I believe the Ramseys are innocent.

New Posts

N

newtv

New Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
6,306
Reaction score
5
Website
eyewasmozart.typepad.com
I know a lot of people here believe they are guilty but I do not. Not even the evidence could support that-not even the DNA and they really tried hard to find a case against them. I respect those who think otherwise, but I will never buy the theory that the Ramsey's did this..jmo and I am not saying I am right-I am saying I dont see all the stuff that so many write about- if I wanted to find them guilty I could see things that way, but I have just never ever seen that as the case objectively..
 
newtv said:
I know a lot of people here believe they are guilty but I do not. Not even the evidence could support that-not even the DNA and they really tried hard to find a case against them. I respect those who think otherwise, but I will never buy the theory that the Ramsey's did this..jmo and I am not saying I am right-I am saying I dont see all the stuff that so many write about- if I wanted to find them guilty I could see things that way, but I have just never ever seen that as the case objectively..
Click to expand...

There's a difference in how people interpret the Ramsey case.

The police HAD to investigate the Ramseys - if only to eliminate them. However, the Ramseys closed ranks and negotiated those crucial police interview conditions for four months. Many saw this in itself as suspicious.

The police really had to work at investigating the Ramseys because unlike the parents of other murdered children, the Ramseys expresssed outrage
at the fact police were looking at them at all. Many people agree with the Ramseys and would see any police investigation as persecution. Others are simply bewildered at the Ramseys apparent lack of co-operation - did they not want to help the police to find the killer? If they had nothing to hide why not sit down and assist the police with their enquiries? I don't think anyone begrudged them their lawyers. Surely they could have participated in police interviews with their lawyers by their sides?
 
NewTV ,I believe they are innocent ,as well. The evidence ,so far,hasn't supported IMO anything other than an intruder scenario.
The Ramseys made themselves available,however,the BPD wanted all arrangements on their turf and on their terms,the Ramseys knowing they were innocent could only surmise from these behaviors that these interviews were designed to implicate them . Why participate when it was time wasted?
How horrible it must have been to KNOW they didn't care about you or your family,they only wanted to pin a crime,of which you were innocent,on you. If they had information leading to the killer,we now know it would have been "sat on" for at least a year,as was most information given to the BPD by others. NO,IMO it was an egotistical band of morons,blinded by their own "assumptions" who were unwilling to call in "real" law enforcement in time to solve a crime.
IMO
 
Although I think they are guilty, I can see how people could make a case for being on the fence. However I find it hard to see how anyone could be completely convinced of their innocence - I think there's way too much stuff pointing in their direction for anyone to be really sure none of the Ramseys were involved.
 
Patsy wrote the RN ----thats the only reason I believe, that Ramsey's were in on the cover up, Or maybe just Patsy ... I believe John is innocent. :angel:


SisterSocks
 
BrotherMoon said:
You all must have very supple spines, bend, fold, insert.
Click to expand...



We are just not obessed with "The Prime of Jean Miss Brodie"

Also, we don't use "Miss Jean Brodie" for Prime clues to the death of Jon Benet. Yanno?:snooty:



SisterSocks
 
SisterSocks said:
Patsy wrote the RN ----thats the only reason I believe, that Ramsey's were in on the cover up, Or maybe just Patsy ... I believe John is innocent. :angel:


SisterSocks
Click to expand...


I agree with you ...That is the ONLY evidence I have seen at this time...And that is not 100% conclusive by any means... :rolleyes:
 
I don't think they did it.

On a personal level I think they are strange people. Child pageants creep me out. John Ramsey sure is having a hard time finding work, sad if he is innocent.
 
LinnieB said:
I agree with you ...That is the ONLY evidence I have seen at this time...And that is not 100% conclusive by any means... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


It is the only evidence I can see ----

SisterSocks
 
Britt said:
Then why did they hide from the police?
Click to expand...
They didn't.
The BPD refused to meet with them.
They were at the time meeting with other law enforcement investigators; it was not only the BPD who did not want a meeting to take place. The Ramsey lawyers did not want one, but were repeatedly instructed by their clients to arange a meeting.
During this time, Patsy Ramsey even directly telephoned the BPD but they would not speak to her.
 
IMO Burke did it or knows who did it and the parents are covering it up.

There are numerous items of evidence that point in this direction, starting with the 911 call. Their lies started early on the morning of the 26th at a time when the absolute truth about everything was critical if JonBenet was to be saved from a kidnapper. Instead, the enhanced 911 tape proves beyond a reasonable doubt that all three Ramseys -- John, Patsy, and Burke -- lied to the police in an attempt to distant Burke from the crime scene.

Burke was not in bed and, judging from the conversation between him and his dad, he had been up for quite awhile prior to the 911 call, and so had the parents. Why lie as early as the 911 call if they didn't already know JonBenet wasn't just missing -- she was dead?

JMO
 
I decided to haul out my broken record and play it again...

I think the single most catastrophic mistake made by the BPD was their rough questioning of Melinda and JAR shortly after the murder. That set the tone for everything else. It played into what the lawyers were telling the Ramseys, it made John very unlikely to send Patsy who was still a basket case in to be browbeaten by the BPD and it made the Ramseys view the BPD as more interested in forcing people to say incriminating things about the Ramseys (and at that point, John) than they were in searching for the truth.

BPD would have gotten a lot further if they had treated the Ramseys as the Moxleys were treated or even as Susan Smith's sheriff treated her.
 
Jayelles said:
There's a difference in how people interpret the Ramsey case.

The police HAD to investigate the Ramseys - if only to eliminate them. However, the Ramseys closed ranks and negotiated those crucial police interview conditions for four months. Many saw this in itself as suspicious.

The police really had to work at investigating the Ramseys because unlike the parents of other murdered children, the Ramseys expresssed outrage
at the fact police were looking at them at all. Many people agree with the Ramseys and would see any police investigation as persecution. Others are simply bewildered at the Ramseys apparent lack of co-operation - did they not want to help the police to find the killer? If they had nothing to hide why not sit down and assist the police with their enquiries? I don't think anyone begrudged them their lawyers. Surely they could have participated in police interviews with their lawyers by their sides?
Click to expand...
You see even this theory is optional to believe- they may have closed ranks because they were being accused and became concerned- however- there is other information their lawyer offered about the interviews they gave and that this idea wasnt even true-I would be outraged too if I didnt have anything to do with it and also was willing to cooperate but started to get the impression nothing I was saying was being believed because police seemed to have it solved without investigating the intruder theory..
not being argumentative- but a grand jury didnt offer an indictment and they had the real goods on th e case- not the spin.
 
I agree, MysteryMomma, the Ramseys are definitely not the family next door.

I think there's a good chance that like the Van Damms, their personal foibles left the door open for someone to harm their child.
 
The thing that keeps me from considering the possibility either could be innocent is the virtually complete lack of evidence of an intruder.

Ah, the DNA? If it's not CODIS qualified, I don't think it would hold up in a court of law.
 
Maybe thats the case-but I do not see the beauty pageant thing as such an awful thing- many little girls go to them- I wouldnt send my kid but if she showed an interest I would have trouble saying no too- again I havent followed such things so its possible i am unaware-

my point is that its not a given that this leads to unseemly people coming into their lives-the van dams were swapping mates were they not?
Its just that some girls think of it as play and they want to play-I wouldnt judge them as more likely having contributed to her death just because of this..and I had never heard of anyone saying anything unkind about them in general..even the exwife couldnt imagine them doing this?
not arguing tex..just saying what comes to mind when i hear some of these arguments-It isnt necessarily cause-effect, else every kid who goes to the pagents would be in trouble..
I mean noone judges a parent as bad if they cater to their son or daughters interest in baseball or hockey and a lot of abusive things go on in sports..it seems to me that if a pedophile is anywhere in a crowd such things happen and its hit and miss as to where one is hanging out..
jmo - I am not right or anything- I truly have a lot of problems with how this whole case unfolded against them- I do not know them- I do not have any vested interest in the case (personal gain)..and I am a fairly wide thinker- it depends who is telling the story about a lot of these things- they successfully sued every tabloid and won- the grand jury didnt see that they had a case- (other than statistics-as we are usually killed by those close to us)..and its often said a grand jury will indite a ham sandwhich.
 
BlueCrab said:
IMO Burke did it or knows who did it and the parents are covering it up.

There are numerous items of evidence that point in this direction, starting with the 911 call. Their lies started early on the morning of the 26th at a time when the absolute truth about everything was critical if JonBenet was to be saved from a kidnapper. Instead, the enhanced 911 tape proves beyond a reasonable doubt that all three Ramseys -- John, Patsy, and Burke -- lied to the police in an attempt to distant Burke from the crime scene.

Burke was not in bed and, judging from the conversation between him and his dad, he had been up for quite awhile prior to the 911 call, and so had the parents. Why lie as early as the 911 call if they didn't already know JonBenet wasn't just missing -- she was dead?

JMO
Click to expand...
I especially do not see burke as being involved in anyway- he was cleared as were the other kids who had been visiting (and had left)..I truly believe the detective who worked on the case free of charge-it was an intruder and there was evidence to support it- he is a very experienced guy on these matters and showed the scenario he believed which made sense- it isnt what happens everyday with everyone but I believe it happened here
 
newtv said:
I especially do not see burke as being involved in anyway- he was cleared...
Click to expand...

Burke was never "cleared" - read the statement from D.A. Hunter closely.
Nobody who was, or could have been, in the house that night has been "cleared".

I think your lack of in-depth knowledge about this case is what causes you to think they are innocent. When you learn the real details of the case your opinion may change like most people's does.

Start with the link below. As soon as you realize that NO STRANGER could possibly have written the ransom note and matched so many of Patsy Ramsey's handwriting exemplars, you're on your way to the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 172 more.
Total: 4,044 (members: 173, guests: 3,871)

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
3,871
Total visitors
4,044
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,657
Messages
17,957,067
Members
228,579
Latest member
rodrigokurita
Back
Top