If you support the Ramseys or are on the fence, please read this...

[MissMisty]

To all of you who came here for the reason I asked, thank you! I figured it would turn into a free for all, when all I wanted to know was who else supports the intruder theory. Please, if you want to debate, go somewhere else...that's not what this thread is for. Thank you, I appreciate it.
(By the way...I see no resemblance whatsoever between Patsy's writing and the author of the ransom note's. Nor is there any tangible evidence against either parent. Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Please keep this on topic...please?
Misty

 

[BrotherMoon]

And how do you manage to overlook the dead body of a little girl in the house of the parents as evidence of a crime by the parents?

If you don't want to read evil posts why do you post them and invite us to read them?

K7, there are three kinds of people; adults, children and those in transition.

 

[nellicat]

There is no tangible evidence, it appears, against anyone. That is why the case remains unsolved and probably unsolvable. All we have is a bunch of circumstantial evidence or physical evidence that is unlinked to any particular person. Much of the evidence points to the parents and/or Burke, some points to a known intruder (most likely someone who laid in wait), and some (IMO, the least) points to an unknown, or opportunistic, intruder.

I am on the fence. I feel the circumstantial evidence points to the parents and/or Burke, but I am not convinced they are guilty. This does not make me a "basher" or a "supporter" of the Ramseys.

 

[SisterSocks]

I think John and Patsy didn't kill Jon Benet....

 

[ajt400]

Originally posted by K777angel

It does not mean I - or anyone else coming to this logical conclusion is a "Ramsey basher." Don't you know that when logic is not on YOUR side of the arguement that you then must resort to name calling of your opponent??

There is plenty of name-calling on both sides.....so does that mean that both sides have no real logic to them?:dontknow:

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by SisterSocks
I think John and Patsy didn't kill Jon Benet....

I think you're right. I think Burke bashed her over the head and it was all cover-up from that point on.

 

[shadow]

Originally posted by SisterSocks
I think John and Patsy didn't kill Jon Benet....

i agree. for a long time i thought they were guilty but not anymore. there are now transcripts available of Det. Lou Smit which show the possibility of an intruder. posters have referred to him as senile and other deragatory terms. a judge recently ruled that there is no evidence against the Ramseys and someone came forward who was in possession of chilling audio tapes, letters, etc. from some sadistic wierdo who was obsessed with Jon Benet. bondage dolls, according to Patsy, were left on the lawn at their Boulder home after the murder. during a police interrogation which took place in the Ramseys' attorneys' office, John adamantly denied the presence of his DNA in JonBenet's underwear, which was a lie made up by LE to try to trap him into "confessing." a photograph exists of Patsy sitting at the piano playing JonBenet's favorite song. there is no way those parents murdered her. the look on Patsy's face is not the look of a murderer. as far as the Ramseys "hiding behind their attorneys" or "hiring a PR firm", this is how the wealthy conduct themselves. they are going to hire attorneys to protect their rights and since they had no history of criminality/molestation in their family, they were not used to being maligned by anyone. that is why they felt the need to hire a PR firm. Betty Broderick hired a PR firm as well when she went to jail. they feel they are not portrayed correctly to the public and are able to afford representation to help with their defenses. footage is available now showing Patsy & John at JonBenet's grave. reports were that the grave was unmarked and they never went to visit. this is incorrect information. why is it so hard to believe some pervert saw JonBenet at a pageant or around Boulder and got in the house?

 

[Barbara]

"... during a police interrogation which took place in the Ramseys' attorneys' office, John adamantly denied the presence of his DNA in JonBenet's underwear, which was a lie made up by LE to try to trap him into "confessing." ...

It was not John's DNA they asked him about. It was "fibers" from John that they stated they had found in her underwear.
Do you have a source for your statement that the LE made it all up? Or are you doing the same thing we are all doing...going by our own feelings and opinions? As far as I know, we DONT know if it was made up.

"....why is it so hard to believe some pervert saw JonBenet at a pageant or around Boulder and got in the house?"


It's not at all hard to believe that there would be perverts ogling JonBenet at pageants or anywhere else for that matter. That is not the issue. What is IMPOSSIBLE for most of the public to believe is that he/they got into the house, did all those things, wrote a note, etc. without leaving anything of himself/herself/themselves. The DNA does not seem to be anything useful so far in this murder, although some are hanging on to this as "proof" of an intruder. I personally think it will turn out to be nothing relevant based on the real life experts who have weighed in on this issue.

Perverts are not usually known for leaving a phony ransom note for no reason at all. A pervert who may have seen JonBenet at a pageant and developed a "thing" for her would not have researched the family, knowing their names and all about John's business, etc., etc. A pervert wouldn't usually find his victims in such a way as to put him/herself at such a real risk. Perverts usually like their victims on different terms with as little risk as possible. A pervert finding her at a pageant would not have gone through such risky means to get to her and then molest or sexually assault her in the manner that she was assaulted. A child molester does not usually penetrate with objects; they penetrate with themselves. If objects are used, it is usually done after the personal assault and satisfying themselves. And no, I don't believe some of the spin that the perversion was to insert an object while he/they masturbated.

I find it hard to believe that anyone finds it hard to believe those who feel this presentation from Smit is not viable and the Ramseys are involved in this murder.

 

[shadow]

Do you have a source for your statement that the LE made it all up? Or are you doing the same thing we are all doing...going by our own feelings and opinions? As far as I know, we DONT know if it was made up.

i don't have the link right now. it's very late here but i will dig up some links when i am not so tired. LE often, as part of their investigation/interrogation of a suspect, lies to elicit a confession or statement that would help their case. in this case they felt the case was at a standstill if they did not get the Ramseys to confess. i saw the interrogation on the documentary that was aired on TV which showed John and Patsy being interrogated in their lawyer's office. it was made up because John's DNA was not found in her underwear. there was some DNA that was discovered on JonBenet that did not belong to either parent or family member.

 

[Barbara]

Again, I will point out that DNA was not what they told John they found. They told John they found fibers from his shirt in her underwear, NOT DNA.

As far as LE making things up to get people to confess, yes I am aware of that (that's how Susan Smith confessed), but what I am saying is that we don't know IN THIS CASE yet whether that happened.

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Toth
Toth believes the Ramseys are innocent of any wrongdoing; that none of them were in any way involved in the murder and that no sort of cover-up ever existed. This was a witchhunt perpetrated by an incompetent police force and a DA who was in league with the tabloids.

Is this ABSOLUTE...as in NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE?... just curious.

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Shawna
I always believed a GOTH was responsible for Jonbenet's murder. Members of the BPD said that only a midget could get through that small window. This effeminate gothic dwarf was not cut out for the midget wrestling team. He used his height as an advantage and became a cat burgler around Boulder

I always felt the Ramsey's were innocent .

I'm still trying to figure out where the "300" #number came from... here's one source...FYI/FWIW...

http://www.peekaboo.net/archives/cat18/99.html

Wecht also said the description of the skull fracture, which ran from the front of the girl's head across the crown to the rear, indicated use of an elongated instrument such as a golf club or heavy flashlight, and that the unknown weapon was wielded with enough brute force to bring down a ''300-pound football player.''

 

[Blazeboy3]

HERE'S ANOTHER REFERENCE TO "300 POUND?"

John Ramsey
Burke was a 9-year-old child when JonBenet was killed. The blow to JonBenet's head was powerful enough to bring down a 300-pound man. This blow was administered by an adult male. So, to presume that a 9-year-old child could so viciously and brutally attack another child is foolishness.]]\\\

Here's another reference...300#

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/14/lkl.00.html

And here's a very significant point, Larry. This child's skull was crushed. She suffered a 8 1/2 inch displaced fracture of the right side of her skull. Now, Patsy Ramsey didn't accidentally push a child into the bathtub edge. If his theory holds water, which it doesn't, Patsy Ramsey would have had to pick up her 45-pound daughter and swing her like a sledgehammer to crush her skull like this. This was a blow that would fall a 300-pound man.

And here's another reference...300#

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/1999/07/08/profiler/index2.html
If the parents didn't do it and the brother didn't do it, who did?

They have their own suspicions, but I eliminated them through analysis. If two people are working together after a crime they stay together like glue because they don't trust each other. The Ramseys went to separate places, which reinforces that they probably didn't do it. The hardest part I had with the crime was the way the girl was killed. There was such anger directed at her. The blow to her head was so forceful it could have taken down a 300-pound man. And she was also digitally sexually assaulted. And mixed in with her own blood is DNA evidence. I said way back when, "It's probably not semen." And two years later, they proved it's not semen. It may be saliva. The reason I said, "It's not semen" -- to me it was more of a vengeful kind of crime.

I couldn't understand: How do you go from a Christmas Day party with neighbors and friends and on the way home, "Goodbye, we're going to Charlevoix, Mich., tomorrow." What happened that would cause the parents to just lose it that night and kill a child -- wetting the bed? That didn't jibe.

I only know what I read in the tabloids. Based on what you said, somebody at that party hated the Ramseys and wanted to hurt them before they split for the holiday.

It can't be a stranger. It has to be someone who has some knowledge.

Do you have a suspect?

There are several. I can't discuss it. But there are several who look good.

Has anyone investigated them?

I don't know. When I went out there in the first week of January '97, people thought, "Here's the hired gun." Believe me -- moneywise, I got hardly next to nothing. And the hours I put in all these years ... I stopped taking any money once I saw the Ramseys were not responsible. They were victims. The Boulder Police -- I thought I was somewhere down in the deep, deep, Deep South. Good ol' boys smoking cigars. I said, "If you don't like me -- if you think I'm a turncoat -- go to the FBI. Go to my unit and get them involved. Be proactive." What do you mean "be proactive"? I said, "Look at the Unabomber case. Had we not publicized the manifesto, he'd still be living in Montana." Here you have a so-called "ransom note" -- I'd like a guy like you [meaning Bowman] to look at it. With your background, you'd see: Would parents write a note like that? It has statements in it from current movies. What parent would have the presence of mind to write something like that?

What lines are from movies that were playing Boulder at the time?

"Don't grow a brain, John"

 

[shadow]

As far as LE making things up to get people to confess, yes I am aware of that (that's how Susan Smith confessed), but what I am saying is that we don't know IN THIS CASE yet whether that happened.

yes, i understand Barbara. what do you think about that nasty knot that was used on the garrot. i saw photos of it close up and it looks like what a sexual sadomasochistic fiend would use. i find it impossible to believe Patsy, a mother, could sit and practice and make those knots hour after hour. only someone insane would make knots like that. does Patsy have any psychiatric issues? they were tied to perfection. she also described that a bondage doll was thrown on her lawn after the murder. there is some creepy alley behind the house that leads out to city streets. the ransom note is also disturbing. one explanation to the use of the words "and hence" were that she had to write it over and over for the handwriting analysts and that in their x-mas cards the words were repeated in their cards due to the repetition of writing it over and over. that makes no sense either. weren't the cards sent out before the x-mas day? that explanation is not possible! poor JonBenet would have been a teenager by now

 

[guppy]

MissMisty,

I was on the fence in the Ramsey case for about a year before deciding - based on the evidence available - that they were innocent of any involvement in JonBenet's murder. I have followed the case closely since then and have seen nothing that would cause me to change my mind, notwithstanding the fact that posters like Jayelles and Imon have held my feet to the fire on the details many times over the years. (Yes, there is now, and has been, a lot of bandwidth wasted on Ramsey bashing in this forum over the years, but there have also been numerous lengthly discussions about the evidence that have helped many of us acquire a better understanding of the case.)

Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of the case, to me, personally, is why I have never, at any time, thought the Ramseys "look guilty", unlike so many other posters. For example, although I am on the fence in the Laci case, Scott Peterson certainly "looks guilty" to me. Still, it is no substitute for actual evidence of guilt. It will, however, probably keep me from ever hopping off of the fence in that case. I suspect there are many out there who don't jump off the fence in the Ramsey case for the same reason.

 

[K777angel]

Nearly every single murder case is "circumstantial." Meaning there are no witnesses to the crime nor a confession. There may be in some cases a "smoking gun" but it is still not an eye witness to the crime nor a confession. It is a "circumstance" of the case - albeit a powerful one.

The Ramsey case is no different. Particularly when there is staging in a crime - (as there was in this crime as the FBI has stated) - the "circumstances" are rearranged so to speak.
To throw off the authorities. Such as the note.

There are a number of reasons this case was not taken to trial and no arrests were made. It was NOT because they did not have forensic evidence indicating who the perp(s) were.
They do.
It is one thing to know who did it - it is another thing altogether to PROVE it in a court of law in front of the top lawyers in the state. Ask Marcia Clark. They knew O.J. was guilty and had the evidence to prove it - but they were outsmarted by his slick lawyers. It happens.
Alex Hunter KNEW his butt would be drug through the mud for misbehavior in this investigation ......
And the decision to indict or not - rest soley with him.
Go figure.

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by shadow
what do you think about that nasty knot that was used on the garrot. i saw photos of it close up and it looks like what a sexual sadomasochistic fiend would use. i find it impossible to believe Patsy, a mother, could sit and practice and make those knots hour after hour. only someone insane would make knots like that.

You have to be kidding. Steve Thomas said in one of his chats that the garrote was no complex weapon--that was all Team Ramsey propaganda. He said it's nothing but a stick with a cord wrapped around it a half-dozen times.
Take a close look at the garrote. On one end is a basic slip-knot that anyone knows how to tie, and the stick just has the cord wrapped around it 7 times with the same knot used to tie your shoes.

It's so simple a 9-year old kid could have constructed it as a toy.

 

[guppy]

Shylock,

> If you don't think the Ramseys look guilty, then you must also believe O.J. is innocent.

Actually, I didn't even post on the OJ case until after the verdict because it was clear to me he was guilty. Ditto Westerfield.

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by guppy
Actually, I didn't even post on the OJ case until after the verdict because it was clear to me he was guilty. Ditto Westerfield.

What Gup, no comment on the Ramsey actions? (or lack thereof)
Let me ask you again:

Do you see the Ramseys out there for one single second doing ANYTHING that might help find their daughter's killer?

And can you compare their actions in ANY way to people we know who actually had their child murdered by a stranger? - (the Van Damms, The Klass family, the Walsh family, etc)

 

[Jayelles]

I didn't think Westerfield *looked* guilty. I've said this all along. I thought he could have been the gy next door and I certainly wouldn't have been intuitively wary of him. However, I couldn't deny that the evidence against him was compelling. I still don't believe he set out to kill Danielle and I hope someday he'll tell us what really happened. My pet theory is that he went into the house thinking Brenda might be on her own and suddenly realised Damon was home. Did he hide in Danielle's bedroom? Did she waken and threaten to scream?

I don't feel 'intuitively' that the Ramseys have guilty knowledge of JonBenet's death. If it turned out that they did, I would have difficulty coming to terms with it. I can acknowledge that their reluctance to assist with the police investigation defies belief.