Are the Ramseys involved or not?

Are the Ramseys involved or not?

  • The Ramseys are somehow involved in the crime and/or cover-up

    Votes: 883 75.3%
  • The Ramseys are not involved at all in the crime or cover-up

    Votes: 291 24.8%

  • Total voters
    1,173
Status
Not open for further replies.
However, in the recent case of Lisa Irwin, I believe that she was killed by a family member in a fit of rage, just like JonBenet. Unlike JonBenet, I think the parent(s) disposed of Lisa's body outside. So if the Irwins are guilty, then my theory about why the Ramseys didn't get rid of the body doesn't hold up as much.

Possibly, eileen. But as I've said alot lately, I think killer parents have learned from the Ramseys' mistakes and will get rid of it if they can.

So now I am leaning more to the idea that appearence-obsessed Patsy didn't want JonBenet's body out there in the Colorado wilderness because she didn't want her "beauty queen" to be exposed to the elements.

That fits with what people who worked on the case have said. (And I'm talking WORK, not grinning mindlessly with a thumb up their butt waiting for a forensic match that will never come.)

I also think it's possible that Patsy knew they would get away with it because they were wealthy so there was no point in her disposing of JonBenet's body. With Lisa's parents, they may have thought that the only way they would get away with it is if the evidence from her body was eliminated.

There's an idea.
 
what? They couldn't deal with the above but they could deal with garrotting her, sexually abusing her, using a paint brush to abuse her, bashing her head in, strangling her and tying her up?!!

Just WHAT is so hard to figure about that, FairM? It's not like we haven't spoken about this.

I've heard this argument many times from IDI, and it just doesn't work for me. I'd be happy to tell you why.
 
I don't know but I'd say being sexually molested might give a "blood curdling" scream "negative energy."
Several years ago I lived In Telluride and my brother lived in Boulder. Hearing people talk about "negative energy" in those towns is like hearing someone ask about the weather anywhere else. It would not be considered weird at all. There's still an element of hippie go la la.

Well Steve Thomas wasn't impressed with that comment as he dismissed her as a witness after it.
 
Just WHAT is so hard to figure about that, FairM? It's not like we haven't spoken about this.

I've heard this argument many times from IDI, and it just doesn't work for me. I'd be happy to tell you why.

I know we have and I have given it a great deal of thought but I just don't get it. I'm not trying to be awkward for the sake of it,perhaps I'm just too dumb:-(
 
I don't understand why people are still after the Ramseys on this case.

We've TRIED to explain it to you.

Most the "evidence" was made up and speculation.

Nonsense.

Once Lou Smit came in, that pretty much wrapped it up for me.

Then I'm afraid I can't help you. If you can't see what he did to this case when it's staring you right in the eye, I don't know what to do.

And frankly, I'm sure it wrapped it up for a lot of people. Shows how easily people are taken in by production values. I've heard people here refer to him as a legend. (Irish accent): Well, leprechauns are legends, too. And I don't believe in THEM, either.

But I believe with all my heart that the Ramseys are innocent and that they had their lives stolen from them by the corrupt/incompetent CO police and DA.

Frankly, you should be THANKING that incompetent/corrupt DA. It's BECAUSE of them that the Ramseys stayed out of prison!
 
Lou Smit let religion get in his way..man was not objective at all and invented the intruder evidence.

I actually made a LIST of the "evidence" he created out of thin air, Mikebr.
I was raised not to speak ill of the dead, but if the shoe fits (little pun there)...
 
I am always going to be in the parents camp until someone proves to me otherwise and as for Lou, Faith is a good thing. That is not something I would put as a strike against him.

Nor would we. Speaking for myself, his having faith is not the problem. Using it to determine guilt of innocence is the problem!
 
I know we have and I have given it a great deal of thought but I just don't get it. I'm not trying to be awkward for the sake of it, perhaps I'm just too dumb:-(

I'll keep my opinions on THAT to myself, for now.
 
this "witness" is hardly reliable having said that the scream she heard was the "negative" energy from JonBenet:sick:

She claimed to hear the actual scream first. Then (after the Rs lawyers likely got to her) that is when she changed it to "negative energy". She then moved away from Boulder (scary how much power over witnesses some defense lawyers have). But she ultimately did admit once again that she did, in fact, hear an actual scream.
 
It's been my opinion for some time that Burke killed his sister. I just reread the Bonita papers from acandyrose and noticed for the first time that there was a Swiss Army knife found on the floor of the wine cellar. Earlier in the paper, the maid commented that she was always having to pick up shavings from Burke's carving with a Swiss Army knife that his grandparents bought for him in Switzerland. Granted there are millions of the knives but there was 1 person in the home who carried it with him all the time. Plus his disconnected attitude toward what happened to his sister and his lack of emotion while talking to the therapist also make me suspicious. The fact that Jonbenet apparently suffered from repeated digital intercourse lead me to believe that she was the patient to Burke's doctor. Something went terribly wrong, he killed her, and his parents covered for him.
Again just my opinion and I'm no expert.

I have several theories, with BDI and parents covered up at the top. I believe the ransom note served several purposes in the mind of the author(s).

1. To fool BR into believing he was not responsible. Therefore, he wouldn't have to lie.

2. To have police find the body instead of the parents.

3. To fake a kidnapping gone bad. IMO, there is too much overkill in the ransom note about the Ramseys being monitored and killed if they contact even a "dog." And guess what, the Ramseys contact authorities even before finishing the ransom note! How convenient. They make contact, the kidnapper holding the body in the basement pulls the cord tight and gets out the basement window. Also, might explain as to why the body was cleaned and redressed. And, of course, a kidnapper would have to have tape over the mouth to keep her quiet. Since the "kidnappers" were after money, there wouldn't have been a sexual assault. Also might be the reason the "kidnapper" said the money delivery "would be exhausting". The ole kidnapper was trying to make the victims think he was way off and not in the basement. Too bad they didn't realize there was a massive head fracture. Too bad they didn't count on a bloody ooze after cleanup. And too bad, French didn't find the body. Oh well, nothing ever goes as planned...no such thing as a perfect crime.

Now, in another post, someone mentions the problem with BR being able to cause the fracture and depression we see in the skull. Had my 10 year old grandson strike a birch tree with an golf iron (forget the number). Made a nice depression in the hard, smooth bark of that tree just about the size of the skull depression. If one 10 year old could depress this tree, one could depress a skull. I, also, conducted an experiment whereby I struck a cantalopue against the rim of a toilet bowl. The cantalopue was too pliable and did not register a depression when I first looked. Knowing that the fruit had to be damaged, I placed it in the fridge and waited a few days. Went back a few days later and observed a perfect impression which matched the exact measurements given by Meyer in the autopsy report! Now, I'm not saying this is how the head wound happened. I'm just saying that a ten year old boy could be the cause of such a wound.

If, one day, I find out the truth and find that JR was not involved from the git go, I'll never trust my common sense again. I'll never believe, unless proven otherwise, that this calm, cool and collected CEO of a very successful business; a military man at that; and a pilot nonetheless; I'll never believe such a man would allow his distraught wife to pick up a phone and start inviting the world over without him having read through the note and conducted a search of the house.

Now, this is my opinion and it's only a theory. I have several theories but BDI is the number one because, IMO, it presents the least amount of problems to overcome and explain the evidence and subsequent behavior.
 
She claimed to hear the actual scream first. Then (after the Rs lawyers likely got to her) that is when she changed it to "negative energy". She then moved away from Boulder (scary how much power over witnesses some defense lawyers have). But she ultimately did admit once again that she did, in fact, hear an actual scream.

so your explanation for her changing her story is that "the Rs lawyers likely got to her" where is the evidence that they talked to her before she changed her story.
Yes I do know she changed her story , like three times , again hardly makes her a reliable witness does it?
 
I am sure this has been hashed and rehashed. I just don't believe they did it. I don't see it the way you do. I guess that is why there are republicans and democrats.. We all have the same information but we process it in different ways.

I need proof and I don't see it. To get me to step against the parents, I need more than a few skewed points. Maybe in time there will be more to look at but standing where I am now, it is not there for me.

I don't think anyone wants to "get" you to step against the parents. We just share our opinions based on what evidence that's available to us and what's transpired over the past 14 years.

Welcome, and please do tell your theory :)
 
so your explanation for her changing her story is that "the Rs lawyers likely got to her" where is the evidence that they talked to her before she changed her story.
Yes I do know she changed her story , like three times , again hardly makes her a reliable witness does it?

I can easily see why she would be considered an unreliable witness because just the "negative energy" comment is enough for her to be made a fool of on the witness stand. But I believe her first statement- that she heard the scream- is the truth. Why make the statement at all, if you didn't actually hear it? This was a woman who clearly (at the time) did NOT want to get involved in this case, and it was one of the reasons she stated for not coming forward immediately.
Then we have the other neighbor (and friend) of the Rs, (the late) Joe Barnhill. He was the neighbor who had the R little dog that night in preparation for their upcoming trips. He knew the family pretty well, and he was the one who said he had seen JR's older son going into the house during the day, when he was alleged to have been in Georgia at his mother's. Then he changed HIS story as well, saying he might have been mistaken (though I can't imagine what other young man would be going into the house at a time when the family was at home. To me, both these neighbors were intimidated into backing off from their original statements, most likely by the RST. Why make them in the first place unless you are sure of what you heard/saw?
Too bad these witnesses were never put on the stand. The coroner either. Yes, there were a LOT of people the DA and RST never wanted to see questioned on a witness stand. That is a big reason why there was no trial. The witness stand would be the place for such evidence to be brought out.
And by the way- anytime you see the word "likely" in my post, in is obvious that the word itself implies that it is my OPINION. Let's say it again shall we? This entire FORUM is a place for OPINIONS, mine and yours, to be offered.
To me, two witnesses seeing'hearing different things which may imply the Rs were lying (about hearing the scream and JAR being in Boulder at the time of the murder) and then changing their stories means someone "advised" them to do so. My guess? A defense attorney.
 
Who knows why witnesses change their stories? we would have to ask her wouldnt we? It always amazes me how someone could lie in bed hear a scream from a child and do nothing about it apart from roll over and go back to sleep!

DD , just to clarify , you dont have any evidence to back up your view that the witness was tampered with, its just your opinion.
 
Who knows why witnesses change their stories? we would have to ask her wouldnt we? It always amazes me how someone could lie in bed hear a scream from a child and do nothing about it apart from roll over and go back to sleep!

DD , just to clarify , you dont have any evidence to back up your view that the witness was tampered with, its just your opinion.

To clarify, yes- it is my OPINION. That is what the word "likely" implies when stated. To me, witness tampering (the defense attorneys would probably disagree, seeing it as "advising" these neighbors not to say things they cannot prove. This is an empty threat, because if these two neighbors were ever put on the witness stand at a trial, their testimony would certainly have value. The Rs attorneys always used the same threat, just as LW does to this day- the threat of a lawsuit for saying anything implying the Rs are involved in this crime. They realize that most people WILL be frightened by such a threat and back away, because they do not realize that the Rs were then (are are still) suspects. This is so because they were all THERE when it happened and no other suspect has been named. Until that day, and regardless of what ML or anyone else says, the three people who were in the house with JB when she was killed remain possible suspects.
As far as the scream- when the neighbor was asked that very question (why she didn't call police) she said that she didn't want to get involved and figured that if the scream was loud enough to wake her up, it was certainly heard by the child's parents. I don't believe when she heard it that she knew it was JB or came from her house, but obviously the next day it would become apparent where the scream had come from. As the crime hit the news, at some point, she made her first statement.
Witnesses usually change their stories for a few reasons: They are intimidated by the suspects or their lawyers, they realize they were mistaken, they are frightened to tell the truth, or they are lying. In this case, the neighbors had no reason to lie, especially Joe Barnhill, who was a good friend of the family.
 
so your explanation for her changing her story is that "the Rs lawyers likely got to her" where is the evidence that they talked to her before she changed her story.
Yes I do know she changed her story , like three times , again hardly makes her a reliable witness does it?

FairM,
This is a common tactic employed by defence lawyers, since on the stand the witness can shown to the jury to be unreliable!


.
 
To clarify, yes- it is my OPINION. That is what the word "likely" implies when stated. To me, witness tampering (the defense attorneys would probably disagree, seeing it as "advising" these neighbors not to say things they cannot prove. This is an empty threat, because if these two neighbors were ever put on the witness stand at a trial, their testimony would certainly have value. The Rs attorneys always used the same threat, just as LW does to this day- the threat of a lawsuit for saying anything implying the Rs are involved in this crime. They realize that most people WILL be frightened by such a threat and back away, because they do not realize that the Rs were then (are are still) suspects. This is so because they were all THERE when it happened and no other suspect has been named. Until that day, and regardless of what ML or anyone else says, the three people who were in the house with JB when she was killed remain possible suspects.
As far as the scream- when the neighbor was asked that very question (why she didn't call police) she said that she didn't want to get involved and figured that if the scream was loud enough to wake her up, it was certainly heard by the child's parents. I don't believe when she heard it that she knew it was JB or came from her house, but obviously the next day it would become apparent where the scream had come from. As the crime hit the news, at some point, she made her first statement.
Witnesses usually change their stories for a few reasons: They are intimidated by the suspects or their lawyers, they realize they were mistaken, they are frightened to tell the truth, or they are lying. In this case, the neighbors had no reason to lie, especially Joe Barnhill, who was a good friend of the family.
#

It was Melody Stanton who allegedly heard the scream not Joe Barnhill. She didnt change her story anyway , she told the police officer about the negative energy in her original statement but he LEFT IT OUT, it only came to light a year later - so this is how mis information and assumptions lead to false information! please see this link for further information http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682525/What Neighbors Reported#EarlyMorningScream
 
#

It was Melody Stanton who allegedly heard the scream not Joe Barnhill. She didnt change her story anyway , she told the police officer about the negative energy in her original statement but he LEFT IT OUT, it only came to light a year later - so this is how mis information and assumptions lead to false information! please see this link for further information http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682525/What Neighbors Reported#EarlyMorningScream

I never said it was Joe Barnhill who heard the scream. I SAID it was Stanton, and her husband heard the metal scraping concrete. Did you not read my post you quoted where I said "she"? Joe Barnhill said he saw JAR going into the house.
Stanton claimed to HEAR the scream FIRST. You realize your link is to a WIKIPEDIA article, and Wiki is not edited for mistakes- anyone can write anything and put it on Wiki. Wikipedia is a source of much MIS-information, not only on this case, but much else, do don't presume to lecture ME on spreading misinformation.
 
Heyya DeeDee.

Ty for the input on MS and JB.

Talk about fallible memories, eh.
Who mentioned fallible memories.

DeeDee, I was wondering about JB`s claiming to have seen JAR.
Barnhill delivered JBR`s bike to the house, so one would think that his comment re JAR was based in some certainty.

I`m looking for his exact quote, but as time goes by, many of the JBR news archives are now limited in selection, or are now pay per view.
Not that instant accessibility as available a few years ago.
As always the information will be here, somewhere within the JBR forum.



Lots of neighbours did make day after comments about the murder:


Diane Brumfitt
Joe Barnhill
Nelson Schneider

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/news103.htm[FONT=arial,helvetica][/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Police find girl, 6, dead in home [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Denver Post staff and wire reports[/FONT] Dec. 27, 1996

Residents in the affluent neighborhood described the victim as a friendly, outgoing child.
"She was a beautiful little girl,'' Diane Brumfitt said. "She was very engaging and charming.''
Joe Barnhill, another neighbor, described the family - John, Patricia, JonBenet and older brother Burke - as happy.
"They are such congenial people - the best neighbors,'' Barnhill said.
Barnhill said JonBenet's mother, a former Miss West Virginia, raised a well-mannered, polite daughter.
Patsy Ramsey traveled around the country with JonBenet to attend her daughter's beauty contests.
"They were so serious about this beauty queen stuff, but they never put any pressure on her,'' said Nelson Schneider, another neighbor.
"She had her own float in the Colorado Parade of Lights in December 1995, and Patsy walked along the side of the float the whole parade to make sure (JonBenet) was safe,'' he said.


Dee Dee Nelson-Schneider

Bangor Daily news, Dec. 27, 1996
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...IBAJ&pg=1661,3234081&dq=jonbenet+ramsey&hl=en

"They were so serious about this beauty queen stuff, but they never put any pressure on her," said Dee Dee Nelson-Schneider.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
79
Guests online
1,611
Total visitors
1,690

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,977
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top