1091 users online (213 members and 878 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,949

    Beyond my understanding

    Let's say that the Ramsey's are innocent like they claim and all they wanted was to find their daughter's killer.

    Now,it's obvious that if there was prior abuse then the "intruder" was the one responsible,agreed?Whether he killed her to silence her or it was another sex game gone wrong,it happened before so it's clear she KNEW her abuser.

    What I will never get is..................why this reaction?(and this is ONLY one example re this topic)


    2000 March 27 Larry King Live
    Interview with John and Patsy Ramsey

    Larry King: If it was a pedophile, was your daughter sexually abused?

    Patsy Ramsey: I don't believe there is conclusive evidence of that.

    John Ramsey: We don't know.

    KING: Have you talked to them about -- do they send you the autopsy reports?

    John Ramsey: No, no.

    Patsy Ramsey: No.

    John Ramsey: We've -- the police have not talked to us at all. We don't know what's been done.

    Larry King: Well, they have questioned you, right?

    John Ramsey: They have questioned us extensively.

    Larry King: But they haven't told you anything about -- you have not seen the death certificate?

    John Ramsey: No.

    Patsy Ramsey: No.

    Larry King: You don't know how your daughter died?

    Patsy Ramsey: Well, we do.

    John Ramsey: We do.

    Patsy Ramsey: From what we...

    John Ramsey: She was strangled.

    Larry King: That's the cause of death, strangulation?

    John Ramsey: That's the cause of death.

    Larry King: But you don't know if any sexual activity took place?

    John Ramsey: It's not clear to me that there was. We don't know. It's one of those questions you don't want to know the answer to, frankly.



    Why deny prior abuse????It's key in finding out who killed JB IF IDI.Start with who was molesting her,who had access to her before her murder.
    Why is JR saying he doesn't even wanna know the answer to it,he contradicts himself again though,first he says NO,she WASN'T abused before.

    How does he know?Is this a normal reaction when someone tells you your daughter has been previously assaulted?Instead of oh my God,it's NO,it didn't happen?WTH?
    Why to they deny this if it's KEY in finding the killer?
    Why did they always ignore this topic?Why do they narrow the suspect list by doing this?


    Please IDI's,enlighten me.
    Ramsey case: "Instead of being the DNA of one person, they have instead created a composite of someone who does not exist. "

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,949
    Let's forget about PRIOR abuse.....let's talk about the sexual assault that happened that night.

    Why deny THAT FGS???

    Instead of saying....oh my,well there's the evidence that it wasn't us but a pedo,she was sexually assaulted,that's the motive.

    Nooooooooooooooooo,they say she wasn't abused,not even THAT night.


    So much for respecting your dead daughter eh?

    Ramsey case: "Instead of being the DNA of one person, they have instead created a composite of someone who does not exist. "

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    240
    Yeah, brush it under the carpet

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    Really hinky, Madeleine, I agree.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    Let's say that the Ramsey's are innocent like they claim and all they wanted was to find their daughter's killer.

    Now,it's obvious that if there was prior abuse then the "intruder" was the one responsible,agreed?Whether he killed her to silence her or it was another sex game gone wrong,it happened before so it's clear she KNEW her abuser.

    Why deny prior abuse????It's key in finding out who killed JB IF IDI.Start with who was molesting her,who had access to her before her murder.
    Why is JR saying he doesn't even wanna know the answer to it,he contradicts himself again though,first he says NO,she WASN'T abused before.

    How does he know?Is this a normal reaction when someone tells you your daughter has been previously assaulted?Instead of oh my God,it's NO,it didn't happen?WTH?
    Why to they deny this if it's KEY in finding the killer?
    Why did they always ignore this topic?Why do they narrow the suspect list by doing this?


    Please IDI's,enlighten me.
    madeleine, I've been asking that question for years.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    122
    Excellent post, Madeleine...what infuriates me is this: IDI keep going on and on about the DNA...fair enough..I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say it MAY have been from the killer..but there is ALWAYS the possibilty of secondary transfer-like it or not...so with the DNA , its maybe yes maybe no...

    HOWEVER, THERE ARE SO MANY STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS RELATED TO THE RAMSEYS THAT ARE VERY CONTRADICTORY TO SAY THE LEAST...THE ABOVE YOU GAVE IS JUST AN EXAMPLE.... THERE'S NO ANDS IFS OR BUTS....THERE IS NO CHANCE OF "SECONDARY TRANSFER" OF THESES STATEMENTS...THERE IS NO CHANCE OF MISINTERPRETATION REGARDING THESE STATEMENTS...THE ABOVE IS AN EXAMPLE OF PARENTS WHO ARE NOT KEEN TO PICK UP ON CLUES LEFT BEHIND TO FIND THEIR DAUGHTER'S KILLER...IS THIS NORMAL BEHAVIOUR?? NO!!

    SO IDI...WHY CANT YOU ACCEPT THAT ??WHY DO YOU KEEP ON BRINGING THE DNA EVERY MINUTE..IS THAT THE SOLE WAY TO SOLVE CRIMES???NO...NO ..NO
    IT MAY BE IN CERTAIN CRIMES, BUT NOT THIS ONE...
    WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND ?? WHY???
    WHEN THE ANSWER IS BLATANTLY STARING AT YOU IN THE FACE???!!
    "To do is to be"-Nietzsche
    "To be is to do"-Kant
    "Do be do do be do"- Sinatra
    Only your song matters in the end..

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    Well, she was only a little bit molested...

    The other thing is that they have essentially ignored any publication which has discussed the sexual abuse aspect of the case while suing publishers and writers who actually made much less disturbing suggestions....

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,949
    This + their lawyers not wanting tests to be done says it ALL.

    Prior abuse is KEY in this case IMO and it's exactly why they avoiding the subject....they not only avoid it,they always FOUGHT it.
    Ramsey case: "Instead of being the DNA of one person, they have instead created a composite of someone who does not exist. "

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,949
    Quote Originally Posted by redeemed View Post
    Excellent post, Madeleine...what infuriates me is this: IDI keep going on and on about the DNA...fair enough..I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say it MAY have been from the killer..but there is ALWAYS the possibilty of secondary transfer-like it or not...so with the DNA , its maybe yes maybe no...

    HOWEVER, THERE ARE SO MANY STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS RELATED TO THE RAMSEYS THAT ARE VERY CONTRADICTORY TO SAY THE LEAST...THE ABOVE YOU GAVE IS JUST AN EXAMPLE.... THERE'S NO ANDS IFS OR BUTS....THERE IS NO CHANCE OF "SECONDARY TRANSFER" OF THESES STATEMENTS...THERE IS NO CHANCE OF MISINTERPRETATION REGARDING THESE STATEMENTS...THE ABOVE IS AN EXAMPLE OF PARENTS WHO ARE NOT KEEN TO PICK UP ON CLUES LEFT BEHIND TO FIND THEIR DAUGHTER'S KILLER...IS THIS NORMAL BEHAVIOUR?? NO!!

    SO IDI...WHY CANT YOU ACCEPT THAT ??WHY DO YOU KEEP ON BRINGING THE DNA EVERY MINUTE..IS THAT THE SOLE WAY TO SOLVE CRIMES???NO...NO ..NO
    IT MAY BE IN CERTAIN CRIMES, BUT NOT THIS ONE...
    WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND ?? WHY???
    WHEN THE ANSWER IS BLATANTLY STARING AT YOU IN THE FACE???!!
    Because they don't care about catching their "intruder" or finding out who he is and why he did it,they care about supporting the Ramsey's "innocence" and spinning things in the Ramsey's favour.This is what most IDI's are about.
    Ramsey case: "Instead of being the DNA of one person, they have instead created a composite of someone who does not exist. "

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    Well, she was only a little bit molested...

    The other thing is that they have essentially ignored any publication which has discussed the sexual abuse aspect of the case while suing publishers and writers who actually made much less disturbing suggestions....
    my opinion is they never wanted to talk about sexual abuse. because they were afraid where it might point.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    I've a feeling there's a LOT of evidence of sexual abuse by an R that we're not able to see.Things that suggest this are JR trying to account for his underwear fibers near JB's bed (in DOI),and what exactly were the stains on the pieces of carpet they removed?
    Other things like needing probable cause to search JR's computers for child porn,and Patsy stating LE thought they were using JB as a sub. for herself (WHY did they think this? This idea was obv. not without merit)...the list goes on.
    Last edited by JMO8778; 10-25-2009 at 10:40 PM.
    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

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    122
    For some strange reason, no IDI has replied to this thread ...I can only assume that they haven't noticed it yet...(hint hint)....
    sometimes i get the feeling that (ok , not all of them, but atleast one of IDI) has realised a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago that his/her theory is not quite right, but keeps going on just because its too embarassing to back off and admit that there are loose ends in their theory...
    maybe some keep on posting just for the sake of posting and keeping the debate alive!!! surely, if we all agreed that RDI, then this forum would become too bland, right??!! haha...
    "To do is to be"-Nietzsche
    "To be is to do"-Kant
    "Do be do do be do"- Sinatra
    Only your song matters in the end..

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,949
    Quote Originally Posted by BRDotson View Post
    my opinion is they never wanted to talk about sexual abuse. because they were afraid where it might point.
    Exactly.
    They explained PR's red fibers away but never a word about JR's fibers in JB's PANTIES!

    And I soooooooo wonder why :

    "Team Ramsey wanted their experts present for any DNA testing,serology,and swab splitting,among other things." (ST,pg 147)

    LOL wink wink:

    "The defense attorneys agreed to allow their clients to be called suspects for that one specific purpose." (must have been very important to them to get into the labs eh?and you still want me to trust lacy's DNA???)
    But

    "Finally,the no-nonsense director of the CBI,Carl Whiteside,stomped on them.He pointed out that there were no charged defendants in the Ramsey homicide,and until someone was charged,no defense representatives would be allowed in his CBI lab for evidence testing"


    One of the few characters with b&lls in this case!
    Last edited by madeleine; 10-26-2009 at 04:00 AM.
    Ramsey case: "Instead of being the DNA of one person, they have instead created a composite of someone who does not exist. "

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,949
    Quote Originally Posted by JMO8778 View Post
    I've a feeling there's a LOT of evidence of sexual abuse by an R that we're not able to see.Things that suggest this are JR trying to account for his underwear fibers near JB's bed (in DOI),and what exactly were the stains on the pieces of carpet they removed?
    Other things like needing probable cause to search JR's computers for child porn,and Patsy stating LE thought they were using JB as a sub. for herself (WHY did they think this? This idea was obv. not without merit)...the list goes on.
    ITA.

    "John Meyer ,the Boulder County coroner,had barely begun his autopsy findings before Lee questioned the urine stains found on the crotch of the long-john pants and the panties beneath them.Were there corresponding stains on the bed sheets?We didn't know,although when the crime became a murder instead of a kidnapping,those sheets should have been promptly collected for testing" (ST,pg 166)


    Please don't tell me they didn't test those sheets for sperm and stuff.
    And interesting question re the corresponding stains.Would have told us if she wet the bed THAT night.
    Ramsey case: "Instead of being the DNA of one person, they have instead created a composite of someone who does not exist. "

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    12,914
    Quote Originally Posted by redeemed View Post
    For some strange reason, no IDI has replied to this thread ...I can only assume that they haven't noticed it yet...(hint hint)....
    This is a subject they prefer not to touch. Can't think why...
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Understanding the Anthony family
    By Gram2 in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 11-13-2008, 01:29 AM