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

[guppy]

Jayelles,

I guess you could say "looking guilty" is a combination of things, not just physical appearance or body language during an interview. Someone like Westerfield clearly would "look" more guilty after learning of his activities immediately following the girl's disappearance. Also, as Shylock points out above, we are all swayed by our impressions of what a suspect doesn't do, not just what he does do.

So, I would say that a picture of OJ wouldn't lead one to believe he is a killer, but a videotape of him driving around with a gun pointed at his own head might. Or course, it is very subjective. For example, many of those who think the Ramseys are guilty see the early CNN interview as evidence to support their beliefs. With me it was just the opposite. When I finally saw that interview after hearing about it for so many months, it led me to believe that they could be innocent. Different strokes, you know...

 

[FULTON]

When we look at the Ramseys we don't see cold blooded killers like we are used to seeing on the tv news and on the post office bulliten board of hard crimminals.I think this is what most people have trouble with. I don't think this was a premeditated murder.I don't think it is in any Ramsey to do that,however I can't get by that ransome note and its references and a host of other factors that point to no intruder.The list pointing to this being an inside job is very long.With law enforcement giving a pass to Burke and John who is left that was in the house that night???Susan Smith who drowned her two sons was by all accounts a good mother. The boys were well cared for,neatly clothed and fed with never any signs of physical abuse.Her own husband was shocked as the rest of the world was at what really happened.

 

[tipper]

Fulton, you need to read up on Susan Smith's background.

 

[FULTON]

Tipper beleive me im very familiar with Susan Smiths background SHE was not abusive to her children however she was abused by her stepfather sexually.The police were never called to her house for child neglect or was it ever reported she was abusive to her own children.This is what I was refering to.

 

[ziggy]

Well geez I've been away forever but I'll agree with Jayelles and Guppy.

I came into this thinking they were guilty, lead only by what I saw on the news and in the tabs. After reading the books and getting a quick education through this and other forums I came to believe that MOST LIKELY they were innocent.

I agree with Jayelles that no one except those involved can say with absolution who is innocent and who is guilty but I will say that the intruder theory is plausible and, for me, the best explanation.

There will be no reason to query my post because I've not had time to enter any debates lately. I'll not respond or debate the case because it's been done ad nauseum and there's no point - everyone has his or her own opinion and I respect it, so please respect mine.

As for "looking guilty", I have not thought any of them "looked" guilty. I thought OJ was guilty, although in the beginning I resisted that thought because I loved him as a football hero, and in the end the evidence won me over. Westerfield - guilty - could never understand those who wanted to bash the parents and I still don't understand how the Ramseys raise such venom and hatred in people. I know in the Smart case there were many who wanted to vilify the parents too and I just don't understand the need to jump to that conclusion with absolutely no evidence.

So - sticking to the thread topic, I lean heavily toward Ramsey innocence.

 

[BrotherMoon]

That's a hilarious misuse of the word absolution zig.

 

[Saffron]

I'm usually pro-prosecution, and, after reading a Vanity Fair article a few years ago, I assumed the Ramseys were guilty. But now I'm willing to consider that the Ramseys are innocent. Disclaimer: I haven't read any books about this case, and know little about it, especially compared to the posters on these threads (who seem to have very sound reasons why they think the Ramseys are guilty). Having said that, here are the reasons I lean toward innocent:

1.) I saw "The System" on Court TV a few weeks ago, and Lou Smits explained his theory of an intruder. His ideas and evidence were compelling. This opened my eyes to the possibility that the parents were innocent -- something I simply hadn't considered before. (I realize that, if I had time to research it further, there's a possibility his evidence might be reasonably discredited.)

2.) After seeing the beginning, middle and end of both the Danielle Van Dam and Elizabeth Smart cases, I realized that an intruder will enter a home and take a child while the family sleeps. Prior to that, I would have thought it quite unlikely, if not impossible. Also, when both of these cases broke, many in the media were suspicious of the parents, especially the Van Dams. I even suspected the Van Dams due to some early reports (e.g., the father saw the sliding glass door opened in the middle of the night, but didn't check on the kids after closing it; a letter that Danielle had written to him, apologizing for making him mad, etc.). And I thought it odd that Ed Smart cried without tears, and I even believed the Nat'l Enquirer story about a gay *advertiser censored* ring among Ed Smart and his brothers; I believed it because I heard the editor of the NE convincing Catherine Crier on CourtTV that they had many reliable sources, and that the evidence, including Ed's journal, was with the police. Catherine Crier acknowledged that the NE had about 9 attorneys per reporter to ensure the stories were accurate. The point is, both of these families were made to look guilty in the press, and I was easily persuaded by the media's slant. Of course, we now know exactly what happened to these two girls, and that their families had nothing to do with the horrible crimes. It's really made me stop and think about how journalists and the media can sometimes shape these stories in the wrong direction, even unintentionally.

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Shylock
Geeez Guppy, just what does it take? Let's for the moment not even consider how guilty they looked right after the crime, and consider the here and now: Do you think the Rammers are acting like parents who want their daughter's killer caught? Where's the web site? The tip line? The reward? The constant contact with LE to press for a larger scale investigation? Where are the press interviews asking anybody to come forth with information, instead of the usual us-us-us interviews? Do you see the Ramseys out there for one single second doing ANYTHING that might help find their daughter's killer?

If you don't think the Ramseys look guilty, then you must also believe O.J. is innocent. The Ram$eys are out looking for their daughter's killer on the 19th hole of the same golf course he is.

You don't need a degree in psychology to look at the actions of parents (whose children were REALLY killed by strangers) to see that the Ramseys don't even come close to behaving in that mannor. They wouldn't even begin to know how.

No harm intended whatsoever:...just thank you for the post(a laugh much-needed by me!)...itLOL; GOT MILK?--THINK MUCH? triggerred another chapter & different page number in this BOOK OF LIFE!...?///...surely it's a breakfast drink(BD>Boulder Dept) O.J....milk?...~~~

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by K777angel
Since I AM "open-minded" about this case, that means that I have objectively looked at every single fact of this case. I'm not talking about rumors - but the simple known facts of this case.
I am left with no other logical conclusion than to understand that of course the Ramseys were involved in the crime & cover-up.
Nothing else makes sense. Evidence and facts do not lie.

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??
It's a way of diverting attention away from the REAL problem and the truth.

A wise Philosophy professor once said in class that there are 2 kinds of people: Those who want the truth - and those who want to be consoled.
How true.

I AGREE/APPLAUD/THANK YOU +SUM...WELL STATE/D/MENT as POSTED...ABSOLUTE TRUTH IMHO...Again, DITTO!

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by 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

RN:You can't see No Resemblance...why not? Are you "focused?" or just "I figured(ing)"? FYI(RN info):
http://www.peekaboo.net/archives/cat18/198.html
The ransom note, signed "Victory, SBTC," and claiming to come from a "small foreign faction," said the men holding JonBenet captive would only release her in return for $118,000.

The menacing note and the opening salutation of a second, practice note were later found to have come from a legal pad belonging to the Ramseys. The note cautioned the Ramseys not to contact police, with threats such as, "If you talk to a stray dog, you die."

And, ordering the Ramseys to obey instructions, the note taunted, "Don't try to grow a brain, John."

The Ramseys' latest statement announces that their advertisement and fliers of last week will be followed by a new flier and advertisement campaign featuring "some critical handwriting samples showing how the killer wrote certain letters in the ransom note." Their advertisements and fliers contained their experts' profile of JonBenet's likely killer.

In addition to the "M"s, the Ramseys will show the public how the capital letters "D" and "W" appear, as well as the "distinctive" lower-case letters "k," "w," "u," "r," and "f." Also, they will reveal some "unusual connecting letters, such as 'Th.'"

Police handwriting analysts have excluded John Ramsey as a possible author of the note. They could not conclusively exclude Patsy Ramsey.

OH BUT PLEASE READ THIS: "PROBABILITY(OH YES?)"...ANOTHER INTERESTING RN fact(read) FYI:
http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/note/index.html

Heads or Tails?

Not very many people are familiar with statistical mathematics, or the mathematical ratio of odds. You can witness this any day of the year by the hundreds of thousands of people who throw money away in Las Vegas, making bets on game tables where the odds virtually guarantee you will lose The following is a simple lesson which will give you the basics you need to know.

Every coin has two sides. The odds that a coin toss will land on "heads" is a simple ratio of 1 in 2 possibilities, which is normally represented as 2:1 odds. The odds of two consecutive tosses resulting in heads is 2:1 x 2:1 = 4:1. The odds of three consecutive tosses resulting in heads is 2:1 x 2:1 x 2:1 = 8:1. And...If you're foolish to bet that heads will come up five times in a row, the odds are:

2:1 x 2:1 x 2:1 x 2:1 x 2:1 = 32:1.

Powerball Anyone?

In the midwestern United States, several states have joined together to run a multi-state "Powerball" lottery with huge jackpots. Since so many people can play, they need a game with large odds against winning. In the Powerball lottery game, the winner has to pick the correct five numbers from a set of 50 numbered balls, and they have to pick the correct "Powerball" number from a separate set of 36 balls. The Powerball multiplies the odds of the regular 50-ball lottery by the number of "power balls"--in this case 36. If we were to apply a Powerball lottery to our five coin toss example above the resulting odds would be:

36:1 x (2:1 x 2:1 x 2:1 x 2:1 x 2:1) = 1152:1

Obviously, the smart person who wouldn't bet on five coin tosses resulting in heads at 32:1 odds

...OK MAYBE YOU CAN DO THE MATH ABOVE...??? Hopefully you're not BLIND--and if you ARE BLIND--please FILE FOR DISABILITY IMMEDIATELY ok!...; here's another FYI read:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/sh/news/stories/nat-news-20000410-151114.html
NewsNet5 reports that 73 potential suspects' handwriting samples were ruled out during the investigation.

Again, only one person -- Patsy -- could not be ruled out as the author because the way the As in the letter match Patsy's As.

"In Patsy's pre-homicide writings she consistently used what we called the lower-case manuscript. In the ransom note, almost exclusively the lower--case manuscript A was used -- I think -- 98 percent of the time was used," he said.

After the Ramseys were given a copy of the note, Thomas said that Patsy changed her As to the lower-case cursive As.

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by shadow


1) 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.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) 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?

1)Why did Patsy have a "face-life"?
2)Why...whose "rights had priority"? JonBenet or her parents?... it's not something normal/average "get used to...".
3)There's a KILLER ON THE LOOSE(Patsy's words)...what does this matter(PR firm?)?
4)Going to JonBenet's grave...omg-hard? NOT;it's a control thing...(minor to the R's)...who is dead here???

FWIW...IMHO JonBenet DESERVED LIFE -- JONBENET DESERVED AND HAD EVERY RIGHT TO LIVE ON AND ON ...!!!)!!!

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Saffron
I'm usually pro-prosecution, and, after reading a Vanity Fair article a few years ago, I assumed the Ramseys were guilty. But but now I'm willing to consider that the Ramseys are innocent. Disclaimer: I haven't read any books about this case, and know little about it, especially compared to the posters on these threads (who seem to have very sound reasons why they think the Ramseys are guilty). Having said that, here are the reasons I lean toward innocent:

1.) I saw "The System" on Court TV a few weeks ago, and Lou Smits explained his theory of an intruder. His ideas and evidence were compelling. This opened my eyes to the possibility that the parents were innocent -- something I simply hadn't considered before. (I realize that, if I had time to research it further, there's a possibility his evidence might be reasonably discredited.)

2.) After seeing the beginning, middle and end of both the Danielle Van Dam and Elizabeth Smart cases, I realized that an intruder will enter a home and take a child while the family sleeps. Prior to that, I would have thought it quite unlikely, if not impossible. Also, when both of these cases broke, many in the media were suspicious of the parents, especially the Van Dams. I even suspected the Van Dams due to some early reports (e.g., the father saw the sliding glass door opened in the middle of the night, but didn't check on the kids after closing it; a letter that Danielle had written to him, apologizing for making him mad, etc.). And I thought it odd that Ed Smart cried without tears, and I even believed the Nat'l Enquirer story about a gay *advertiser censored* ring among Ed Smart and his brothers; I believed it because I heard the editor of the NE convincing Catherine Crier on CourtTV that they had many reliable sources, and that the evidence, including Ed's journal, was with the police. Catherine Crier acknowledged that the NE had about 9 attorneys per reporter to ensure the stories were accurate. The point is, both of these families were made to look guilty in the press, and I was easily persuaded by the media's slant. Of course, we now know exactly what happened to these two girls, and that their families had nothing to do with the horrible crimes. It's really made me stop and think about how journalists and the media can sometimes shape these stories in the wrong direction, even unintentionally.

Why would you (someone/anyone) not READ ANY BOOKS ON THIS CASE? ... IMHO there's a reason JonBenet's dad told us she(JonBenet) couldn't read that day (XMAS)(referenced in DOI) ... it's a major clue to me/mine...IMHO THAT WE SHOULD ALL READ FOR HER(JONBENET) and then we will know what happened/THE TRUTH!!!

 

[Maxi]

Originally posted by BrotherMoon
That's a hilarious misuse of the word absolution zig.

:waitasec: Gee, I hope we've made it clear that no one on this forum needs absolution just cause they don't hold the majority view! :blowkiss: Just funnin' with ya, zig!

 

[Maxi]

Originally posted by Saffron
...
2.) After seeing the beginning, middle and end of both the Danielle Van Dam and Elizabeth Smart cases, I realized that an intruder will enter a home and take a child while the family sleeps....

The operant word here is "take".

There have been many cases in which a child has been taken from her home without her parents being aware of it. There have even been cases in which a child has been murdered horribly in her home while the parents slept. But no one has been able to find a case in which a ransom note and a dead child were left in the home while the parents slept. The closest parallels are those cases in which a family member kills a child and then fakes a kidnapping. In those cases, the child's body is sometimes hidden in the home.

 

[Toltec]

John said that he would spend every waking hour and every last dime he has to find JonBenet's killer....?

The reason why none of the Ramseys have been prosecuted is because they do not know who exactly struck JonBenet over the head, who molested her, and who strangled her. It could have been Patsy alone, John alone, or Burke alone. It could have been John and Patsy, Patsy and Burke, John and Burke....

One of my many theories of what occured that night is this:

Burke and JonBenet went downstairs for a snack. Burke served JonBenet pineapple while he had a glass of tea. They sat at the breakfast table and ate and drank their snack. They then went upstairs to Burke's room to play Nintendo. They decide to play Doctor.

Patsy comes downstairs with a flashlight and catches the two and scolds Burke and JonBenet. Patsy tells Burke to go to sleep and being frightened, Burke complies.

Patsy sets out to put JonBenet to bed. She is upset that JonBenet allowed Burke to play Doctor with her. She takes JonBenet into her bathroom, pulls down her panties and proceeds to violently wipe her down. JonBenet resists and angers Patsy to the point where Patsy loses it and strikes JonBenet over the head with the flashlight.

Its panic and self-preservation that motivates Patsy to stage a crime.

Do I think the Ramseys are innocent? NO WAY!

This is my opinion only and may not be quoted and posted on any other forum.

 

[cantaloupe]

I do not blieve that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenet. There was such a strong bond between this mother and child. I do not think Patsy capable of anything more than a light spanking as discipline. They both loved participating in the pageants as a mother/daughter activity. There was never a hint of anything but deep motherly love on Patsy's side.

John Ramsey, however, is a different case altogether. Cold, calculating, agressive and abusive in business, nasty to colleagues, deceptive to his first wife, I think Ramsey was capable of killing JonBenet. But not purposely. I think it was a molestation gone way bad. The gentle tightening of the garotte became something else, with John under pressure and under the influence of a large dose of Vodka the night of the murder.

After the "accident", I believe he woke Patsy up and forced her to write the note and engage in the coverup under threat of grave bodily harm, and later, divorce.

Patsy, confused, bereft, frightened, and out of her mind with grief, complied.

JMHO, of course.

 

[BrotherMoon]

Ah sex, Freud rears his ugly head again.

Down below the second chakra is the coiled serpent. Beware the waking of the dragon as it will wind itself up through all seven chakras.

Read this post Misty, it speaks of Evil.

All chakras are covered in this crime; the large panties, the vaginal penetration, the pineapple, the red heart, the strangulation, the blow to the head and the references to The Psalms-118, Victory!, S.B.T.C .

Get over Freud's bulwark against the rising tide of occultism, sex is only one part of the crime.

That was really insipid cantaloupe.

 

[Nehemiah]

"Down below the second chakra is the coiled serpent. Beware the waking of the dragon as it will wind itself up through all seven chakras."

What does this mean? I am totally lost.

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Maxi
The operant word here is "take".

There have been many cases in which a child has been taken from her home without her parents being aware of it. There have even been cases in which a child has been murdered horribly in her home while the parents slept. But no one has been able to find a case in which a ransom note and a dead child were left in the home while the parents slept. The closest parallels are those cases in which a family member kills a child and then fakes a kidnapping. In those cases, the child's body is sometimes hidden in the home.

Exactly my thoughts ... using my thinking-head, 'common sense tells me so'!...that this was Patsy's win/way out with glory/power?

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by cantaloupe
I do not blieve that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter, JonBenet. There was such a strong bond between this mother and child. I do not think Patsy capable of anything more than a light spanking as discipline. They both loved participating in the pageants as a mother/daughter activity. There was never a hint of anything but deep motherly love on Patsy's side.

John Ramsey, however, is a different case altogether. Cold, calculating, agressive and abusive in business, nasty to colleagues, deceptive to his first wife, I think Ramsey was capable of killing JonBenet. But not purposely. I think it was a molestation gone way bad. The gentle tightening of the garotte became something else, with John under pressure and under the influence of a large dose of Vodka the night of the murder.

After the "accident", I believe he woke Patsy up and forced her to write the note and engage in the coverup under threat of grave bodily harm, and later, divorce.

Patsy, confused, bereft, frightened, and out of her mind with grief, complied.

JMHO, of course.

Interesting thought/belief... but it takes two sticks to create a fire...something abnormal went on in the Ramsey's house Xmas night and I think it could have been avoided if all involved had/did deal with their "overwelming emotions"!

So...read any books regarding JonBenet's murder/death?