The Ramseys are Cleared

[Medea]

Think about it, WHY on god's earth would an intruder REDRESS the child? Give me a break, it makes no sense on its face. This intruder, breaks into the house, abuses the girl and then puts her clothes back on?? For what purpose?

 

[RiverRat]

I wonder if the family can sue?

Sue who?! The BPD? LOL - I wish they would so that all of the info is out on the table, but I betcha that will not happen. How would the cronic erosion of JonBenet's hymen be pinned on a One Time Only Intruder?!

 

[Details]

Wrong! The DNA then just like now is INCOMPLETE (caps for emphasis, I'm not yelling at you). They didn't have enough markers to match it to anyone.

Oh and (I think someone else mentioned it too, but here it is again) why wasn't PATSY'S "touch DNA" found on the longjohns? It was PATSY who dressed her in the longjohns....oops!

Incomplete DNA is just fine for exoneration. If it doesn't match, no matter how incomplete the DNA, you cannot have been the person who provided that DNA. Incomplete just means that a lot of people match the DNA. But it's just fine for exoneration.

I don't know if Patsy's DNA was or was not found. But it wasn't found in the panties. It's a match of unknown DNA that should have been nowhere near a little girl's panties for any innocent reason (unless it's manufacturer DNA) to the exact same DNA on her tights. DNA one place - could be chance, the person who packed them at the plant, etc. Two places on a dead girl's body - it's not chance. And since this is not her parents, not her brother, no one known to have access to her for innocent reasons, this is the killer.

 

[Wudge]

Well how lucky for the mystery intruder that the Ramseys made it impossible for the police to investigate the crime properly.

Just think, IF the police had been able to EXCLUDE them quickly, they wouldn't have been forced to waste time while their daughter's killer walked free.

Now that the Ramsey's have been declared innocent, I assume this means they can no longer be bashed here anymore. Or is there a different site standard that permits victims (such as the parents) in Jon Benet's case to be bashed versus all other cases where victim bashing is not permitted?

 

[Skigwy]

I agree Tex. The Ramseys have now officially joined other parents that were falsely accused in the disappearance of their child, such as the Van Dam's, the Aisenbergs, the Smarts, etc..

Well, this child was murdered in her home. So the Ramseys are more appropriately grouped with Routier (sp) Midyette (sp) and countless others.

 

[RiverRat]

Now that the Ramsey's have been declared innocent, I assume this means they can no longer be bashed here anymore. Or is there a different site standard that permits victims (such as the parents) in Jon Benet's case to be bashed versus all other cases where victim bashing is not permitted?

Ask Tricia - she is the one that owns this place. :clap:

 

[TexMex]

Thanks for your note. (And you're lucky to live in Idaho; such a beautiful state.)

I think that many home invaders, rapists, and pedophiles actually crave dangerous situations; they don't want to get caught, but the excitement of the situation is part of the thrill. I think that the BTK killer and several others have described these weird and disgusting sensations.

Very true. BTK took one victim to his church and re dressed her in bondage clothing and took pics.

No way a Stage four cancer survivor kills her own child. Cances gives you instant clarity on what's important. Bed wetting and that nonsense....please.

 

[Skigwy]

Now that the Ramsey's have been declared innocent, I assume this means they can no longer be bashed here anymore. Or is there a different site standard that permits victims (such as the parents) in Jon Benet's case to be bashed versus all other cases where victim bashing is not permitted?

haha you really haven't followed this case have you

 

[Seeker]

Incomplete DNA is just fine for exoneration. If it doesn't match, no matter how incomplete the DNA, you cannot have been the person who provided that DNA. Incomplete just means that a lot of people match the DNA. But it's just fine for exoneration.

I don't know if Patsy's DNA was or was not found. But it wasn't found in the panties. It's a match of unknown DNA that should have been nowhere near a little girl's panties for any innocent reason (unless it's manufacturer DNA) to the exact same DNA on her tights. DNA one place - could be chance, the person who packed them at the plant, etc. Two places on a dead girl's body - it's not chance. And since this is not her parents, not her brother, no one known to have access to her for innocent reasons, this is the killer.

I totally disagree. Do you have any idea how many people routinely handle a body when it is sent to the morgue?

 

[RiverRat]

Yes, remember all the new to this forum posters who were quick to jump on the John Mark Karr bandwagon despite the fact it didn't fit all the other evidence in the case???:bang:

LOL - I know! This is like a flashback......I'm just hoping that some people would have learned then not to trust this woman that is truly the biggest criminal in Boulder.

 

[RiverRat]

Very true. BTK took one victim to his church and re dressed her in bondage clothing and took pics.

No way a Stage four cancer survivor kills her own child. Cances gives you instant clarity on what's important. Bed wetting and that nonsense....please.

Ummm - Patsy was not a survivor though. She was only in remission and lacking clarity on anything real.

 

[Medea]

I don't think this is going to change anybody's mind.

THe people that have always thought the Ramsey's were not guilty are going to feel vindicated and claim now there is "proof" of innocence.

The people that have always believed one or both of the Ramsey's were guilty are not going to change their mind over one single 'new' piece of information, especially coming from a DA who has been touting the intruder idea all along.

 

[thefragile7393]

Sue who?! The BPD? LOL - I wish they would so that all of the info is out on the table, but I betcha that will not happen. How would the cronic erosion of JonBenet's hymen be pinned on a One Time Only Intruder?!

Oh man if the BPD and DA's office could be sued......the very people who enabled the Ramseys from the get-go. Too many things are weird about this case to completely exonerate the parents/a parent. It's not a black & white case at all, especially if you know the background of how all this was botched up from the beginning.

 

[Details]

...Lacy's office had the Colorado Bureau of Investigation analyze other samples to make sure the DNA profile could not have been left during the autopsy, when JonBenét's clothes were removed.

That was not the case, the CBI reported on June 27.

RiverRat and others - yes, they did check if this could have been an autopsy tech.

Not that they'd have any reason to have their DNA in the panties anyway.

 

[LI_Mom]

Now that the Ramsey's have been declared innocent, I assume this means they can no longer be bashed here anymore. Or is there a different site standard that permits victims (such as the parents) in Jon Benet's case to be bashed versus all other cases where victim bashing is not permitted?

Declared innocent?

I think the DA might feel this proves their innocence but unfortunately to people who have been paying attention all along, this won't convince them.


Btw, OJ was declared innocent also.

 

[Seeker]

I don't think this is going to change anybody's mind.

THe people that have always thought the Ramsey's were not guilty are going to feel vindicated and claim now there is "proof" of innocence.

The people that have always believed one or both of the Ramsey's were guilty are not going to change their mind over one single 'new' piece of information, especially coming from a DA who has been touting the intruder idea all along.

:clap::clap::clap:
Well said.

 

[angelwngs]

Yeah right......we do not have an Intruder that makes a lower case "q" look like the number 8 - just like Patsy!!! See below.......

Lacy is leaving office soon, so this is her last attempt to help the Ramseys fool people that have not really followed every detail and it works on some unfortunately, but then they will feel as silly as they did for believing anything that comes out of her mouth - just like they did when John Mark Karr was exposed to be a nothing.

...and her timing is almost exactly the same of year as in the John Mark Karr 'episode'...

I am not going to let her screw up yet another of my summers with her trivial nonsense...

 

[Claycat]

Think about it, WHY on god's earth would an intruder REDRESS the child? Give me a break, it makes no sense on its face. This intruder, breaks into the house, abuses the girl and then puts her clothes back on?? For what purpose?

Usually perps that cover a victim in some way are perps that know the victim.

I agree with you that this was ritualistic abuse. The garroting was to simulate orgasm. This is often the case with ritualistic pedophilia. She wasn't meant to die. They went too far. That is why there was such an attempt to cover things up. No doubt that was someone else's DNA. When you are having a satanic, ritualistic party, there are usually several people involved.

 

[Details]

I don't think this is going to change anybody's mind.

THe people that have always thought the Ramsey's were not guilty are going to feel vindicated and claim now there is "proof" of innocence.

The people that have always believed one or both of the Ramsey's were guilty are not going to change their mind over one single 'new' piece of information, especially coming from a DA who has been touting the intruder idea all along.

And this is very sad.


I've always been a bit in the middle, leaning towards an intruder, but I could see why there was suspicion. But DNA in two places - that is sufficient.

 

[Wudge]

haha you really haven't followed this case have you

I followed this case in great detail and posted extensively on it from 1997 to April of 2003. It was at that time that U.S. District Judge Julie E. Carnes, ruled: "there is abundant evidence" to support assertions by JonBenét's parents, John B. and Patricia P. "Patsy" Ramsey, that an intruder entered their home at some point during the night of Dec. 25, 1996, and killed their daughter."