1281 users online (258 members and 1023 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 87
  1. #1

    Are they innocent?

    Interestingly enough, this case was a topic at lunch today.

    The question was asked, do you think that there is a chance that John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey are innocent?

    I had to think about that. I can not state that they are 100% guilty. That said, is there any credible evidence that points to their innocence?

    The "foreign" DNA- no one knows if it is really foreign.
    The "Beaver" hairs could have come from Patsy's boots.

    Seriously, are there any CREDIBLE facts that point to their innocence?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by River
    Seriously, are there any CREDIBLE facts that point to their innocence?
    There is nothing that proves they are positively innocent of all aspects of the crime. If there was, they would have been cleared long ago.

    John, Patsy, and Burke will be the prime suspects in this case until they day they are lowered in the grave. And even then, people will continue to debate the case LONG after they're gone.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by River
    Seriously, are there any CREDIBLE facts that point to their innocence?

    Yes, there's credible handwriting examination evidence that neither John nor Patsy wrote the ransom note. And there's credible polygraph evidence that neither John nor Patsy killed JonBenet and that Patsy didn't write the ransom note.

    JMO

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Paducah, KY
    Posts
    13,815
    There is also credible evidence that the male DNA found under JonBenét's fingernails and in her panties, mixed with spots of her blood, belongs to an as yet unidentified intruder. It does not match John, Burke, JAR, or any extended family member.

    The male DNA was found in not just one spot of blood on her panty's crotch, but on two spots of her blood. The first spot's analysis did not produce enough of a band of DNA markers to submit to the FBI's CODIS databank, but the analysis of the second spot of blood did.

    There is also credible evidence that pairs of marks found on JonBenét's back and on the right side of her face were made by a stun gun. No stun gun was found on the premises, nor was any evidence found that the Ramseys had ever owned or been in possesion of a stun gun.

    There is also the fact there is no pathological or historical evidence to indicate the parents or Burke would have ever been involved in sexual assault or murder.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    753
    No. 1234567

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    The fur in her hands was never identified,fibers on her and her body weren't sourced to the house,and Patsy never owned beaver fur boots.
    A piece of the paintbrush was taken as a souvenir,along with the items he brought,tape and cord (typically sociopathic ,after all they were HIS).
    The door to the butler kitchen was ajar,there was a discarded baseball bat in the yard bearing fibers from the basement,footprints at the grated window as well as in the basement that ,regardless of speculation, have not been matched.
    The Ramseys were surrounded by odd,odd people,people, that most of us would shun out of pure fear ,they accepted into their lives. From the Santa,the Whites ,the photographers,to the fanatical Christian groupies,this naive family embraced them all.
    JMO

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,058

    The Score So Far

    Well let's see... So far only BrotherMoon and I are the only ones to post the correct answer.
    It seems BlueCrab, LovelyPigeon, and Sissi all failed to even understand the question.

    The question was: "are there any CREDIBLE facts that point to their innocence?"
    The answer can only be "NO", or the Ramseys would no longer be suspects in ANYBODY'S book.
    How interesting is it that so few people understand the meaning of the phrase "CREDIBLE facts"...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    The Ramseys were surrounded by odd,odd people,people, that most of us would shun out of pure fear ,they accepted into their lives. From the Santa,the Whites ,the photographers,to the fanatical Christian groupies,this naive family embraced them all.
    JMO
    If there is one thing the Ramseys AREN'T is naive
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    I would say it was naive in the same sense that Catholics sent their boys off to grade school not considering a church run by many "celibate" men could have "issues" with child safety.
    LHP was aware,she was not naive,she knew that children could not be raised in the style of the fifties ....talking to neighbors,strangers and being out of sight while freely playing away from the yard. She voiced her fears to Patsy.
    Trusting your new friends,your children's playmates parents,your clergy,your doctor,your neighbors or even your "santa" to spend unsupervised time alone with your child is naive in today's world IMO
    Last edited by sissi; 02-15-2004 at 03:29 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    I would say it was naive in the same sense that Catholics sent their boys off to grade school not considering a church run by many "celibate" men could have "issues" with child safety.
    LHP was aware,she was not naive,she knew that children could not be raised in the style of the fifties ....talking to neighbors,strangers and being out of sight while freely playing away from the yard. She voiced her fears to Patsy.
    Trusting your new friends,your children's playmates parents,your clergy,your doctor,your neighbors or even your "santa" to spend unsupervised time alone with your child is naive in today's world IMO
    I don't disagree with you sissi, in today's world, it is naive to think your children are safe the way we used to think so.

    Sooooo, after they moved to Atlanta, why do you think they continued to keep their doors unlocked, their alarms unarmed, and their GUN CABINET unlocked as well? Is it naivety or is it the knowledge that they knew they were safe from the foreign faction?
    This is my opinion only
    This post may not be copied to any other forum

    God Bless America


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by LovelyPigeon
    ...

    There is also credible evidence that pairs of marks found on JonBenét's back and on the right side of her face were made by a stun gun. No stun gun was found on the premises, nor was any evidence found that the Ramseys had ever owned or been in possesion of a stun gun...
    LP, I hate to differ with you but, I sincerely don't think the marks were made with a stun-gun.

    If you haven't done so already, please take a look at my link below. Even if you have seen my 'hand' pictures, look again...I have added some more photos that I think you need to see:

    http://www.geocities.com/wolfchick942003/photopage.html

    Please notice the green abrasion. Yes, I made it green, but that is not the point. The point is that no stun gun will make a pattern within an abrasion like the one you see in this photo . Plain and simple.

    If you can explain the distinct pattern with the 'stun gun' theory, please do so. If you cannot, then there was no stun gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by LovelyPigeon

    ...There is also the fact there is no pathological or historical evidence to indicate the parents or Burke would have ever been involved in sexual assault or murder.
    I am sorry, LP, but you seem far too educated and intelligent to make and believe a statement like this one. Would you like me to start naming names of parents who kill their kids with no previous 'historical evidence?' Why don't we start with Maryln Lemak and Susan Smith?

    I do agree with you that there was probably no sexual assault of either of the Ramsey children prior to this night. Molestation is something that occurs again and again and you are correct, the children display evidence of their assaults. Murder happens only once to a person, and hence, no 'historical evidence' is present...
    The above is my opinion only based on published accounts of the case.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Paducah, KY
    Posts
    13,815
    Wolfsmargirl, I wasn't familar with Maryln Lemak's case but it only took seconds with Google to find that she had been clinically depressed, on medication, her marriage a shambles, her friends aware of her husband's infidility, etc

    Susan Smith had a long sad history of emotional instability, a broken marriage, a boy friend who didn't want the responsibility of her children, ongoing incestual relationship with a stepfather, etc

    That isn't said as an excuse for either woman--neither had the right to kill their children out of revenge, desperation, or any other reason--but the pathology was there when each woman's life was examined.

    That pathology, that kind of history is not in the Ramsey's life.

    As for the stun gun theory, it has been scientifically demonstrated that marks like those found on the dead JonBenét can be reproduced on piglets by using a stun gun, then killing the piglets. The marks remain on the dead piglets, and are similar in size, distance apart, and coloration as those found on JBR's dead body.

    The pairs of marks on JonBenét are also similar in appearance to marks made by stun guns on other victims' dead bodies, from other cases.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Paducah, KY
    Posts
    13,815
    Here are some of my pages about stun gun marks--on JonBenét, and other cases. The photos are graphic, from autopsies. One page is my attempt to illustrate how stun gun marks can be made on skin, on how the measurements of those marks can vary.

    http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeo...mparisons.html
    http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeo..._distance.html
    http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeo...ustration.html
    http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeo..._prisoner.html

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by LovelyPigeon
    Wolfsmargirl, I wasn't familar with Maryln Lemak's case but it only took seconds with Google to find that she had been clinically depressed, on medication, her marriage a shambles, her friends aware of her husband's infidility, etc

    Susan Smith had a long sad history of emotional instability, a broken marriage, a boy friend who didn't want the responsibility of her children, ongoing incestual relationship with a stepfather, etc

    That isn't said as an excuse for either woman--neither had the right to kill their children out of revenge, desperation, or any other reason--but the pathology was there when each woman's life was examined.

    That pathology, that kind of history is not in the Ramsey's life.

    As for the stun gun theory, it has been scientifically demonstrated that marks like those found on the dead JonBenét can be reproduced on piglets by using a stun gun, then killing the piglets. The marks remain on the dead piglets, and are similar in size, distance apart, and coloration as those found on JBR's dead body.

    The pairs of marks on JonBenét are also similar in appearance to marks made by stun guns on other victims' dead bodies, from other cases.
    You are right, both of these women had a history of depression, etc, etc. However, neither one of them had a depressing past that included nearly-terminal cancer that could (and did) return at any time. We don't know about Patsy's inner-most thoughts. Some people do not seek treatment for depression until it is too late.

    A few of the reports about Lemak that I read tell about how she worked at the kids' school, was always pleasant and happy, etc. Previous to the husband's departure, this was a normal, well-adjusted woman. Even as soon as a week before the murders, she was volunteering at the school and showed no signs that this horrific plot was forming in her head. No one knew.

    Patsy had other stressors. I can only guess what they were beyond the cancer...I have a strange feeling that the older Ramsey children were not held as dearly by Patsy as we are made to believe, but that is just speculation and we can all speculate...

    Regarding the pig/stun gun tests: Yes, the marks on the pigs do look like the marks on JB's back. However, please explain to me how the ring marks on my hand look any less like the marks on JBR's back.

    My experiment was as scientific as the 'pig' experiment and both provide logical explanations for the abrasions. The difference is that most people do wear rings and most people do not carry stun guns.

    Another difference is that my theory explains exactly why the marks occur where they do, unlike the stun gun theory. In fact, an adult could probably not hold (in a rocking position) a small child without placing their fingers on those exact spots and at the same exact angle on the child's body. A stun gun can hit anywhere.

    If you have a small child, pick him or her up and try this. Try to rock the child on her back and kind of facing you. Where do your hands end up? On the child's back, where would two rings hit if they were on your middle and ring finger? Where is your other hand...On her cheek or on her neck? Check it out for yourself...It is amazing.

    Also, as I mentioned in my last post, a stun gun does not, can not, leave the pattern in the large abrasion on the cheek. See it? It looks like two eyes and a nose (that is how I saw it first). What part on a stun gun could leave such a mark?

    We know Patsy did and does wear rings. To me, it is clear that the pattern of one of her rings probably matches the pattern in the large abrasion. Look at my diagram in my link...

    No one who believes in the stun gun theory has been able to explain the pattern in the abrasion to me yet...Can you?
    The above is my opinion only based on published accounts of the case.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbara
    I don't disagree with you sissi, in today's world, it is naive to think your children are safe the way we used to think so.

    Sooooo, after they moved to Atlanta, why do you think they continued to keep their doors unlocked, their alarms unarmed, and their GUN CABINET unlocked as well? Is it naivety or is it the knowledge that they knew they were safe from the foreign faction?
    Okay,Barbara,if this is true,I do wonder why? Does anyone know the "story" behind this?
    JMO

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast