1054 users online (215 members and 839 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 138
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    8

    Why the Ramsays?

    I suspect that the Ramsays DIDN'T do it.
    Even if it was an inside job, why oh why did the police have to blame the Ramsays. It could have been any of the people they had working for them.
    Or a guest at the party?
    It may not have been a classic intruder but that doesnt mean it was the Ramseys.
    ???
    Thats what I think anyway.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Detroit 'Burb
    Posts
    2,832

    Maybe Not A Classic Intruder

    Welcome, if you're new.

    As in the old saying some people see a glass as half empty, some as half full.

    To me it's about half and half.

    I do believe it's someone who was at the party, when JonBenet was crying,. probably in pain, sitting on some back stairs according to Janet McReynolds, and said she didn't feel pretty, which is what a typical molester would have told her she was. Then she alarmed him by trying to call 911 so she had to be silenced.

    I just don't think JR would have molested her at a party. Even if he had done so at some point or points, there could also have been others.

    That poor little beauty queen rich girl! Who knew what she was going through!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,399
    Well...to start off with, there is no forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night. No hair, no prints, no fibers, nothing that can be solidly sourced to anyone other than a Ramsey. The tape and cord used in the murder and staging could very well have come from inside the house - we know the flashlight the killer used while moving around belonged to the Ramseys - why wouldn't a kidnapper/killer bring his own flashlight? The paintbrush used to assault and kill JonBenet came from the house, as did the ransom note. This kidnapper/killer didn't have his own "tools" for the job?

    The DNA under JonBenet's fingernails does not match the DNA in her underwear, and the DNA in her underwear is fragmented and degraded, while JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete, indicating the two samples of DNA were deposited on the underwear at different times. When Dr Henry Lee tested packages of underwear identical to those JonBenet was found in, brand new and unwashed straight from package (as the pair on JB had been also), he discovered they also had DNA on them.

    Fibers from the clothing both John and Patsy were wearing that evening were found on the body and in the crime scene, and no, they didn't just float around and end up tied in the knot of the cord strangling JonBenet. The knot itself was uncomplicated and could have been tied by anyone who knows how to tie a shoe. There is no evidence that JonBenet struggled against the person strangling her at all - there are no defensive wounds on her hands or feet, there is very little damage to the interior of her neck, her tongue and cheeks were smooth and unblemished, and the head wound was fully developed, with three separate layers of pooled blood and her brain so swollen it was pressing against the inside of her skull - indicating the head wound preceded the strangulation. While her wrists were tied, they were tied very loosely, and with 15 inches of length between them. There is no evidence on JonBenet's wrists that she struggled against the restraints at all, no bruising or abrasions.

    The tape over JonBenet's mouth showed that she never struggled against it, with a perfect impression of her lips on it (and four fibers from Patsy's jacket.) There was mucus from JonBenet's nose and/or mouth on the tape as well, indicating it had placed over her mouth after she was dead. Why tape the mouth of a child who can't struggle against the taper? Staging.

    The body. JonBenet had been wiped down and redressed, then tucked inside a blanket that was normally on her bed, with her favorite nightgown beside her. Pedophiles who assault children for a sexual thrill don't stay in the child's house with the parents asleep upstairs while they assualt the child, they take the child to their own place where they feel safe. They don't stop and redress the child afterwards, either, and certainly don't walk around in the house seeking out the child's favorite items to leave with them. That was done by someone who cared about JonBenet. And the medical evidence of prior molestation! JonBenet had five or six vaginal exams (Beuf couldn't remember the exact number!) in three years time! Now Beuf claims that isn't abnormal, but it is! I can't think of any other girl under the age of seven that has had five or six vaginal exams in just three years. That's insane, poor JonBenet. Not to mention her serious toileting issues...I could see it id she just wet the bed, but she didn't - she was known to soil herself at any time of day. There was something seriously wrong going on there.

    The pineapple. Not only did John and Patsy originally say that JonBenet had been awake when they got home that night (only to contradict themselves four months later), but so did her brother Burke, and the pineapple found in her small intestine and on the breakfast table in the Ramsey house says so too. Why would J & P feel the need to change their story and lie about whether JonBenet had been awake or not? Would a murderous pedophile take the time to feed his victim a snack, wait around for an hour or two for it to digest (because that's how long it took to get to her small intestine), and then kill her - and then stage the crime scene, and write a three page ransom note, seemingly totally unconcerned with being caught by the victim's family members?

    John and Patsy Ramsey have told numerous contradicting stories as the events of Christmas night and the following day. They have been caught telling outright lies, in fact. They hired PIs and attorneys not to search for the killer of their daughter, but the to keep them out of prison. They have hindered the investigation from day one, refusing to meet with police for interviews for months, and only under non-standard conditions set up to benefit the Ramseys themselves - such as demanding they be allowed to re-read previous statements they made before answering any questions, and there were certain questions they would not allow to be asked. Why, unless they have something to hide? They had trouble passing polygraphs, and ended up shopping around til they found an expert who would play the game their way - no drug test required, and when the R's answers didn't give them an immediate pass, he tested them again, dropping those questions.

    Then there's the ransom note. Out of 90-some people who gave handwriting samples, Patsy was the only person who could never be excluded, not even by experts hired by the Rs. It looks like her handwriting, and it sounds like her style of speech. It was written in standard American writing form by someone who knew proper spacing, indentation, capitalization, punctuation...and Patsy had a degree in journalism, and would have known the proper form. The note was supposedly written by a foreign faction, but uses some rather American phrases and includes inside knowledge of the Ramsey family, including John Ramsey's bonus amount.

    There's the 911 call. Patsy says she hasn't read the note, but knows how it ends. She never once mentions to the 911 operator that the RN has made a threat to decapitate JonBenet if anyone calls the police, and as soon as hangs up on the operator (!), she proceeds to call over some 5 - 7 other people, completely heedless of the threat against her child's life. And I don't buy the story that she didn't know JonBenet's head was threatened to be cut off, because John was supposedly on the floor on his knees (as if) reading the note - surely he would have seen the threat to cut off JB's head and told Patsy. On top of throwing an impromptu tea party, John and Patsy send Burke off to the White's, not knowing where the kidnapper is, but that he's watching the house and will KILL JonBenet if the Rs don't play the game his way. They did not request a police escort at all. How could they be sure that the kidnapper wasn't waiting somewhere, watching, and would take the opportunity to attack Burke as well? How could a parent with a child supposedly kidnapped allow their other child out of their sight at all?

    And why wasn't Burke attacked also? The author of the RN claims to be a foreign faction, and claims this crime has been committed out of anger and hatred for John Ramsey. If this kidnapper can get in the house and grab a kid and feed her a snack and then wait for it to digest before he molests and strangles her then goes and finds a fresh pair of bloomies to dress her in, why didn't he really stick it to JR and grab the son as well? A little girl means NOTHING to a foreign faction - they would go for the SON of the man they want to hurt. They might even attack John Ramsey himself. And why John Ramsey? There are many more affluent people than some relatively unknown businessman in Boulder, Colorado.

    This isn't even mentioning the enormous amount of police work that was done that kept bringing the police back to the conclusion that the Rs were involved. FBI's CASKU unit agreed with police, believing the parents were the ones to look at, seeing as how the crime scene was criminally unsophisticated with many elements of staging (staging within staging, in fact.) Why would an intruder stage a murder, and why would an intruder stage a murder to look like an intruder did it?

    That's all I can think of right now, but in my opinion, all of this points to one thing and one thing only - the Ramseys either did this, or they know exactly who did. There is no other explanation for why this entire scene indicates their guilt as strongly as it does. If I have forgotten something, please add it on, and keriekerie, I would love to hear the reasons why you think the Ramseys didn't do this thing to their child.
    Where is Trenton Duckett?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    749
    I'm can't even find tape, a rope, and a flashlight in my own home, let alone find it in a stranger's home. that intruder would have been pretty resourceful to find all of that stuff. also, an intruder would have stolen something else of value in my opinion.
    Patience is genius......author unknown

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    749
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
    Well...to start off with, there is no forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night. No hair, no prints, no fibers, nothing that can be solidly sourced to anyone other than a Ramsey. The tape and cord used in the murder and staging could very well have come from inside the house - we know the flashlight the killer used while moving around belonged to the Ramseys - why wouldn't a kidnapper/killer bring his own flashlight? The paintbrush used to assault and kill JonBenet came from the house, as did the ransom note. This kidnapper/killer didn't have his own "tools" for the job?

    The DNA under JonBenet's fingernails does not match the DNA in her underwear, and the DNA in her underwear is fragmented and degraded, while JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete, indicating the two samples of DNA were deposited on the underwear at different times. When Dr Henry Lee tested packages of underwear identical to those JonBenet was found in, brand new and unwashed straight from package (as the pair on JB had been also), he discovered they also had DNA on them.

    Fibers from the clothing both John and Patsy were wearing that evening were found on the body and in the crime scene, and no, they didn't just float around and end up tied in the knot of the cord strangling JonBenet. The knot itself was uncomplicated and could have been tied by anyone who knows how to tie a shoe. There is no evidence that JonBenet struggled against the person strangling her at all - there are no defensive wounds on her hands or feet, there is very little damage to the interior of her neck, her tongue and cheeks were smooth and unblemished, and the head wound was fully developed, with three separate layers of pooled blood and her brain so swollen it was pressing against the inside of her skull - indicating the head wound preceded the strangulation. While her wrists were tied, they were tied very loosely, and with 15 inches of length between them. There is no evidence on JonBenet's wrists that she struggled against the restraints at all, no bruising or abrasions.

    The tape over JonBenet's mouth showed that she never struggled against it, with a perfect impression of her lips on it (and four fibers from Patsy's jacket.) There was mucus from JonBenet's nose and/or mouth on the tape as well, indicating it had placed over her mouth after she was dead. Why tape the mouth of a child who can't struggle against the taper? Staging.

    The body. JonBenet had been wiped down and redressed, then tucked inside a blanket that was normally on her bed, with her favorite nightgown beside her. Pedophiles who assault children for a sexual thrill don't stay in the child's house with the parents asleep upstairs while they assualt the child, they take the child to their own place where they feel safe. They don't stop and redress the child afterwards, either, and certainly don't walk around in the house seeking out the child's favorite items to leave with them. That was done by someone who cared about JonBenet. And the medical evidence of prior molestation! JonBenet had five or six vaginal exams (Beuf couldn't remember the exact number!) in three years time! Now Beuf claims that isn't abnormal, but it is! I can't think of any other girl under the age of seven that has had five or six vaginal exams in just three years. That's insane, poor JonBenet. Not to mention her serious toileting issues...I could see it id she just wet the bed, but she didn't - she was known to soil herself at any time of day. There was something seriously wrong going on there.

    The pineapple. Not only did John and Patsy originally say that JonBenet had been awake when they got home that night (only to contradict themselves four months later), but so did her brother Burke, and the pineapple found in her small intestine and on the breakfast table in the Ramsey house says so too. Why would J & P feel the need to change their story and lie about whether JonBenet had been awake or not? Would a murderous pedophile take the time to feed his victim a snack, wait around for an hour or two for it to digest (because that's how long it took to get to her small intestine), and then kill her - and then stage the crime scene, and write a three page ransom note, seemingly totally unconcerned with being caught by the victim's family members?

    John and Patsy Ramsey have told numerous contradicting stories as the events of Christmas night and the following day. They have been caught telling outright lies, in fact. They hired PIs and attorneys not to search for the killer of their daughter, but the to keep them out of prison. They have hindered the investigation from day one, refusing to meet with police for interviews for months, and only under non-standard conditions set up to benefit the Ramseys themselves - such as demanding they be allowed to re-read previous statements they made before answering any questions, and there were certain questions they would not allow to be asked. Why, unless they have something to hide? They had trouble passing polygraphs, and ended up shopping around til they found an expert who would play the game their way - no drug test required, and when the R's answers didn't give them an immediate pass, he tested them again, dropping those questions.

    Then there's the ransom note. Out of 90-some people who gave handwriting samples, Patsy was the only person who could never be excluded, not even by experts hired by the Rs. It looks like her handwriting, and it sounds like her style of speech. It was written in standard American writing form by someone who knew proper spacing, indentation, capitalization, punctuation...and Patsy had a degree in journalism, and would have known the proper form. The note was supposedly written by a foreign faction, but uses some rather American phrases and includes inside knowledge of the Ramsey family, including John Ramsey's bonus amount.

    There's the 911 call. Patsy says she hasn't read the note, but knows how it ends. She never once mentions to the 911 operator that the RN has made a threat to decapitate JonBenet if anyone calls the police, and as soon as hangs up on the operator (!), she proceeds to call over some 5 - 7 other people, completely heedless of the threat against her child's life. And I don't buy the story that she didn't know JonBenet's head was threatened to be cut off, because John was supposedly on the floor on his knees (as if) reading the note - surely he would have seen the threat to cut off JB's head and told Patsy. On top of throwing an impromptu tea party, John and Patsy send Burke off to the White's, not knowing where the kidnapper is, but that he's watching the house and will KILL JonBenet if the Rs don't play the game his way. They did not request a police escort at all. How could they be sure that the kidnapper wasn't waiting somewhere, watching, and would take the opportunity to attack Burke as well? How could a parent with a child supposedly kidnapped allow their other child out of their sight at all?

    And why wasn't Burke attacked also? The author of the RN claims to be a foreign faction, and claims this crime has been committed out of anger and hatred for John Ramsey. If this kidnapper can get in the house and grab a kid and feed her a snack and then wait for it to digest before he molests and strangles her then goes and finds a fresh pair of bloomies to dress her in, why didn't he really stick it to JR and grab the son as well? A little girl means NOTHING to a foreign faction - they would go for the SON of the man they want to hurt. They might even attack John Ramsey himself. And why John Ramsey? There are many more affluent people than some relatively unknown businessman in Boulder, Colorado.

    This isn't even mentioning the enormous amount of police work that was done that kept bringing the police back to the conclusion that the Rs were involved. FBI's CASKU unit agreed with police, believing the parents were the ones to look at, seeing as how the crime scene was criminally unsophisticated with many elements of staging (staging within staging, in fact.) Why would an intruder stage a murder, and why would an intruder stage a murder to look like an intruder did it?

    That's all I can think of right now, but in my opinion, all of this points to one thing and one thing only - the Ramseys either did this, or they know exactly who did. There is no other explanation for why this entire scene indicates their guilt as strongly as it does. If I have forgotten something, please add it on, and keriekerie, I would love to hear the reasons why you think the Ramseys didn't do this thing to their child.
    wow np, that's quite a culmination of events and very thorough anaysis.
    Patience is genius......author unknown

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by ellen13
    wow np, that's quite a culmination of events and very thorough anaysis.
    NP: perfect and compelling summary of the incriminating evidence pointing to the Ramseys. You said it all. Great post!
    Last edited by rashomon; 10-04-2006 at 03:19 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    DAMN!

    But you left out the grate-web.

    They hired PIs and attorneys not to search for the killer of their daughter, but the to keep them out of prison.
    Call me old-fashioned -- call me insensitive-- but what is a grief-stricken mother doing with a full-time PR flack? To me, after your third Entertainment Tonight profile, you're not just a grieving mom anymore; you're a c-list celebrity trolling for a talk show.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,807

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
    Well...to start off with, there is no forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night. No hair, no prints, no fibers, nothing that can be solidly sourced to anyone other than a Ramsey. The tape and cord used in the murder and staging could very well have come from inside the house - we know the flashlight the killer used while moving around belonged to the Ramseys - why wouldn't a kidnapper/killer bring his own flashlight? The paintbrush used to assault and kill JonBenet came from the house, as did the ransom note. This kidnapper/killer didn't have his own "tools" for the job?

    The DNA under JonBenet's fingernails does not match the DNA in her underwear, and the DNA in her underwear is fragmented and degraded, while JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete, indicating the two samples of DNA were deposited on the underwear at different times. When Dr Henry Lee tested packages of underwear identical to those JonBenet was found in, brand new and unwashed straight from package (as the pair on JB had been also), he discovered they also had DNA on them.

    Fibers from the clothing both John and Patsy were wearing that evening were found on the body and in the crime scene, and no, they didn't just float around and end up tied in the knot of the cord strangling JonBenet. The knot itself was uncomplicated and could have been tied by anyone who knows how to tie a shoe. There is no evidence that JonBenet struggled against the person strangling her at all - there are no defensive wounds on her hands or feet, there is very little damage to the interior of her neck, her tongue and cheeks were smooth and unblemished, and the head wound was fully developed, with three separate layers of pooled blood and her brain so swollen it was pressing against the inside of her skull - indicating the head wound preceded the strangulation. While her wrists were tied, they were tied very loosely, and with 15 inches of length between them. There is no evidence on JonBenet's wrists that she struggled against the restraints at all, no bruising or abrasions.

    The tape over JonBenet's mouth showed that she never struggled against it, with a perfect impression of her lips on it (and four fibers from Patsy's jacket.) There was mucus from JonBenet's nose and/or mouth on the tape as well, indicating it had placed over her mouth after she was dead. Why tape the mouth of a child who can't struggle against the taper? Staging.

    The body. JonBenet had been wiped down and redressed, then tucked inside a blanket that was normally on her bed, with her favorite nightgown beside her. Pedophiles who assault children for a sexual thrill don't stay in the child's house with the parents asleep upstairs while they assualt the child, they take the child to their own place where they feel safe. They don't stop and redress the child afterwards, either, and certainly don't walk around in the house seeking out the child's favorite items to leave with them. That was done by someone who cared about JonBenet. And the medical evidence of prior molestation! JonBenet had five or six vaginal exams (Beuf couldn't remember the exact number!) in three years time! Now Beuf claims that isn't abnormal, but it is! I can't think of any other girl under the age of seven that has had five or six vaginal exams in just three years. That's insane, poor JonBenet. Not to mention her serious toileting issues...I could see it id she just wet the bed, but she didn't - she was known to soil herself at any time of day. There was something seriously wrong going on there.

    The pineapple. Not only did John and Patsy originally say that JonBenet had been awake when they got home that night (only to contradict themselves four months later), but so did her brother Burke, and the pineapple found in her small intestine and on the breakfast table in the Ramsey house says so too. Why would J & P feel the need to change their story and lie about whether JonBenet had been awake or not? Would a murderous pedophile take the time to feed his victim a snack, wait around for an hour or two for it to digest (because that's how long it took to get to her small intestine), and then kill her - and then stage the crime scene, and write a three page ransom note, seemingly totally unconcerned with being caught by the victim's family members?

    John and Patsy Ramsey have told numerous contradicting stories as the events of Christmas night and the following day. They have been caught telling outright lies, in fact. They hired PIs and attorneys not to search for the killer of their daughter, but the to keep them out of prison. They have hindered the investigation from day one, refusing to meet with police for interviews for months, and only under non-standard conditions set up to benefit the Ramseys themselves - such as demanding they be allowed to re-read previous statements they made before answering any questions, and there were certain questions they would not allow to be asked. Why, unless they have something to hide? They had trouble passing polygraphs, and ended up shopping around til they found an expert who would play the game their way - no drug test required, and when the R's answers didn't give them an immediate pass, he tested them again, dropping those questions.

    Then there's the ransom note. Out of 90-some people who gave handwriting samples, Patsy was the only person who could never be excluded, not even by experts hired by the Rs. It looks like her handwriting, and it sounds like her style of speech. It was written in standard American writing form by someone who knew proper spacing, indentation, capitalization, punctuation...and Patsy had a degree in journalism, and would have known the proper form. The note was supposedly written by a foreign faction, but uses some rather American phrases and includes inside knowledge of the Ramsey family, including John Ramsey's bonus amount.

    There's the 911 call. Patsy says she hasn't read the note, but knows how it ends. She never once mentions to the 911 operator that the RN has made a threat to decapitate JonBenet if anyone calls the police, and as soon as hangs up on the operator (!), she proceeds to call over some 5 - 7 other people, completely heedless of the threat against her child's life. And I don't buy the story that she didn't know JonBenet's head was threatened to be cut off, because John was supposedly on the floor on his knees (as if) reading the note - surely he would have seen the threat to cut off JB's head and told Patsy. On top of throwing an impromptu tea party, John and Patsy send Burke off to the White's, not knowing where the kidnapper is, but that he's watching the house and will KILL JonBenet if the Rs don't play the game his way. They did not request a police escort at all. How could they be sure that the kidnapper wasn't waiting somewhere, watching, and would take the opportunity to attack Burke as well? How could a parent with a child supposedly kidnapped allow their other child out of their sight at all?

    And why wasn't Burke attacked also? The author of the RN claims to be a foreign faction, and claims this crime has been committed out of anger and hatred for John Ramsey. If this kidnapper can get in the house and grab a kid and feed her a snack and then wait for it to digest before he molests and strangles her then goes and finds a fresh pair of bloomies to dress her in, why didn't he really stick it to JR and grab the son as well? A little girl means NOTHING to a foreign faction - they would go for the SON of the man they want to hurt. They might even attack John Ramsey himself. And why John Ramsey? There are many more affluent people than some relatively unknown businessman in Boulder, Colorado.

    This isn't even mentioning the enormous amount of police work that was done that kept bringing the police back to the conclusion that the Rs were involved. FBI's CASKU unit agreed with police, believing the parents were the ones to look at, seeing as how the crime scene was criminally unsophisticated with many elements of staging (staging within staging, in fact.) Why would an intruder stage a murder, and why would an intruder stage a murder to look like an intruder did it?

    That's all I can think of right now, but in my opinion, all of this points to one thing and one thing only - the Ramseys either did this, or they know exactly who did. There is no other explanation for why this entire scene indicates their guilt as strongly as it does. If I have forgotten something, please add it on, and keriekerie, I would love to hear the reasons why you think the Ramseys didn't do this thing to their child.
    NP, Just a great post. I read every word and I read it again and you are right on. What I do not understand and never will is why they kept such a high profile trying to find the "killas".

    Why not let it die down as much as possible. I believe they are both involved, so why go to such lengths to keep this case alive.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,252
    I read here all the time and get so fed up sometimes by the "Ramseys didn't do it" posts without any evidence to back it up - HOWEVER - it's posts like yours, NuisancePoster, that make my day!!


    Now lets make it a sticky or keep bumping it up.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    14
    Great job, NP. And every one of those points could be elaborated on. Once you really look at the evidence, it's hard to escape the conclusion that -- regardless how you spin the motive, the psychology, or the exact sequence of events -- the Rs were involved.

    As I've said elsewhere, I myself didn't believe this until I really looked at the available evidence. Once you do, you can't deny it.

    For that matter, you know what I'd be interested to see? A pro-Ramsey post by someone as convincing as Nuisanceposter. What's the strongest argument any of you can make the that Rs *didn't* do it? It would be interesting to compare...


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    772

    Great Post

    You described, very intelligently, why the Ramseys were responsible for JB's death.

    I too would like to see a reply from a RDNDI (Ramsey's did not do it), stating, as you did, why the evidence and facts do not support the Ramseys but point
    to an intruder.

    One of the facts that need to be cleared is the pineapple in JB's stomach. It really is hard to image an intruder feeding the child (did she say she was hungry?) and waiting for it to digest before attacking her. Impossible scenario!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith X
    Great job, NP. And every one of those points could be elaborated on. Once you really look at the evidence, it's hard to escape the conclusion that -- regardless how you spin the motive, the psychology, or the exact sequence of events -- the Rs were involved.

    As I've said elsewhere, I myself didn't believe this until I really looked at the available evidence. Once you do, you can't deny it.

    For that matter, you know what I'd be interested to see? A pro-Ramsey post by someone as convincing as Nuisanceposter. What's the strongest argument any of you can make the that Rs *didn't* do it? It would be interesting to compare...
    So true: once you really look at the available evidence, it is just not possible to shut one's eyes to the truth.
    Great idea to ask pro-Ramsey posters to present a post which is as convincing with hard facts as Nuisanceposter's. This would be a real challenge.
    Pro-Ramseys seem to base their conclusions on their belief that the Ramseys just couldn't have done it.
    "I have the feeling that they are innocent". "My gut tells me they can't have done this." "I have never believed for one minute that the Ramseys had anything to do with the crime." "No parent would garrote their child and anyone who thinks the Ramseys are capable of this must be crazy".
    Just some random examples one gets in posting excanges with pro-Ramsey posters.

    But how would these posters explain for example that fibers from John's shirt were found in the crotch area of JB's underwear?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,807
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon
    So true: once you really look at the available evidence, it is just not possible to shut one's eyes to the truth.
    Great idea to ask pro-Ramsey posters to present a post which is as convincing with hard facts as Nuisanceposter's. This would be a real challenge.
    Pro-Ramseys seem to base their conclusions on their belief that the Ramseys just couldn't have done it.
    "I have the feeling that they are innocent". "My gut tells me they can't have done this." "I have never believed for one minute that the Ramseys had anything to do with the crime." "No parent would garrote their child and anyone who thinks the Ramseys are capable of this must be crazy".
    Just some random examples one gets in posting excanges with pro-Ramsey posters.

    But how would these posters explain for example that fibers from John's shirt were found in the crotch area of JB's underwear?
    They would say something like they got the fibers from the washing machine or you are not telling the truth about the fibers, you are just mentioning the fibers that are consistent with John's sweater, there were many more fibers there. Or that they probably got on her when they transferred from the bed that John was lying on and hopped into her underwear. It is almost painful to listen to.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,252
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelda
    You described, very intelligently, why the Ramseys were responsible for JB's death.

    I too would like to see a reply from a RDNDI (Ramsey's did not do it), stating, as you did, why the evidence and facts do not support the Ramseys but point
    to an intruder.

    One of the facts that need to be cleared is the pineapple in JB's stomach. It really is hard to image an intruder feeding the child (did she say she was hungry?) and waiting for it to digest before attacking her. Impossible scenario!

    You won't though. This thread is another example of -blurt out the 'Ramsays' (sic) aren't guilty- and not bothering to back it up. Yawn.


    The good to come of this thread is Nuisanceposters post. It's a keeper.


    Jubie

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,807

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by jubie
    You won't though. This thread is another example of -blurt out the 'Ramsays' (sic) aren't guilty- and not bothering to back it up. Yawn.


    The good to come of this thread is Nuisanceposters post. It's a keeper.


    Jubie
    Aint it though.

Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Where are the Whites and the Ramsays friends now?
    By kazzbar in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-03-2006, 06:23 PM