722 users online (76 members and 646 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 68
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    103

    The Poll

    I would have checked both of these if possible:

    JonBenét had wet the bed?

    Patsy was jealous of her daughter?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4

    Who killed JonBenet

    I think it's ridiculous to think that Patsy brutally murdered her daughter because she wet the bed or because she was jealous of her. The person who did this is a very EVIL, very strong person with absolutely no compassion or heart. The grand jury were sickened by the autopsy pictures. They have vindicated ALL family members. Loving people don't just all of a sudden become brutal murderers.

    I also think that JonBenet knew her killer because, for one thing she ate pineapple with him. So, that means that the perpetrator didn't use the stun gun right away.

    I'm also beginning to wonder if John Mark Karr knows more than what the authorities have told us. For one thing, he knew the nickname of Patsy's mother. That had never been published anywhere. How did he know that???? He may not have killed her, but I think he was either there or knows who WAS there! The truth will come out eventually. I hope it's soon.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,374
    loyalalways, actually the truth is that Patsy Ramsey brutally killed her daughter as well as wrote that insipid, childish ransom note--there is no evidence of an intruder, never was--remember the unbroken spider web?--remember that parents are capable of some sick crimes, including mothers that have stabbed their own kids to death, decapitated their own kids, and also have burned to death their babies by putting them in micro-wave ovens---oh, and btw, John Mark Karr had absolutely nothing to do with anything in this case

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by loyalalways
    I think it's ridiculous to think that Patsy brutally murdered her daughter because she wet the bed or because she was jealous of her. The person who did this is a very EVIL, very strong person with absolutely no compassion or heart. The grand jury were sickened by the autopsy pictures. They have vindicated ALL family members. Loving people don't just all of a sudden become brutal murderers.

    I also think that JonBenet knew her killer because, for one thing she ate pineapple with him. So, that means that the perpetrator didn't use the stun gun right away.

    I'm also beginning to wonder if John Mark Karr knows more than what the authorities have told us. For one thing, he knew the nickname of Patsy's mother. That had never been published anywhere. How did he know that???? He may not have killed her, but I think he was either there or knows who WAS there! The truth will come out eventually. I hope it's soon.

    The GJ didn't vindicate anyone. They simply couldn't agree that there was enough evidence to require a trial - though lord knows why.

    Loving people do become brutal murderers. Happens every day of the week.

    You actually believe the perp had her confidence enough to sit and eat pineapple with her, but later still needed to use a stun gun? You actually believe the perp took the time to sit and eat pineapple? Why do IDIs refuse to face the fact that JB wasn't asleep when she got home from the White's part? She sat and ate pineapple with her family.

    IMO JMK only knows what Michael Tracey fed him. This in now the third time Tracey has fingered the wrong man in this case.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4
    I disagree with you. You'll never convince me that a family member killed JonBenet. Even Linda Arndt believes it's not John or Patsy. Read her book. Of all the people I've talked to and the websites I've visited,I would say that 95% agree with me. Show me the PROOF that Patsy did it and I might believe you, but until then, forget it. Take a look at the results of the grand jury too. They DID agree that Patsy didn't do it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    11

    No!

    Patsy absolutely did not do this terrible thing. There certainly was evidence of an intruder, including unknown DNA under JonBenet's fingernails and in her underwear, stun gun marks on her body and signs of a break-in in the basement.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,399
    Patsy Ramsey is still a suspect in her daughter's murder to this day. Neither she nor her husband John were cleared or vindicated.

    The DNA under JonBenet's fingernails could have been there for days. Patsy said she didn't recall JonBenet having a bath that day, and she also said JonBenet wasn't that interested in washing her hands. DNA under JB's nails is not proof of an intruder. That sample of DNA has NOT been matched to the underwear DNA. It's missing too many markers to be conclusively matched to anything or anyone.

    The DNA in her undies was most likely there before they were ever even taken out of the package. The underwear DNA was fragmented and degraded, whereas JB's was fresh and complete. Obviously the DNA was not deposited at the same time as JB's, or it would have been as fresh and complete as hers. Those undies were brand new and had never been washed - Dr Henry Lee obtained identical packages of underwear and tested them brand new and unwashed out of the package, and guess what - he found DNA on them.

    No one has been able to conclusively prove that those marks on JonBenet were made by a stun gun, and until they can prove it, we don't know that they made by a stun gun. Those marks were abrasions, not burns. Stun guns leave burns.

    What signs of a break in? There was an intact spider web spanning the window that was purported to be the entrance, and there is absolutely no forensic evidence on that window - which measures 18 X 30 inches.

    You mean the footprint? There's absolutely no way to date that print. It could have been there for months or years before JonBenet was murdered.

    Proof Patsy did? How about the fibers from the jacket she wore that evening being found in the paint tray the paintbrush used in the garotte came from, as well, as on the back of the tape over JonBent's motuh (tape that showed no signs of being on her face while she was still alive), and TIED into the knot of the cord strangling her? How about the fact that she could never be excluded as author of the RN, even by experts hired by the Rs themselves?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,399
    You have to understand that the GJ was being led by Ramsey-friendly DA Alex Hunter. Try and tell me he didn't sway the opinion in Ramsey favor. And some of the jurors went into the case already of the opinion that a parent couldn't do this to their child. Hardly a fair and impartial juror. Parents do things like this to their own children every day.

    They didn't even hear testimony from the parents of the murdered child (who were home when she was murdered) or from the lead detective on the case. That's just ridiculous and shoddy investigating, in my opinion.

    They were still waiting for some evidence when they made their decision not to indict - and deciding not to indict DOES NOT meant he Ramseys were cleared or vindicated whatsoever - it means the GJ didn't see enough cause to indict. I don't know how they came to that decision with the fiber evidence placing both John and Patsy in the crime scene, but with Hunter's guidance, they did.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    752
    Nuisance, your posts make a heckuva lot of sense! I think had you been the DA in Boulder when this went down, there would be 2 rather prominent citizens sitting behind bars right now (well, one, since the other recently passed away).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,399
    Thanks. I'd have ruthlessly thorough, and you can bet both the Rs and Detective Thomas would have been questioned extensively.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    245
    evidence against patsy:
    -her handwriting show similarities with that of the ranson note.
    -fibres consistent with her clothing were on the duct tape, the rope that strangled her etc.
    -the bowl of pineapple on the table had only her and burke's prints on it.
    -she woke up in the same clothes the next morning, which was very unlike her.
    - in general, the ramsey's were uncooperative with the police.

    there is also the issue that the Ramsey's wanted to flee immediately after there daughter was found.
    John & Patsy didnt seem to notice the deadline had passed and no "kidnapper" had called.
    Fleet white looked into the room where JB's body was in quite the same manner John did and saw nothing
    the ransom note was supposedly found on the stairs that Patsy came down every morning although there was other ways of going downstairs.

    One must also consider the fact that anyone who entered that house said it was hard to find your way around. The police couldn't even find the lightswitch for the basement. Unlikely a perp would find his way around easily without waking anyone up.

    there is even more evidence against the Ramsey than this and there are holes all over the intruder story such as:

    the stun gun cannot be proven
    the boot print has been said to belong to burke and the handprint on the door has been identified
    it has been provent that underwear fresh out the package can have dna material on it
    I have also heard the foreign pubic hair might be animal hair
    if you discount the dna and stun gun, your left with the fact that the intruder left virtually no trace of himself/herself even though he/she had to enter from a window in the basement, go upstairs, get JB out of bed without make too much noise, feed her pineapple, brutally murder her and possibly write the ransom note....

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    167
    Even though this is my first post I am NOT associated with the Momster and loyalaways. They seem to be the SAME person! Funny how they both show up at the same time to defend the Ramsey's.

    Nobody will ever convince me that Patsy did not kill her own daughter!! Her handwriting is definately the same as the ramsom note. Not to mention all the other clues pointing to her.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    11
    We're not the same person, I swear! Is it so hard to believe there might be more than one person who feels -- just as strongly as you do!-- this way? I'm all for energetic debate, but the tone of a lot of these posts is very mean-spirited. Can you disagree and argue your point without sliding into nasty? Just askin'.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Daisy
    Nuisance, your posts make a heckuva lot of sense! I think had you been the DA in Boulder when this went down, there would be 2 rather prominent citizens sitting behind bars right now (well, one, since the other recently passed away).
    You bet! NP is one of the best-informed JBR case posters on the whole internet, and I'm convinced that someone like Mary Lacy doesn't know nearly as much about the case as NP, for otherwise Lacy would not have made a fool of herself with that Karr business.
    NP for example would never have jumped on the 'Karr is the killer' bandwagon like Lacy, but done his/her research first.
    NP can disprove - hands down - every claim brought forward by fervent IDIs, for (s)he has thoroughly studied the documented record.
    Thanks. I'd have ruthlessly thorough, and you can bet both the Rs and Detective Thomas would have been questioned extensively.
    I too would like to question ST extensively: on some points of his theory, for they never made sense to me.

    For example, ST actually thought that the garrote was "a terrible killing tool" used by Patsy Ramsey.
    But he never put it together with the head bash in terms of a time line.
    According to ST, the head bash came first. But if it was Patsy's final decision to finish JB off, why go to the trouble of constructing a 'garrote' to do that? Why not bash her on the head once more and it would all have been over?

    And in adition, this 'terrible killing tool' obviously did not function as such at all.
    A shoe-lace type knot was tied around JB's neck, and the remaining cord clumsily wrapped around the paintbrush stick. That was all. Pulling at the cord would not have had any effect at all. (see Delmar England's analysis of the so-called 'garrote' on the ACR site).
    Did ST realize that the so-called 'garrote' was a mere contraption, a red herring? I'm not sure about that.
    This is just one of several questions I'd like to ask ST.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by loyalalways
    . The person who did this is a very EVIL, very strong person with absolutely no compassion or heart. The grand jury were sickened by the autopsy pictures. They have vindicated ALL family members. Loving people don't just all of a sudden become brutal murderers.
    They can,esp. if they are mentally unstable.I posted earlier about acute decompensation.Also,we don't know what affect the experimental chemo had on her brain,as well as early meno from the surgery...tied in all together,it could have had a very bad effect,and as I posted b/f,mentally ill ppl tend to be very manipualtive when they want to get their way,so they can fake being normal a LOT of the time,esp when they need to.From their point of view...they have no choice but to do so.Considering the video of Christmas morning 'disappeared' and JR made excuses about that,I can't help but think PR may have appeared unstable in it.
    As far as EVIL...well, the R's have done NOTHING but lie and dishonor JB from the very first day of her murder.All they care about is their 'good name'.How cold is that...pretty icey to me.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. POLL--What do you think happened to Zach Marrs -POLL
    By CARIIS in forum The Poll Forum! Public Welcome To Participate
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-02-2017, 07:31 PM
  2. New Poll: The Chandelier poll
    By arielilane in forum Rebecca Zahau Nalepa
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 08-05-2013, 11:33 PM