Marc Klass on CTV

[BBB167893]

Yes, Klaas and Mark Lunsford have both spoken on this.

"The Ramseys never had to explain the mention of the $118,000, because why should they have to explain it. They didn't write the ransom note. Ask the person who wrote the ransom note to explain the mention of $118,000."

Okay, Buzz, I get you. Well, I have to disagree FOR NOW, and say that there's just enough evidence that Patsy wrote it, and I certainly don't think John would write his own bonus! So the idea was to make it look like an employee, imo.

"JB is the victim, NOT John. He was never cleared from suspicion."

Still isn't, for those who missed the press conference.

"The family is always looked at first because 75% of the time they are guilty. I heard that statistic on a news magazine last night. I would love to believe that no father would do such things to their daughter, but I'm not naive."

Clint Van Zandt said the same, LinasK. You've got to wonder if John's worried about the defense getting the file!

"His past losses are irrelevant to his guilt, so is Patsy's having cancer. A criminal is still a criminal even if they die of cancer."

Yes, the "infallibility argument" doesn't do it with me.

 

[Pepper]

I wonder if the mother of Samantha Runion or the parents of Danielle VanDam would agree that they are not the victims of the crime perpetrated upon their daughters?

Until John Ramsey is arrested, tried and convicted for the murder of his daughter, I see him as a victim - deserving of the same respect and compassion as any parent who loses a child to a violent crime.

Unfortunately there have been cases where children are not safe from intruders in their own homes - remember Jessica Lunsford and Danielle VanDam?

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it until I'm proven wrong.

 

[newtv]

I wonder if the mother of Samantha Runion or the parents of Danielle VanDam would agree that they are not the victims of the crime perpetrated upon their daughters?

Until John Ramsey is arrested, tried and convicted for the murder of his daughter, I see him as a victim - deserving of the same respect and compassion as any parent who loses a child to a violent crime.

Unfortunately there have been cases where children are not safe from intruders in their own homes - remember Jessica Lunsford and Danielle VanDam?

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it until I'm proven wrong.

I agree-I really do-yes the parents are victims and john is the parent.

 

[LinasK]

I wonder if the mother of Samantha Runion or the parents of Danielle VanDam would agree that they are not the victims of the crime perpetrated upon their daughters?

Until John Ramsey is arrested, tried and convicted for the murder of his daughter, I see him as a victim - deserving of the same respect and compassion as any parent who loses a child to a violent crime.

Unfortunately there have been cases where children are not safe from intruders in their own homes - remember Jessica Lunsford and Danielle VanDam?

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it until I'm proven wrong.

Mark Lunsford, Erin Runnion, and Danielle Van Dam were all cleared in their daughters disappearances.(Although I personally think all of these parents were guilty of stupidity in not checking on their daughters/leaving them unattended- but that's another matter.) The Ramsey's never were! Because of time passed, incompetence and corruption John probably will escape justice in much the same way that OJ, Robert Blake, and Michael Jackson did, only he won't be brought to trial.

 

[LinasK]

I agree-I really do-yes the parents are victims and john is the parent.

Sorry New, I have to disagree with you, John is not just the parent in this case, I believe he's the perpetrator of incest. JB was found to have been the victim of chronic sexual abuse.

 

[TexMex]

I wonder if the mother of Samantha Runion or the parents of Danielle VanDam would agree that they are not the victims of the crime perpetrated upon their daughters?

Until John Ramsey is arrested, tried and convicted for the murder of his daughter, I see him as a victim - deserving of the same respect and compassion as any parent who loses a child to a violent crime.

Unfortunately there have been cases where children are not safe from intruders in their own homes - remember Jessica Lunsford and Danielle VanDam?

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it until I'm proven wrong.

Yes. Mrs. VanDam was very much a victim. Despite the defense knowing that their client did it they trashed her and her husband, their lifestyle, their friends in the courtroom.

 

[Pepper]

Sorry New, I have to disagree with you, John is not just the parent in this case, I believe he's the perpetrator of incest. JB was found to have been the victim of chronic sexual abuse.

Can you provide a link showing that this is proven? I would really like to see that stated somewhere that this is a fact and not speculation. I certainly don't see it in the autopsy report.

 

[LinasK]

Can you provide a link showing that this is proven? I would really like to see that stated somewhere that this is a fact and not speculation. I certainly don't see it in the autopsy report.

We've had many threads on it recently. It was corroborated by I think at least 6 investigators.

 

[kazzbar]

I feel for Mark Klass right now because this sick pedophile has a copy of his daughters death cert. If I were him I would want to go to SQ and punch his lights out. Imagine how you would feel if this pig was interested in your murdered child, enough to get a copy of the death cert.

I just saw Mr Klass on Fox and I, for one feel sorry for him and his sad loss.Imagine haveing a child killed and then years later up pops some fruitcake and the sore is openened up again.He was gracious but angry.I would be to. I think I would hide from the media and not get involved but I guess this would be easy to say but very difficult to do.He obviously thinks Karr is a notoriety seeker. He will probably be right.

 

[Pepper]

Link please? Which investigators? Where? Sorry if I'm sounding doubtful, but I'd really like to read it from someone with first hand knowledge and not just speculation.

Here's the autopsy report, page 4, middle paragraph.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet4.html

 

[BBB167893]

It was closer to 8, LinasK!

"I wonder if the mother of Samantha Runion or the parents of Danielle VanDam would agree that they are not the victims of the crime perpetrated upon their daughters?"

Well, they were at a conference with Klaas that the Ramseys didn't attend. They sure didn't speak against him!

"Unfortunately there have been cases where children are not safe from intruders in their own homes - remember Jessica Lunsford and Danielle "VanDam?"

As I've said for a long time, those cases bear NO resemblance to this one! Westerfield and Couey took them from their homes to places THEY felt safe. This intruder, Karr or not, camped out in their home and killed her there. Big difference.

"Until John Ramsey is arrested, tried and convicted for the murder of his daughter, I see him as a victim - deserving of the same respect and compassion as any parent who loses a child to a violent crime."

That's fair. But he's not cleared yet, either!

 

[HollywoodBound]

The trouble is the girl was examined for sexual abuse after she was murdered not before. The doctor who looked at her before said she was not abused. The partial DNA found on her matches the killer. The manufacturer didn't sneeze on her clothes....that's just crap. The family didn't match but the killer will.

 

[TexMex]

The trouble is the girl was examined for sexual abuse after she was murdered not before. The doctor who looked at her before said she was not abused. The partial DNA found on her matches the killer. The manufacturer didn't sneeze on her clothes....that's just crap. The family didn't match but the killer will.

Well stated.

 

[Buzz Mills]

The trouble is the girl was examined for sexual abuse after she was murdered not before. The doctor who looked at her before said she was not abused. The partial DNA found on her matches the killer. The manufacturer didn't sneeze on her clothes....that's just crap. The family didn't match but the killer will.

Thanks for the sanity HollywoodBound.

 

[Pepper]

Well, they were at a conference with Klaas that the Ramseys didn't attend. They sure didn't speak against him!

I'm confused. Who didn't speak against whom?

That's fair. But he's not cleared yet, either!

Thank you! Really I do understand that the family has to be looked at closely in a crime of this sort, but..............what if? ..............just what if................he didn't have a thing to do with it?

Reasons I can't believe J or P Ramsey could have done this are:

1 - THE GARROTE. This is a biggie for me. No parent would use a garrote or a ligature to kill their child! I could believe manual strangulation, suffocation, or just beating the holy crap out of her in a fit of rage, BUT NOT A GARROTE - NEVER! BTW the autopsy report shows the primary cause of death is "ligature strangulation"

2 - I've never heard of a parent who suddenly out of the blue kills a 6 yr. old child, that was apparently loved and doted upon UNLESS there was prior or present known mental illness (Yates) or a history of substance abuse, or a history of physical abuse.

3 - Patsy adored that child and lived vicariously through her - beauty pageants, etc. She doted on that child and would never have killed her - because that child was an extension of her. Just couldn't happen that way.

 

[dottierainbow]

I agree with you Pepper.Many people have been falsely accused and slandered in the media. I pray I never have to walk in their shoes.
Amy

I wonder if the mother of Samantha Runion or the parents of Danielle VanDam would agree that they are not the victims of the crime perpetrated upon their daughters?

Until John Ramsey is arrested, tried and convicted for the murder of his daughter, I see him as a victim - deserving of the same respect and compassion as any parent who loses a child to a violent crime.

Unfortunately there have been cases where children are not safe from intruders in their own homes - remember Jessica Lunsford and Danielle VanDam?

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it until I'm proven wrong.

 

[narlacat]

The trouble is the girl was examined for sexual abuse after she was murdered not before. The doctor who looked at her before said she was not abused. The partial DNA found on her matches the killer. The manufacturer didn't sneeze on her clothes....that's just crap. The family didn't match but the killer will.

Karrs DNA won't match.
I'll eat my boot if it does!!

And just for the record Beuf never did any kind of internal examination on JBR so his word means jack.

 

[BBB167893]

"Who didn't speak against whom?"

The Van Dams didn't speak against Klaas when he railed against the Ramseys at that conference.

"The trouble is the girl was examined for sexual abuse after she was murdered not before."

So?

"The doctor who looked at her before said she was not abused."

He also said he didn't perform an internal exam. And he hadn't seen her in months.

"The partial DNA found on her matches the killer."

We don't know that.

"The manufacturer didn't sneeze on her clothes....that's just crap."

HollywoodBound, I prefer to go with the actual forensic scientists who say the manufacturer DID leave the DNA. They'd be in better position to know, I guess.

"but..............what if? ..............just what if................he didn't have a thing to do with it?"

We'll have to see.

"1 - THE GARROTE. This is a biggie for me. No parent would use a garrote or a ligature to kill their child! I could believe manual strangulation, suffocation, or just beating the holy crap out of her in a fit of rage, BUT NOT A GARROTE - NEVER! BTW the autopsy report shows the primary cause of death is "ligature strangulation""

I don't see how that proves anything. The garrote was judged to be staging by the CASKU people, They have more experience than most of us.

"2 - I've never heard of a parent who suddenly out of the blue kills a 6 yr. old child, that was apparently loved and doted upon UNLESS there was prior or present known mental illness (Yates) or a history of substance abuse, or a history of physical abuse."

Well, the housekeeper said in her GJ testimony that Patsy would get very violent with JonBenet when she had "accidents." Plus, I guess you don't put much stock in the impeccable credentials of the pathologists who said she'd been abused vaginally for a while before the killing, huh?

"3 - Patsy adored that child and lived vicariously through her - beauty pageants, etc. She doted on that child and would never have killed her - because that child was an extension of her. Just couldn't happen that way."

Again, that proves nothing. If it had been premeditated murder, yes. But most investigators think it was an unintentional killing. Big difference.

"There is no solid evidence that the Ramsey's had anything to do with her murder."

Would you like me to list it for you, paperhanger?

 

[paperhanger44z]

The family is always the primary suspect. They need to be cleared. The R's lawyered-up, and did their very best to block the investigation. Of course it couldn't move on because they couldn't clear the family.

If they are innocent, they sure hosed themselves by their own actions and words. I really do hope this guy is the guy...but I just don't think he is.

Well after all I've read about the Boulder police,ex.Steve Thomas,I would have "lawyered up too.Ther is no solid evidence that the Ramsey's had anything to do with her murder.Actually the Ramseys cooperated early on but as we know the police detectives were so pointed that they had no choice but to get legal advice.I feel so sorry for Mr. Klass for his horrendous loss, but he never faced a police dept.this inexperienced and well , incompetent as this one was.

 

[Nova]

if thats me u are referring to i didnt mean anyone was bashing him to say he was speculating..or whatever u mean- I just mean- there is no reason to bash him for his point of view or his personality- he is still worthy of respect for all he has done for kids.

No, newtv, I was referring to a post from a previous page.

What I was trying to say is we can honor Trish's request that we respect Mr. Klass, but that doesn't mean we have to take his views on JBR as gospel.

It isn't disrespectful, at least in my view, to acknowledge that Mr. Klass doesn't know all the facts pertaining to JBR. I don't believe he would claim he does.