Why would the Ramseys need to stage?

Why would theRamseys need to stage?


  • Total voters
    251
Fang, are you having fun? Because I most certainly am not.

In truth, I knew it was only a matter of time before that accusation was leveled my way.

I used to have the same problem.

The combination. I'm not being a wisea**, either.

Come on. Yes, I thought it was pretty cute.

The lack of proof is not a "problem." Unless you rely on it to explain this tragedy, then it is a problem. In reality, it is nothing. It is irrelevant and just a waste of time. I don't mean to be offensive. There is just nothing there that constitutes evidence, at all, in combo or any other way.
 
I cheated, although I have a good reason. Having been left out of the voting poll entirely, I needed to make a big splash with my opinion in other ways.

You were not "left out," Fang. I specfically said why there wasn't a "no" option. The only person leaving you out is YOU.

What I really believe? Honestly? Sometimes it helps to step back and gain a new perspective on something we've examined carefully for a while. What appears to be reasonable at one point may look less certain with a fresh look.

Don't I know it!

I cannot describe how utterly impossible it seems to me that this alleged staging had anything to do with wishing for a spectacular end to Joni's life.

Except that's what happened, Fang, just like I said on the thread where this post belongs. JB IS spectacular in death. It's almost 14 years later and she's STILL a household name! Can you honestly tell me that she'd be half as well-known if it HAD been entered into the tallybooks as an ordinary, hum-drum, run-of-the-mill, garden-variety domestic incident? Just answer me that one question.

It is repulsive to me and insulting to their family.

I find a lot of things repulsive and insulting about this case, quite frankly. But I keep going, no matter how much I hate it.
 
They feigned strangulation to promote her death as sensational; murdered spectacularly to ensure she got the kind of attention and fame in death that she deserved in life?

let's see. they thought she was dead, so they staged the strangulation to make her death appear spectacular? they really weren't so much afraid of going to jail as they were fearful Joni wouldn't attain celebrity status like Marilyn Monroe?
I cheated, although I have a good reason. Having been left out of the voting poll entirely, I needed to make a big splash with my opinion in other ways.

What I really believe? Honestly? Sometimes it helps to step back and gain a new perspective on something we've examined carefully for a while. What appears to be reasonable at one point may look less certain with a fresh look.

I cannot describe how utterly impossible it seems to me that this alleged staging had anything to do with wishing for a spectacular end to Joni's life. It is repulsive to me and insulting to their family.
 
Come on. Yes, I thought it was pretty cute.

I'm glad.

The lack of proof is not a "problem." Unless you rely on it to explain this tragedy, then it is a problem. In reality, it is nothing. It is irrelevant and just a waste of time. I don't mean to be offensive. There is just nothing there that constitutes evidence, at all, in combo or any other way.

How does that old saying go? "There is none so blind..?" And you got that from someone who knows what he's talking about. Frankly, if there was was nothing, I wouldn't believe it.
 
Come on. Yes, I thought it was pretty cute.

The lack of proof is not a "problem." Unless you rely on it to explain this tragedy, then it is a problem. In reality, it is nothing. It is irrelevant and just a waste of time. I don't mean to be offensive. There is just nothing there that constitutes evidence, at all, in combo or any other way.

Minimally cute.


Anyway....there is no concrete proof of an intruder either. The problem with any evidence in this case it is all seems to run into a brick wall at some point.
 
Let' say, Jon Benet Ramsey's body was found without the garotte.

Then all you have is a body with a bludgeon to the head.

The police are going to wonder why someone would kill a child with a one stroke hit rather than with a knife or several blows.

The Ramsey's could not simply leave the body this way.
 
Let' say, Jon Benet Ramsey's body was found without the garotte.

Then all you have is a body with a bludgeon to the head.

The police are going to wonder why someone would kill a child with a one stroke hit rather than with a knife or several blows.

The Ramsey's could not simply leave the body this way.

Actually- you wouldn't have even known about the bludgeon to the head. There were no visible indications at all. Even the coroner was surprised to find the skull fracture when he performed the autopsy. He pulled back the scalp for the routine examination of the brain and that's when he saw it.
The police wouldn't even have known about it until the autopsy, so any LE there that day was unaware of the head bash.
 
=SuperDave;5303963]
Except that's what happened, Fang, just like I said on the thread where this post belongs. JB IS spectacular in death. It's almost 14 years later and she's STILL a household name! Can you honestly tell me that she'd be half as well-known if it HAD been entered into the tallybooks as an ordinary, hum-drum, run-of-the-mill, garden-variety domestic incident? Just answer me that one question.

[And the price of tea in China?
It rained all day in Eastern Kentucky and Joe bought a raincoat the day before in Green Bay.]

That kind of logic is great for mystery writers. But, it is futile to make leaps and connections like that here when there is no evidence. One could devise countless theories based on the same types of "evidence" and arrive at a multitude of different outcomes. It does nothing to advance the case toward a viable conclusion.

It is not valid. It is not credible. It punishes further a tortured soul and his loved ones. It is grandiose speculation without substance.
 
Because they couldn't bear to look at it, is my view.

Then how were they capable of doing all the other horrible things only to cover up an accident.And again,the blood would have pointed even more to a brutal intruder killing.I still wonder about the "semen,no semen" issue.Wasn't Meyer able to tell the difference between smeared blood and semen,hard to believe.Maybe someone told him to leave that out of the report.And I am not talking about the blood in her vagina(which they first thought was semen) but about the findings on her thigh(where she was cleaned)
 
Let' say, Jon Benet Ramsey's body was found without the garotte.

Then all you have is a body with a bludgeon to the head.

AND sexually assaulted.Changes all.


Okay let's say for the sake of argument that the garrote is part of a staging.How can we know what they covered-up for anyway,was it the accidental head bash or the sexual assault?

What if it's the other way around.Her head was accidentally bashed during a sexual game and the garrote was an erotic device.

We just can't know what really happened there even if RDI,we will never know who did what.The evidence that is public doesn't tell us any of this.
 
Then how were they capable of doing all the other horrible things only to cover up an accident.And again,the blood would have pointed even more to a brutal intruder killing.I still wonder about the "semen,no semen" issue.Wasn't Meyer able to tell the difference between smeared blood and semen,hard to believe.Maybe someone told him to leave that out of the report.And I am not talking about the blood in her vagina(which they first thought was semen) but about the findings on her thigh(where she was cleaned)

There was no uncertainty about the blood/semen issue as far as Mayer was concerned. It was Arndt who falsely suggested that the smears on her thighs and pubic area that showed up under black light exam "could have been semen". She reported that back to her superiors before Mayer had even tested the swabs. This is exactly how so much misinformation gets out there and I STILL see it repeated that semen was found. The blood found INSIDE her vagina was never mistaken for semen, nor was it ever thought to BE semen. It was reported by Mayer as blood, which when seen in situ LOOKS like blood and does not look like semen. As for the external area that was wiped- it was the dark (blue?) fibers found there that led Mayer to conclude that "the area is consistent with having been wiped by a cloth" (his words). The reason the black light (fluoroscope testing) was done in that area was because of that, beside it is standard procedure in cases of suspected sexual assault.
 
There was no uncertainty about the blood/semen issue as far as Mayer was concerned. It was Arndt who falsely suggested that the smears on her thighs and pubic area that showed up under black light exam "could have been semen". She reported that back to her superiors before Mayer had even tested the swabs. This is exactly how so much misinformation gets out there and I STILL see it repeated that semen was found. The blood found INSIDE her vagina was never mistaken for semen, nor was it ever thought to BE semen. It was reported by Mayer as blood, which when seen in situ LOOKS like blood and does not look like semen. As for the external area that was wiped- it was the dark (blue?) fibers found there that led Mayer to conclude that "the area is consistent with having been wiped by a cloth" (his words). The reason the black light (fluoroscope testing) was done in that area was because of that, beside it is standard procedure in cases of suspected sexual assault.

Ok, so wouldn't LE also know a little bit about this? Why would they use the black light to find out if there was semen if it doesn't work? They used the black light, found semen, then found out it wasn't semen. Explanation?
 
Ok, so wouldn't LE also know a little bit about this? Why would they use the black light to find out if there was semen if it doesn't work? They used the black light, found semen, then found out it wasn't semen. Explanation?
Many body fluids can be detected using alternate light sources, examples include semen, saliva, blood, urine, and vaginal secretions
Alternate light analysis is not intended to be used as a means of determining the source of the fluorescence. It is intended to be a quick way of spotting areas that should then be subjected to further presumptive tests that will identify the source.
 
Ok, so wouldn't LE also know a little bit about this? Why would they use the black light to find out if there was semen if it doesn't work? They used the black light, found semen, then found out it wasn't semen. Explanation?

Bias perhaps? I mean, we know there was at least one investigator who was biased.
 
Minimally cute.


Anyway....there is no concrete proof of an intruder either. The problem with any evidence in this case it is all seems to run into a brick wall at some point.


Joni was dead. Unknown male DNA found on her clothing where it did not belong. Proof.

And let's be fair. Based on the volume of speculation which often evolved into some contorted form of unconfirmed truth, they were convicted of this murder hundreds of thousands of times in books, tabloid garbage, mainline media, television, broadcast and transmitted, magazines, internet, etc.
 
Sorry- the unknown male DNA may not belong to an intruder. We've gone 'round on this point before. It's not proof. IF and WHEN that DNA is sourced to a donor who wasn't a male party guest (possibly even a child at the time), then - proof.
 
Sorry- the unknown male DNA may not belong to an intruder. We've gone 'round on this point before. It's not proof. IF and WHEN that DNA is sourced to a donor who wasn't a male party guest (possibly even a child at the time), then - proof.

I believe this explanation works on hand DNA, fingernail DNA, or face DNA, but I feel we're forgetting that this DNA was found in the inside crotch of JBR's underwear, an item known to be handled by a criminal.
 
Sorry- the unknown male DNA may not belong to an intruder. We've gone 'round on this point before. It's not proof. IF and WHEN that DNA is sourced to a donor who wasn't a male party guest (possibly even a child at the time), then - proof.

Plenty to satisfy a judge and a jury.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
145
Guests online
950
Total visitors
1,095

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,838
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top