Members' Theories

ILikeToBendPages · Jun 11, 2012

tyroneous1 said:
So how do you all explain the foreign DNA on JBR? How do you explain the intricate knot used? Those are 2 overwhelming pieces of tangible evidence that blow a whole in whatever "gut feeling " idea you guys might have. I think its sad that even after death and a Boulder press conference clearing the R's that they can't get some compassion and open-minded support. The EVIDENCE points to a monster from outside the family.

John Ramsey had been in the Navy and the Ramsey's had two boats. I'm sure John had more than a rudimentary knowledge of knots.

tyroneous1 · Jun 12, 2012

I think it is fitting that Lindy Chamberlain was cleared today. There is much.similarity. between her witch hunters and the evidence naysayers in JBRs case. I think one who attributes foreign male DNA from the same individual found on a little girl's thighs and pelvis to the clothing inspector who manufacturered her pajamas is the equivalent of someone who can't discern between a metal protective spray and human blood. You guys really should be ashamed of yourself and your callousness.

sandover · Jun 12, 2012

tyroneous1 said:
I think it is fitting that Lindy Chamberlain was cleared today. There is much.similarity. between her witch hunters and the evidence naysayers in JBRs case. I think one who attributes foreign male DNA from the same individual found on a little girl's thighs and pelvis to the clothing inspector who manufacturered her pajamas is the equivalent of someone who can't discern between a metal protective spray and human blood. You guys really should be ashamed of yourself and your callousness.

There is a difference between unidentified DNA that was found in astonishingly small amounts given the brutal nature of the crime of the murder of JB and the overwhelming nature of evidence suggesting irrefutably that a dingo was responsible in the LC case.

tyroneous1 · Jun 12, 2012

Same male DNA on different points on private part anatomy??? The truth is I started reading this forum because I was interested in actual member theories. Damn shame it will take nothing less than a substantiated confession to remove suspicion from the Ramsey family. I'm afraid.to ask.but do you guys think we really landed on the moon???

eileenhawkeye · Jun 12, 2012

tyroneous1 said:
Same male DNA on different points on private part anatomy??? The truth is I started reading this forum because I was interested in actual member theories. Damn shame it will take nothing less than a substantiated confession to remove suspicion from the Ramsey family. I'm afraid.to ask.but do you guys think we really landed on the moon???

Nope. The moon landing was filmed on a soundstage in Nevada, near Area 51, directed by Stanley Kubrick.

DeeDee249 · Jun 12, 2012

tyroneous1 said:
I think it is fitting that Lindy Chamberlain was cleared today. There is much.similarity. between her witch hunters and the evidence naysayers in JBRs case. I think one who attributes foreign male DNA from the same individual found on a little girl's thighs and pelvis to the clothing inspector who manufacturered her pajamas is the equivalent of someone who can't discern between a metal protective spray and human blood. You guys really should be ashamed of yourself and your callousness.

Not sure if you are referring to JB here, but there was NO male DNA found on her thighs and pubic area. Only her OWN blood was found there. Something penetrated her with enough force to cause that bleeding. There was NO male DNA found under her fingernails or anywhere else in or on her BODY. There was only male DNA found on the waistband of her panties, longjohns and inside the panty crotch. This DNA was NOT blood. The blood drops inside the panty crotch belonged ONLY to JB. The DNA was from another unnamed material.

DeeDee249 · Jun 12, 2012

tyroneous1 said:
Same male DNA on different points on private part anatomy??? The truth is I started reading this forum because I was interested in actual member theories. Damn shame it will take nothing less than a substantiated confession to remove suspicion from the Ramsey family. I'm afraid.to ask.but do you guys think we really landed on the moon???

Actually, all it will take is a suspect NAMED, IDENTIFIED and arrested who is not a Ramsey to remove suspicion. And I will be very happy if that happened. You see, none of us WANTS it to be the parents or any family member. I feel horrible that the last face JB saw was the face of someone she loved and who she thought loved her.
But until that "someone" is identified, all we can do is continue to suspect everyone who was in the house at the time of her death.

As for the moon landing- that was actually nothing more than a hologram, wasn't it? Speaking as someone who LOVES "Ancient Aliens", the moon seems rather mundane to me. I'd say we should go "home" to the Pleiades.

wonderllama · Jun 13, 2012

tyroneous1 said:
I think it is fitting that Lindy Chamberlain was cleared today. There is much.similarity. between her witch hunters and the evidence naysayers in JBRs case. I think one who attributes foreign male DNA from the same individual found on a little girl's thighs and pelvis to the clothing inspector who manufacturered her pajamas is the equivalent of someone who can't discern between a metal protective spray and human blood. You guys really should be ashamed of yourself and your callousness.

Actually, Lindy Chamberlain was cleared in 1987.
The goings on in the case this week were relating to a dingo officially being blamed for the death of Azaria Chamberlain.

Also, there are marked difference between the two cases.
One had a body, one did not.
One was clearly involving a person/people, the other was not.
The evidence in the Azaria Chamberlain case was primitive by 1996+ standards, and she wasn't a suspect to begin with. It wasn't until a year or two later that questions began to pop up, all of which have been clinically disproved.

There are still many unanswered questions in the JBR case, many of which are open to interpretation. The evidence against the Chamberlains has been completely thrown out as the crap that it was.

So no, there aren't really similarities.
People who believe Lindy Chamberlain is still guilty are ignoring evidence disproved, the innocence of the lady, the 'guilt' of the dingo and are clearly basing their opinions on biases which are beyond reasoning.

The JBR case has never been to trial, the evidence can often be seen from several perspectives.....and.....most importantly.....nobody is attempting to resolve the case. The Chamberlains were relentless in their pursuit of the truth.

Writing a book with your opinion isn't relentless pursuing the truth. It's proclaiming your innocence. That is very different.

tyroneous1 · Jun 14, 2012

That is the.goofiest assessment of legal process I have ever read. Thank you for demonstrating your acumen. I will be sure.to remember when a grand jury convenes without substantial evidence to proceed in further investigation and prosecution that this is a mere formality for those with.their heads buried in the.sand. Along with the EVIDENCE of sexual trauma and foreign male DNA from the same person, the.tragic murder was obviously committed by a father with astounding foresight regarding future technology that would exonerate he and his wife in the eyes of those who CONTINUE to bring the killer to justice. Again, shame on you all for your hen house persecution of a.family who lost so much.in the most heinous of methods.

DeeDee249 · Jun 14, 2012

tyroneous1 said:
That is the.goofiest assessment of legal process I have ever read. Thank you for demonstrating your acumen. I will be sure.to remember when a grand jury convenes without substantial evidence to proceed in further investigation and prosecution that this is a mere formality for those with.their heads buried in the.sand. Along with the EVIDENCE of sexual trauma and foreign male DNA from the same person, the.tragic murder was obviously committed by a father with astounding foresight regarding future technology that would exonerate he and his wife in the eyes of those who CONTINUE to bring the killer to justice. Again, shame on you all for your hen house persecution of a.family who lost so much.in the most heinous of methods.

We have nothing to be ashamed of. But people who refuse for some inexplicable reason to believe that some parents can sexually abuse their kids (even NICE people, wealthy people) should be ashamed because their ignorance makes it possible for this kind of behavior to continue.
This family lost only what they themselves destroyed. They KNOW what happened that night, and their persistent refusal to be forthcoming is what has delayed justice for JB all these years. That, and the cowardice of a DA who caved to pressure from powerful friends of the Rs, as well as to his own failure to even attempt to bring this case to trial.
NOTHING links the sexual trauma to the foreign DNA. There was NO foreign DNA found in JB or on her body- only on her clothes. The sexual trauma was chronic- happened before that night, as well as that night. In order for that to have happened, someone had to have repeated, private access to JB, so it was certainly not an intruder. It was someone she knew. And once again, it has to point to someone BOTH in the family or inner circle, AND in the house that night. The only people who fit that criteria are her parents and brother(s). If there was another relative or close friend there that night, the parents chose not to disclose it. And that in itself is suspicious.

wonderllama · Jun 14, 2012

tyroneous1 said:
That is the.goofiest assessment of legal process I have ever read. Thank you for demonstrating your acumen. I will be sure.to remember when a grand jury convenes without substantial evidence to proceed in further investigation and prosecution that this is a mere formality for those with.their heads buried in the.sand. Along with the EVIDENCE of sexual trauma and foreign male DNA from the same person, the.tragic murder was obviously committed by a father with astounding foresight regarding future technology that would exonerate he and his wife in the eyes of those who CONTINUE to bring the killer to justice. Again, shame on you all for your hen house persecution of a.family who lost so much.in the most heinous of methods.

Hold on, what's goofy?
I'm simply telling you the facts. If you're not happy with them, that's not because they're goofy, it's because they don't suit your argument.

What IS goofy is your attempt to somehow mesh the processes in two different countries, of two completely different crimes with very different evidence together in a way that makes you think it somehow proves that the Ramsey's are innocent.

What IS goofy is the belief that an intruder had the ability to not shed a single bit of DNA on anything else in the entire house or leave any evidence of their presence in the house at all, except for 2 minuscule specks which were so small and incomplete that the person much have been dressed in a Radiation suit.

See tyroneous1, the point is, just because you don't like it, doesn't make it true. The people here have reached their positions after years and years of studying the available evidence. They haven't reached it because they want to harass innocent people.

Websleuths is ALL about getting justice for those who go without, and to think that this particular section of the forum is somehow baulking from this just to pick on some people for no reason, is both ignorant and short-sighted.

You are entitled to your views here, but waving your hands in front of you and having a bit of a tanty whilst belittling people who have concentrated on this case for so long does your position no good.

No good at all.

BBB167893 · Jun 18, 2012

tyroneous1 said:
So how do you all explain the foreign DNA on JBR?

Quite easily. If you knew how much foreign DNA you have on you at this moment, you'd probably freak out.

How do you explain the intricate knot used?

"Intricate" according to who? The GJ specialist stated publically that the knot was looked over by a knot expert, and anybody could have tied it.

I think its sad that even after death and a Boulder press conference clearing the R's that they can't get some compassion and open-minded support.

You're breaking my heart.

I don't speak for everybody, but as my old Pop used to say, "it's good to keep an open mind, just not so open that your brain falls out."

The EVIDENCE points to a monster from outside the family.

And just what EVIDENCE might that be?

BBB167893 · Jun 18, 2012

tyroneous1 said:
You guys really should be ashamed of yourself and your callousness.

I'm ashamed of myself for a lot of things. Pursuing justice isn't one of them.

BBB167893 · Jun 18, 2012

tyroneous1 said:
The truth is I started reading this forum because I was interested in actual member theories.

Fooled me.

Damn shame it will take nothing less than a substantiated confession to remove suspicion from the Ramsey family.

In some ways, I suppose it is a shame.

I'm afraid.to ask.but do you guys think we really landed on the moon???

I know some people I'd like to SEND there!

Flatlander · Jun 19, 2012

tyroneous1 said:
So how do you all explain the foreign DNA on JBR? How do you explain the intricate knot used? Those are 2 overwhelming pieces of tangible evidence that blow a whole in whatever "gut feeling " idea you guys might have. I think its sad that even after death and a Boulder press conference clearing the R's that they can't get some compassion and open-minded support. The EVIDENCE points to a monster from outside the family.

:what:
The intricate knot is likened to a lawnmower handle in it's effectiveness; virtually useless.

The DNA evidence on the Bloomies-12 is probably left over from a sneeze from a factory worker.

The overwhelming tangible evidence is the pineapple JB ingested, the Ransom Note, PR's fibers from her sweater found in the paint tote, ligature, duck tape. JR shirt fibers found in the crotch of JB's underwear. Just to name a few, we could go on and on.

But hey don't take my word for it.
Here is a very good source for looking at things objectionally:
http://www.acandyrose.com/delmarengland.htm

And Please do take the time to read about the garrote if you want to really look at the picture a little more clearly.

:waitasec:
I have just one question? What EVIDENCE do you have that points to a monster from outside the family? I'm very curious.

eileenhawkeye · Jun 19, 2012

One thing I've seen IDI's do is they will take a piece of evidence in the case that points to RDI, and use it as an example of how unusual and hinky this case is For example, I have seen IDI's say things like, "What's up with the pineapple in her stomach? Did she eat with her killer? This case is so weird!"

DeeDee249 · Jun 19, 2012

eileenhawkeye said:
One thing I've seen IDI's do is they will take a piece of evidence in the case that points to RDI, and use it as an example of how unusual and hinky this case is For example, I have seen IDI's say things like, "What's up with the pineapple in her stomach? Did she eat with her killer? This case is so weird!"

She likely DID eat pineapple with her killer. Of course- her killer lived in the house with her,,,

acmeintuitiveenergy · Jul 30, 2012

Simple, the son did it. The father covered it up. The mother wrote notes. Turn the son and you will get your answears from the father.

wonderllama · Jul 30, 2012

I'm starting to think that Acme there just about summed it up.
Assuming you don't believe in the Intruder Theory, it is now the only real theory that fits with the evidence.

Burke, then Patsy, then John.

John & Patsy said all along that they didn't kill their daughter, and they didn't, or at least not with a bash to the head.

I haven't read Kolar's book, it'll be some time before I do, but from the posts here it really does seem like Tricia said - all the pieces are coming together.

Kolar was very clear about avoiding conversations relating to Burke in the interview with Tricia and rightly so. No questions can be answered without him actually revealing his own personal theory, and that is clearly going to get him in to trouble.

UKGuy · Jul 30, 2012

wonderllama said:
I'm starting to think that Acme there just about summed it up.
Assuming you don't believe in the Intruder Theory, it is now the only real theory that fits with the evidence.

Burke, then Patsy, then John.

John & Patsy said all along that they didn't kill their daughter, and they didn't, or at least not with a bash to the head.

I haven't read Kolar's book, it'll be some time before I do, but from the posts here it really does seem like Tricia said - all the pieces are coming together.

Kolar was very clear about avoiding conversations relating to Burke in the interview with Tricia and rightly so. No questions can be answered without him actually revealing his own personal theory, and that is clearly going to get him in to trouble.

wonderllama,
Kolar might not have a theory. He might actually know with certainty who did it. He knows the law so just cannot name his suspect so to speak.

.

Members' Theories

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Registered Snoozer

New Member

Well-Known Member

Registered Snoozer

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Registered Snoozer

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics