Why the Ramsays?

[JMO8778]

What does JR mean by 'face forward'? That he might have slid down into the cellar doing a nose-dive? If that's what he meant, the man has never climbed through a basement window in his life. Or does he mean he faced the cellar room as he slid down? That's a very unusual way of sliding through a basement window too.

And the best part of it is John's "that's probably how I would have done it". Imo this is someone theorizing about the best way to climb through a basement window, and not someone telling Smit what he probably did.

I don't buy it that John allegedly could not remember how he got in through the basement window. For squeezing oneself through a basement window is something exceptional and not an everyday activity, and as a rule, we tend to remember unusual things very well.

I would think he would have broke his back if he'd went thru it face fwd.

 

[Eagle1]

..............- if the killer wasn't one of the Ramseys, it was someone they knew and were willing to cover pretty hard for...and if you ask me, the only person the Rs would cover for this long and this hard is one of their own.

I'm not sure, did the killer of the Amish school girls also kill himself?

But did you see the Amish spokesman in a news interview saying, "But we have to forgive, or Jesus won't forgive us"? Very possibly that's what has been wrong with the Ramseys, mis-use of that concept.

We joke about "the antichrist", the opposite of Christ, who actually hates Christians and our children but pretends to be a clergyman, but in my recent experience the last few decades, I think that's part of his trade mark, that he claims he can cause absolutely anything to be done to us and we have to just forgive, even murder of our loved ones. In other words, that he's brainwashed them into accepting his "mark", twisted doctrines or "doctrines of demons". He doesn't want there to be any "whining", just getting on with lives, of service. Otherwise, what would cause that Amish man to talk about forgiving when (I think) the killer was already dead? Or if he's alive, they don't have authority to prevent his being prosecuted. The heretic makes the forgiveness doctrine into a sadistic "trap". (Ancient Jeremiah predicts early in his book "a conspiracy in Zion; evil men set traps for humans.) The Amish man seemed like such a sucker, didn't he, thinking they had to deny their feelings about such a thing. (As did the Ramseys? Don't know if Reverse Speech is reliable, but they said one statement backwards was, "So now we must hate you." I think it was Nedra who said they'd never been a religious family until PR's cancer, so they wouldn't know the ancient predictions about the tech age, the time of people flying.

I don't think the R's would do much serving, frankly, but I do think this might explain their covering for the covert mastermind, who'd be getting others to do his dirty work so he could kid himself he's innocent. There were also a lot of other school killings right around the same time, early Oct. right?

If JR was molesting JonBenet, so were some others, in other words, all along part of a complicated plot, delayed until she was old enough to rebel and try to get help from the school nurse, then 911. Her parents seemed to be brain dead or something.

 

[angelwngs]

http://health.msn.com/centers/cancer/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100146503&GT1=8618

Long term effects of chemo on brain activity- 10 year cognitive issues attributed to chemo.

 

[Eagle1]

........Long term effects of chemo on brain activity- 10 year cognitive issues attributed to chemo.

I don't know much about drugs' long-term effects, also can't recite the Ten Commandments, bet nobody can.

But for the record, in case someone should look up ancient Jeremiah, I'd better state that he's not the one who mentioned the time of flying. Ezekiel did. Ezek. also says nobody can have any secrets from this doomed person who's trying to take everybody with him. So he may be a spy and have all sorts of immunity, for a time. He's to be caught for something eventually, and "none shall help him" and his "3 evil shepherds" mentioned in Zechariah. It takes some knowledge of all the previous prophetic witnesses to sort of understand Revelation, where he's called an accuser of the brethren in religion (heavenly) circles. He's got a destructive underground, worldwide, called "babylon", which is obviously all some sort of code we're not meant to understand until it happens. Don't be offended at this information if you're not really a believer. What could it hurt in trying to solve this murder and increasing school ones to at least know something of the ancient predictions which might well apply?

To us sleuth wannabe's, a crime spree character might naturally be more interesting than memorizing the Commandments, including myself, sad to say, but we have a general idea of them, right?

 

[BBB167893]

I'm not sure, did the killer of the Amish school girls also kill himself?

He did.

 

[Eagle1]

That's the thing. An RDI can point to other (frequently less plausible) causes for the various clues pointing to the Ramseys. In other words, they can play defense. But can anyone play offense for the Ramseys? Swing the bat. Make me scramble to explain why some bit of evidence points to the Rs, rather than to an intruder.

That's what I would like to see. And if no one can produce such a demonstration -- if IDIs can only defensively produce alternative explanations for evidence that mostly points to the Rs -- then doesn't the conclusion speak for itself?

Although I call myself a neutral FS, fence sitter, never said the R's couldn't be somehow involved, but haven't we all watched Cold Case programs on TV where whole truth didn't surface until a quarter century or more later?

It's almost Halloween, and I've offered a tentative theory that may sound almost like a Halloween story, which we'll not know the truth of for quite a while, maybe another war in the Mid-East, who knows? I don't have any fave theory, was just supplying a possible explanation for the R's "covering for" someone, whose name they may not definitely know, since he would use other people as "insulation" to do his dirty work. Because maybe I get tired of hearing who would they cover for. Hey there's all sorts of undergrounds that bright people don't want to tangle with, organized crime and extremists from false religions who might "preach" that ridding the earth of the little sex pot was a good thing, etc., etc., etc. That's the easiest thing to answer, of the whole case. If it becomes clear that the predictions are coming true, unprecedented troubles like all these school killings that will probably get worse, at least we'll not be taken by surprise.

Experienced LE professionals who certainly know more than we do are not jumping to conclusions about this case, but taking a wait-and-see attitude. They know from experience something may come up that will crack the case some time to the satisfaction of all of us. Or we'll get distracted by worse things. When it's all settled, I think we'll all be happier.

 

[narlacat]

I suspect that the Ramsays DIDN'T do it.
Even if it was an inside job, why oh why did the police have to blame the Ramsays.:doh: It could have been any of the people they had working for them.
Or a guest at the party?
It may not have been a classic intruder but that doesnt mean it was the Ramseys.
???
Thats what I think anyway.:dance:

I suspect the Ramsey's DID do it.

 

[UKGuy]

I suspect that the Ramsays DIDN'T do it.
Even if it was an inside job, why oh why did the police have to blame the Ramsays.:doh: It could have been any of the people they had working for them.
Or a guest at the party?
It may not have been a classic intruder but that doesnt mean it was the Ramseys.
???
Thats what I think anyway.:dance:

keriekerie,

Ramsays.:doh: It could have been any of the people they had working for them.
Or a guest at the party?

None of these people were inside the Ramsey house the night JonBenet was killed. There is no forensic evidence to suggest any intruder was in the Ramsey house that night. So the police have to consider any or all of the three remaining residents as prime suspects.

What you think, I think or any other member believes does not matter, to misquote Clinton? Its the evidence st...


.

 

[Parmenides]

Given the compelling case against the Rs, as outlined by NP, the real mystery is: Why were they never charged??? Why?? :doh:

 

[narlacat]

Corruption.
Inept LE.
Money talks.

 

[Camper]

Thank you! I can't believe with the Ramseys were still able to get away with murder with this amount of evidence proving them to have been involved (including the web-grate, thanks, SD!) It's beyond me how people can still cling to the belief that there was any intruder that night - if the killer wasn't one of the Ramseys, it was someone they knew and were willing to cover pretty hard for...and if you ask me, the only person the Rs would cover for this long and this hard is one of their own.

--->>>:clap::clap: Yep, on the money NP. Covering for a family member who might have been on drugs and or under the influence of alcohol, forgive them for they knew not what THEY did. So far under our legal system of justice, WE as a nation do not forgive murder by accident, caused by being under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Add to that the legal representation, the money, the alibi for such a person and you have the entire case in a nutshell.

Damage control is very, very expensive, both from the dollars spent and the personal toll it takes on those involved in it. The attorneys involved with the justice blindfolds around their heads, take the money and look the other way. Somehow that does not seem to be the way it should be.

SO IF the alibi, ONE DAY, comes unraveled by cause of conscience, then WE could put the perpetrator away in the striped prison cell spa. It would not make JonBenet become alive again. It would however, tie up the loose ends of ONE murder in America of an innocent little girl.

Only have thousands left to solve.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Given the compelling case against the Rs, as outlined by NP, the real mystery is: Why were they never charged??? Why?? :doh:

Parmenides,

They were never charged because, there was never a smoking gun, well not by the time the crime-scene was allowed to be trashed by miscellaneous guests and inquisitive lea.

So with not enough evidence to nail any one Ramsey, nobody was charged, probably on the grounds it can be revisited if anything crawls out from under the boulder (sic).

Those that know enough about the case will probably accept there was a conspiracy, which involved not only all three Ramsey's, but potentially legal associates, political allies, and law enforcement contacts.

Whether this simply represented a conflation of interests or something more sinister, e.g. pedophile ring, is a matter for judgement.


Money may talk, as I notice it did in the Mark Foley Page Case. His donations and the 2 or 3-million dollars it would take to defend his political corner were enough to silence the most high ranking of GOP officials.


.

 

[Camper]

Parmenides,

They were never charged because, there was never a smoking gun, well not by the time the crime-scene was allowed to be trashed by miscellaneous guests and inquisitive lea.

So with not enough evidence to nail any one Ramsey, nobody was charged, probably on the grounds it can be revisited if anything crawls out from under the boulder (sic).

Those that know enough about the case will probably accept there was a conspiracy, which involved not only all three Ramsey's, but potentially legal associates, political allies, and law enforcement contacts.

Whether this simply represented a conflation of interests or something more sinister, e.g. pedophile ring, is a matter for judgement.


Money may talk, as I notice it did in the Mark Foley Page Case. His donations and the 2 or 3-million dollars it would take to defend his political corner were enough to silence the most high ranking of GOP officials.

.

--->>>UKGuy -> :clap:

Hastert is trying to get the egg wiped from his face with the Windex he used on Foley's glass house.

.

 

[Eagle1]

Corruption.
Inept LE.
Money talks.

Yup, those are some of the main reasons this isn't solved.

 

[azwriter]

Nuisanceposter,
I do believe yours is a blue ribbon post. The best I've read in years on this board about the Ramsey case. Great work!

Add this to the list of reasons the Ramsey's were not charged: Burke, by law in Colo., was too young to be charged with murder. Which prompted my husband to ask "Then why do the officials continue to investigate the case?"
Good question, huh? But, maybe by law they have to continue to protect Burke (who I believe killed his sister by accident). What a position for a law enforcement to be in.
Which leads to another question - Why, if it were an accident, would the parents try to cover up the death of their daughter?
I suppose because it was the events surrounding the accident that would cast the parents into an unfavorable light in the public view. I do believe the Ramseys were arrogrant enough to not only protect their son, but also their reputation in the community.
Whatever happened in that house that night, Patsy and John went to great lenghts to cover up and stage a crime scene. They must have been in a panic!
JMO

 

[sandraladeda]

Add this to the list of reasons the Ramsey's were not charged: Burke, by law in Colo., was too young to be charged with murder. Which prompted my husband to ask "Then why do the officials continue to investigate the case?"
Good question, huh? But, maybe by law they have to continue to protect Burke (who I believe killed his sister by accident). What a position for a law enforcement to be in.

Do you think, though, that LE would go so far as to go through the JMK fiasco if they already know who the killer is?

IMO, the arrest and extradition of JMK to Boulder prety much negates the theory that BDI and LE knows it, and is just protecting a minor.
imo

 

[Chrishope]

On the Court TV boards, there is a thread asking IDI beleivers to write out a complete theory of the case, explaining all the evidence. Might be interesting if any of them try.

 

[rashomon]

On the Court TV boards, there is a thread asking IDI beleivers to write out a complete theory of the case, explaining all the evidence. Might be interesting if any of them try.

That was a great idea on the part of CTV poster WallyCleaver to ask IDIs to present their theory where every single bit of evidence has to fit in.
For focusing on isolated items is one thing, but trying to present a consistent time line and version of events is another story. It is fairly easy to focus on isolated items while at the sime time leaving out the rest of all the incriminating evidence (For example, Ramsey supporters like to mention an 'animal hair', which in their opinion means 'fur-boot wearing intruder', while at the same time ignoring that fibers from Patsy's jacket were found in the wrappings of the garrote, on the sticky side of the duct tape and in the paint tray).
But in the thread this poster opened, IDIs have to build everything in. For example, they will have to explain how the fibers from Patsy's jacket got there.
All I have ever read from IDIs in terms of the fiber evidence was that they questioned its credibility. But the fiber evidence is rock solid. It was a lawyer (Levin) who confronted the Ramseys with this evidence, and unlike police officers, lawyers are NOT allowed to lie in interviews with suspects.
The pineapple evidence will also give IDIs something to chew on if they try to build it into their story without stretching people's imagination beyond limits. For example, it is just sheer nonsense to claim that an intruder sat down with JB in the kitchen, fed her pineapple and then waited for one to two hours before killing her.
That pineapple blows the Ramseys' story and time line apart.

All this is quite a challenge for every IDI. The whole story offered by the Ramseys is a challenge for IDIs, for it is so obviously concocted and full of lies that imo it can't be put together, however hard they may try.

 

[Eagle1]

While we're waiting, I'll reply as an unprejudiced FS about your pineapple pronouncement, just saw it in an email notification.

One of the many cults that reportedly existed around Boulder and probably still do, would have been Celtic, and a web search will tell you more than you probably really want to know about their custom of feeding a human sacrifice a last meal, including some kind of green, I forget what green exactly. But I think they said the pineapple was greenish in her digestive tract, or that there was a greenish substance. Not saying this whole thing was just Celtic. If a cult thing, it would have been more likely a mixture, I'd guess.

McReynolds belonged to a "church" that claims all kinds,revived ones, I think, not just Christian religion which is supposed to all believe our loyalty is to Christ and no other, (was he influencing, testing the R's and the others?) and happened to have a Celtic harp with notches on it representing quite a few children he'd known who'd somehow died. I never did find out what they died of. One of the Celtic traditions, though, was that last meal and leaving the body below ground, maybe in water or some other lower place.

The forum moved several times since we discussed this so don't ask me now for sources. Neither would I consider it important enough to get into any argument about it. The subject should be so easy to google.

I'm not saying they definitely had a cult sacrifice, mind you, just filling in some details that are certainly possible. Maybe even probable.

 

[BBB167893]

Given the compelling case against the Rs, as outlined by NP, the real mystery is: Why were they never charged??? Why??

Let me explain.

No, there is too much.

Let me sum up:

Corruption

Weakness

Naivete

Bad combination!