1213 users online (270 members and 943 guests)  



Websleuths News


Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,778

    For those who believe Ramseys guilty....

    Until we hear more in the way of an indictment, on the surface it appears that this guy Karr is a nutter and just may want to hitch his wagon to the most notorious child murder case in history. I’m far from convinced he is the guilty party. At this point I don’t think anyone of us knows enough to form an intelligent opinion about Karr’s guilt or innocence.

    But, I have some questions for the “Ramseys are guilty” crowd. Why do you want the Ramsey family to be found guilty of JonBenet’s murder? Is it because you have so much time and energy invested in believing them (or some of them guilty), that you can’t be open-minded about the possibility of someone else being the guilty party?

    Why do some of you delight in vilifying Lou Smit and his conclusions of an “intruder did it” theory? Is it because he prayed with the Ramseys? Is that a good reason to discount his observations and conclusions as a seasoned investigator? What is it about Smit and his background that would make his conclusions not credible?

    It’s hard for me to understand the hatred some have for John Ramsey (a man you’ve never met and don’t personally know) in particular. This is a man who lost a daughter in 1992, lost another daughter in 1996, and lost his wife in 2006 – all of whom he should have out-lived in the normal course of events. This is a tremendous amount of tragedy for one person to experience.

    I’m not asking these questions to start a fight (so everyone mind your manners, ok?). I’m asking because I truly want to understand this perspective. And try as I might, I just can’t understand it.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in523884.shtml

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    579
    On my part it is more exclusion of the other alternative. Still have no idea why and how it happened.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,778
    Quote Originally Posted by tumble
    On my part it is more exclusion of the other alternative. Still have no idea why and how it happened.
    That's what I'm trying to understand. How is the "other alternative" excluded?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    "Until we hear more in the way of an indictment, on the surface it appears that this guy Karr is a nutter and just may want to hitch his wagon to the most notorious child murder case in history. I’m far from convinced he is the guilty party. At this point I don’t think anyone of us knows enough to form an intelligent opinion about Karr’s guilt or innocence."

    I would agree.

    "But, I have some questions for the “Ramseys are guilty” crowd. Why do you want the Ramsey family to be found guilty of JonBenet’s murder? Is it because you have so much time and energy invested in believing them (or some of them guilty), that you can’t be open-minded about the possibility of someone else being the guilty party?"

    I won't speak for everyone else, but I DON'T WANT them to be guilty! Never have. I believe they are, but I AM open to this. Like you say, we can't be sure about this new guy.

    "Why do some of you delight in vilifying Lou Smit and his conclusions of an “intruder did it” theory? Is it because he prayed with the Ramseys? Is that a good reason to discount his observations and conclusions as a seasoned investigator?"

    I'm afraid it is. He decided that they were innocent from that meeting and never backed off. That strikes me as HIGHLY unprofessional. I'm not the only one. Even Alex Hunter, who hired him, said he had lost professionalism. Even leaving that aside, his assertions about the case fly in the face of the actual analyses.

    He says the garrote was too sophisticated for the family to make. That's wrong. Mike Kane said on national tv that the DA's office brought in an expert in knots who said that this garrote could have been made by anyone.

    He says there was a stun gun. He decided that on his own and shopped experts until he found one that said there was a stun gun involved. The ONLY one, I should point out, and the same man who said that there wasn't one when previously asked. Werner Spitz and Robert Stratbucker are only two of many who said that a stun gun wasn't used.

    He says JonBenet struggled against the garrote. There were no bruises on her arms, no damage to her mouth, no scratch marks. He claims there were, but none in the investigation agree. Werner Spitz and several others say that she was already unconscious from the head blow and couldn't have fought back.

    He says the strangulation was vicious. In the photos, it looks that way, but there was no damage to the mouth, larynx or hyoid bone. The FBI said that it was a staged crime scene and that it only LOOKED brutal because it had to.

    He says that fibers are important, unless they come from the parents. Sounds selective to me.

    He claims that he will examine any evidence of parental involvement, but at least three people claim he either ignored them or just poo-poohed them when they tried. These were not lay people, either.

    He ignores evidence of prior molestation flat-out.

    In short, his claims do not hold up under scrutiny.

    "What is it about Smit and his background that would make his conclusions not credible?"

    Well, if the above isn't enough, his record is something like 200 solved homicides, right? Well, I reviewed his record and the VAST majority of those cases were smoking gun cases. To my knowledge, he has NEVER worked a case where the crime scene was heavily staged. He was even in the room when the FBI told the police flat-out it was staged. These guys have solved MANY times more homicides than him-1700 or so. PLUS, he always seemed to work cases where the perps were uneducated, poor people with no real sophistication, not a college educated, wealthy woman with a husband whose lawyer controls half the state.

    Everything I say here CAN be verified. Ask Tricia! She knows! She knows much more than I!

    "It’s hard for me to understand the hatred some have for John Ramsey (a man you’ve never met and don’t personally know) in particular. This is a man who lost a daughter in 1992, lost another daughter in 1996, and lost his wife in 2006 – all of whom he should have out-lived in the normal course of events. This is a tremendous amount of tragedy for one person to experience."

    I don't hate him. I hate some of the things he does. Big difference. I've always said he deserved and deserves better.

    "I’m not asking these questions to start a fight (so everyone mind your manners, ok?). I’m asking because I truly want to understand this perspective. And try as I might, I just can’t understand it."

    I'd like to think I helped.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by Pepper
    That's what I'm trying to understand. How is the "other alternative" excluded?
    Many things speaks of staging.
    The meandering silly RN, the nonworking garrote, wiping the flashlight, wiping and redressing JBR, dubious entry&exit point,...
    Everything done while the parents were sleeping upstairs...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    58

    Me Too

    Pepper, I like your style. I too would like to hear from the camp you are addressing.

    In the very begininning, I too suspected the Ramseys, including Burke. As a little time went on, and especially after seeing some documentary w/Smit, I changed my mind. And didn't Smit solve the murder in the Heather Dawn Church case? Colorado Springs?

    I don't think this guy Karr did the JBR murder, but I do believe it was an intruder as in the Heather Smit case.

    I used to think that surviving my child's death would be the worst that could happen. Then...I upped that to surviving my child's murder would be the hardest to live with. THEN? I upped that to surviving my child's murder to adding being suspected of my child's murder as the worst scenario to ever be able to live with.

    Plainly. I feel soooooo sorry for the Ramsey's and all they've been through. And I cannot believe the people that keep on casting suspicion on this family.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    560
    The first post on this thread includes the statement that there is no intention to start a fight - yet the questions contained in that post are potentially offensive and inflammatory - i.e. that some of our members "want" the Ramseys to be guilty or that they "delight" in vilifying Lou Smit. I consider that a breach of TOS as it appears to attack some of our members for their POV.

    I am therefore locking this thread and will delete it in due course.

    Feel free to reword the questions in the first post and start a new thread which is less offensive to some of our members.



Similar Threads

  1. GUILTY Bradley Manning guilty on 5 counts of espionage, not guilty of aiding, abetting enemy
    By wfgodot in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-23-2013, 09:25 AM
  2. *MERGED THREADS*GUILTY or NOT GUILTY? (Florida jury instructions added)
    By Nali87 in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 281
    Last Post: 10-09-2011, 05:54 PM
  3. The Ramseys Were Guilty Of Something
    By Unreals in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 05-13-2010, 03:55 AM
  4. For those who think the Ramseys are guilty . .
    By KatherineQ in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-09-2005, 04:39 PM