newtv said:
I dont get why its called the elaborate staging cuz they did a very poor job of it-they did it in a room where the window was small and it could be doubted whether or not it was even used by an intruder - the size being smaller than most men.
They left things very unclear if they wanted to have others believe there was an intruder cuz most of u think they are guilty.
The biggest problem I have with the whole notion they staged it is that the staging was so poorly done-only an idiot would write that ransom note-make it that long..and leave her in a room with nothing out of place but a suitcase..
These are smart people-they would have done a better job..such as break a window-put a chair under it-they would make it more obvious and believeable..jmo
And i get stopped for sure when its explained as sexual abuse gone awry..there is nothing in his history to suggest he was an abuser-even his ex wife stood up and said so-and she is an ex.
Not one person has come out of the closet with these things having been true in his history..i mean it makes no sense that they did it..and if the crime scene was screwed up by incompetent police work, why does everyone think it was the ramseys..once a scene is contaminated-it points to no-one or everyone..not just the ramseys.
Mark Lunford didnt kill his child-and the grandfather had a record and yet it wasnt him..it was an intruder-and noone heard him come take her
His trailer was pply the same distance as the basement was from the ramseys bedroom so its very possible the intruder could go unheard.
Surely the ramseys could have done a much better job of staging it. Even an intruder could have bashed her over the head and just left it at that..they didnt have to stage a strangulation to stage this.
That was overkill not just kill..it wasnt necessary.
(all this from catching john ramsey abusing her or patsy killing her for bedwetting..it just is so weak in my opinion-they could have done a softer kill and still have it point to an intruder)
Its the work of a depraved paedophile -they kill like that..non-killers such as the ramseys dont kill like that for the first time..god-they could have smothered her and left her in her room and still have it point to an intruder.
Look at elizabeth smart-it happens-when noone wants to believe it wasnt an inside job-until elizabeth was found a lot of folks blamed the dad or the uncles-people said many rotten things about them..and even the case of that duncan guy-they had no idea who he was-he just picked that house to watch and line up a kill.
It happens-so i just do not get how everything the ramseys did or did not do makes them evil.
It doesnt make any sense and even the fact that some of u think it was john and others think it was patsy and others think it was burke tells me they would not have been convicted..it would have to be clearer and it wasnt.
If 2 explanations are equal u have to give the defendant the benefit of reasonable doubt- for every argument that has been presented I can think of a reasonable counter possibilitiy..so if I can its possible they were not involved-cuz I am not trying hard to counter claim..it just looks differently to me.
Now-one thing that is out of place for me is no footsteps in the snow..these intruders dont fly out of a house..however, the investigation was so poorly done that I have doubts about that - for one thing tons of people came to the house before they knew she was dead..how can they say there were no footsteps in the snow-and I also heard other reasons for it-like the snow wasnt everywhere they could have walked.
yada
I agree with everything you said.
I find the argument that Patsy killed her for wetting the bed or struck out and killed her as she was jealous of her to be weak at best.
Not all parents are capable of such horrendous things to their child. True some parents do murder their children on purpose. People who murder and/or molest their children in horrible ways usually pretty obviously have a history of obvious mental problems before the crime. And if an accident then I don't see normal parents capable of physically abusing their child to such an extent just to cover up.
If JR was abusing JBR then Patsy would have never looked at him again without spitting anger showing on her face. Not for one minute do I think she needed to stay married to him so badly that she would cover for him to such an extent....and if she did cover for him she would have hated doing so and it would have shown that she harbored a deep resentment toward him...and vice versa for John covering for Patsy.
Burke would have spilled his guts sometime over the years if he knew anything.
Where is the evidence that PR was a person not to be dissapointed? Is there some evidence that she would fly into rages at JBR? I haven't heard any...fighting and/or dissagreeing over what shirt she would wear to a party or not liking a doll pushed Patsy over the edge? puleeeeze....all mom's and kids dissagree and have their little battles over clothes and such.
John Ramsey used his dauter for sexual gratification because his wife couldn't have sex? Reaching... I think he could have found sex elsewhere if he needed it so badly.
Further as you state, not even the RDIs can agree on who caused the death of JonBenet or who was molesting her so obviously the evidence isn't quite as clear as they proclaim it is....and certainly not clear enough to have convicted any one of them.
Some of the scenarios are possible but I have never read a RDI theory that I found probable.
Until someone comes up with a better explanation for the DNA under her nails and in her panties than the sneezing garment factory worker.....(I'd also like an explanation for the marks that appear clearly to be stun gun marks)...I am firmly planted on the fence.
