real behavior problems were those doing the judging. Nothing has changed.

    A lot of people use cauldron stirring as their basis to hold that the Ramseys were somehow involved in JonBenet's murder. Smart people always focus on real evidence and set aside behavioral witchcraft.
    It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,176
    A large majority of those "I don't understand why they acted that way" threads are ones in which the person being commented on turns out to be GUILTY.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,341
    Quote Originally Posted by wenchie
    A large majority of those "I don't understand why they acted that way" threads are ones in which the person being commented on turns out to be GUILTY.

    You mean like in high-profile cases such as:

    - Richard Jewell (Olympic Park bombing)

    - The Aisenbergs (Baby Sabrina kidnapping)

    - Robert Blake (Bonnie Lee Bakely murder)

    - The Smart family (Elizabeth Smart kidnapping)

    - Richard Ricci (Elizabeth Smart kidnapping)

    - Sandy Murphy and Rick Tabish (Ted Binion's death)

    - Gary Condit (Chandra Levy murder)

    - John Mason (Jennifer Wilbanks, runaway bride)

    - Joran van der Sloot (Natalee Holloway disappearance)

    - The Kalpoe brothers (Natalee Holloway disappearance)

    - The never indicted Ramseys (Jon Benet murder)

    etc.
    It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Wudge
    A nice post.

    As for your "not being able to rationalize some of their (the Ramseys) behavior", different people will react very differently in high stress situations. No matter what the high-profile case is, someone will say something akin to: "I don't understand why they behaved that way. I would not have. I "feel" that their guilty". (guilt via emotion)

    Pick a high-profile case, then check the threads for statements regarding behavior differences. Someone is always going to be on the otherside.

    Behavior was used to convict people in Salem, 1692. Of course, the people who had real behavior problems were those doing the judging. Nothing has changed.

    A lot of people use cauldron stirring as their basis to hold that the Ramseys were somehow involved in JonBenet's murder. Smart people always focus on real evidence and set aside behavioral witchcraft.
    Some people cannot rationalise ANY of their behaviour. Others find it easy to rationalise ALL of their behaviour. I find myself unable to rationalise SOME of their behaviour and common sense tells me that truth will be somewhere in the middle.

    I have always gotten the impression that they held something back but that it wasn't necessarily anything to do with the murder. I think John took the decisions and that his ego got in the way of common sense in many respects.

    I won't apologise for the Ramseys - I am concerned only with finding justice for JonBenet. She touched my heart. I am appalled at the egos and politics which got in the way of this case being solved (on all sides).
    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

  6. #6
    Jayelles,
    It's so refreshing to see someone neutral for a change. What a great post.
    Amy

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by wenchie
    A large majority of those "I don't understand why they acted that way" threads are ones in which the person being commented on turns out to be GUILTY.
    Those who have been around the boards for a while will know that I couldn't believe David Westerfield was guilty. If I based my judgement on emotion, I would have given him "a pass". He reminded me of a friend of ours who is a lovely guy. Fortunately, I was able to remain detached from that because the evidence was overwhelming. Had I been a juror, I would have found him guilty too.

    That is why it is important to stick to the facts and keep emotions out of it.

    I am appalled that Mary Lacy went to the funeral at her own expense. She never cleared the Ramseys officially - just made a few ambiguous statements about the evidence being more in keeping with an intruder but that the Ramseys were no-one was being excluded frmo the investigation. She knows that the DNA may not be the killers and that Patsy cannot be excluded as the writer of the note - so if she believes in their innocence, it must be from an emotional perspective. Had I been in her position, I would have made a statement expressing my sympathy, but stayed away from the funeral. THAT would have been professional.

    As it stands, she has shown herself to be emotionally involved with the family and therefore not a neutral party worthy of responsibility for the case.
    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by dottierainbow
    Jayelles,
    It's so refreshing to see someone neutral for a change. What a great post.
    Amy
    Some people don't think I'm neutral. I dislike John Ramsey and have made no secret of it. I think he is personally responsible for their lack of co-operation. I don't think Patsy made many of the decisions.
    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,176
    I said that the MAJORITY of those "they're behaving strangely" threads are about people who eventually get proven guilty. I stand by that.

    And I guess you forget that Westerfield was in the middle of brokering a deal to tell where the body was and avoid the DP when his victim's body was found.

    Did your lovely guy friend who Westerfield reminds you of have a collection of kiddie porn on his pc, too?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,341
    Quote Originally Posted by wenchie
    I said that the MAJORITY of those "they're behaving strangely" threads are about people who eventually get proven guilty. I stand by that.

    And I guess you forget that Westerfield was in the middle of brokering a deal to tell where the body was and avoid the DP when his victim's body was found.

    Did your lovely guy friend who Westerfield reminds you of have a collection of kiddie porn on his pc, too?

    I missed your detailing of the ""they're behaving strangely" threads are about people who eventually get proven guilty."

    When dispositive or otherwise sufficient inculpatory evidence is presented during a trial, I have no problem in coming down on the "guilty" side. For example, unlike the six women jurors who felt so sorry for Eric Menendez in his first trial (hung jury, six women vs six men), I would have found both Eric and Lyle to be “guilty”. Moreover, I would have found David Westerfield, Ray Carruth, and Fred Neulander to be “guilty” as well. Additionally, unlike the jury, I would have found Jayson Williams to be “guilty” too.

    ETA: I have no idea what you meant by saying: "Did your lovely guy friend who Westerfield reminds you of ".
    It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by wenchie
    I said that the MAJORITY of those "they're behaving strangely" threads are about people who eventually get proven guilty. I stand by that.

    And I guess you forget that Westerfield was in the middle of brokering a deal to tell where the body was and avoid the DP when his victim's body was found.

    Did your lovely guy friend who Westerfield reminds you of have a collection of kiddie porn on his pc, too?
    Ahem. You've quoted two of the pieces of evidence which pointed to his guilt. I didn't ignore the evidence - I went with the evidence. Had I gone with my emotions, I would chosen to disbelieve the evidence because he seemed like a nice guy.
    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

  12. #12
    yes, but you're not convinced of someones guilt because of their personality traits. I believe that makes you neutral.
    Amy


    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Some people don't think I'm neutral. I dislike John Ramsey and have made no secret of it. I think he is personally responsible for their lack of co-operation. I don't think Patsy made many of the decisions.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Wudge
    You mean like in high-profile cases such as:

    - Richard Jewell (Olympic Park bombing)

    - The Aisenbergs (Baby Sabrina kidnapping)

    - Robert Blake (Bonnie Lee Bakely murder)

    - The Smart family (Elizabeth Smart kidnapping)

    - Richard Ricci (Elizabeth Smart kidnapping)

    - Sandy Murphy and Rick Tabish (Ted Binion's death)

    - Gary Condit (Chandra Levy murder)

    - John Mason (Jennifer Wilbanks, runaway bride)

    - Joran van der Sloot (Natalee Holloway disappearance)

    - The Kalpoe brothers (Natalee Holloway disappearance)

    - The never indicted Ramseys (Jon Benet murder)

    etc.
    Whoa! Was there a thread on WS about Richard Jewell not "acting right"? I must have missed that one. I didn't even know there WAS a WS at the time. And as for people specualting about him not "acting right" - I don't believe that the general public ever SAW how he acted to make a judgement on it. That was an FBI profiler.

    Of the remainder above - you have:

    A couple who's still under suspicion by LE.

    A man who was legally found "not guilty", but who very few commented on him not "mourning properly". All of the accounts were of him being/acting distraught. It was the other evidence that lead many people to think he may be guilty.

    I don't remember the majority of the public thinking that the Smart's had killed their daughter because of the way they behaved. Personally, I thought they were "weird", but I never for a second thought they were involved.

    In Ricci's case - it was LE who suspected him, and arrested him because of some rather compelling CE. The public didn't get to see his statements and demeanor any more than they got to see Richard Jewell's, so no one was judging him on "demeanor".

    Ahem - Sandra Murphy and Rick Tabish were CONVICTED, remember? Sandy's behavior WAS hinky after Binion's death. The conviction didn't stand, but that doesn't make them innocent. There was enough evidence to convict them at the first trial.

    Gary Condit has never been COMPLETELY exonerated from involvement in Chandra's death. He DID act weird, and HE DID LIE!!!!!!!!!!! Did you forget that?

    John Mason is the only one on your list who SOME people were suspicious of but who now is totally exonerated.

    Joran and the Kalpoes are NOT exonerated, either. The LIED AND LIED AND LIED. Do you really expect people not to call lying "weird and suspicious"?

    Maybe in your world - not in mine.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Wudge
    I missed your detailing of the ""they're behaving strangely" threads are about people who eventually get proven guilty."

    Since when did I have some holy obligation to go into "detailing", especially when I was responding to a post that including NO detailing. ??????

    I am not impressed with your pseudo-intellectual declarations of your pragmatic vs. emotion view of things. You have shown yourself to be extremely emotional in your views.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    713

    People and behavior

    In my opinion, people generally do behave predictably and when they don't, they raise suspicion. The Ramseys hired criminal defense attorneys the day after the murder, they hired a PR firm, they refused to talk to the police, they moved away from the area, they hired an attorney for Ramsey's ex-wife - the list goes on and on.

    Now I don't know any parent, who if he/she is honest, wouldn't admit that there were times when the parent felt like hitting the kid upside the head. Kids can get on your nerves, they can aggravate the holy living hell out of a parent, and sometimes the least likely thing is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. There isn't a parent in the world who doesn't regret some aspect of their interaction with their children. There isn't a parent who doesn't get exasperated with the child's behavior. That's just part of the territory. According to the Ramseys however, they were exempt from these petty and mundane annoyances and gripes about parenthood. If the Ramseys were immune from this behavior it would make them either sociopaths or so withdrawn from interaction with their children that they would have no relationship at all with them.

    So here we have a parent, who by her own admission was up half the night before getting Christmas ready for her children after having two Christmas parties and other social activities. She rose at @5am with the children to open gifts, she made a big breakfast, she cleaned up after the breakfast, she readied clothes for a trip to Michigan she said she did not want to go on, she had to colour her hair, she had to wrap presents to take on the trip to Michigan, she had to continue to pack for their cruise trip, she had to get the kids ready for dinner (which at the time she admitted she had had a "tiff" with her little girl about outfits) she had to drop off presents, she had to then get things in from the car, get the kids ready for bed, get them in bed, and then pack some more for the trip (in the guest bedroom, where supposedly the intruder was hiding) and then remember to go to her little girl's room and wake her up and make her go to the bathroom and pee or wake up to a mess the next morning. And we're supposed to believe that this woman wasn't aggravated and tired and on edge? It would be normal to be and abnormal not to be.

    I would like to add, that in that first "press interview" when the Ramseys were asked if they would like the death penalty applied in this case, the only time P.R. dissolved in tears was in answering that question, and even then she could hardly get the word out - "yes". And then J.R. stating that the "hardest part...(and I'm paraphrasing) were the accusations that JonBenet was molested" - not that they had been accused of killing the little girl - no, the hardest part for him was the aspersions cast on his character by charges of molestation. The fact that these people "wanted to put this behind them and get on with their lives" is insane - anyone who has lost a child will tell you that they're in a holding pattern and will never be truly happy again as long as they live.

Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 55
    Last Post: 01-09-2017, 07:29 AM
  2. JonBenet's Dream Team
    By Ravyn in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 476
    Last Post: 10-25-2014, 05:59 PM
  3. Team Caylee vs. Team Casey
    By manatee in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 12-18-2008, 09:48 AM