Assuming just for the poll that it was an intruder: Who was the intruder?

Assuming that it was an intruder:(Just for the Poll) Who was the intruder?

  • an employee of Access,

    Votes: 13 6.1%
  • a friend of the Ramseys

    Votes: 40 18.8%
  • Oliva,

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Helgoth,

    Votes: 3 1.4%
  • Wolf

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • an unknown individual.

    Votes: 31 14.6%
  • It was not an intruder.

    Votes: 125 58.7%

  • Total voters
    213
I am not sure. But I cant say as I want to stay away. Just have some sanity left, I am playing it by ear if I Need to quickly break away you will have a PM. I do sound crazy dont ? Well who could blame me.

You don't sound crazy. You AREN'T crazy. You have been through a lot. And no one likes to be cyber-bullied. When you need to pull back, you pull back.
 
I am not sure. But I cant say as I want to stay away. Just have some sanity left, I am playing it by ear if I Need to quickly break away you will have a PM. I do sound crazy dont ? Well who could blame me.

No, no...you are not crazy....you know WHO, is the crazy one. Did you ever clean out your message box? I tried to pm you, but your box was full. I am going to try it again...
 
Hey, folks!

I just found something. It may answer why none of Patsy's touch DNA was found on the leggings:

http://connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=318702&paper=80&cat=104

This is it:

"In those rare cases in which blood or other fluids of a suspect are not evident at the scene of a crime, the lab makes use of several of the more niche technologies available, such as Touch DNA or YSTR, to form the profile they need. YSTR analysis works the same way as standard STR, only it isolates the DNA with Y chromosomes. Since only males have Y chromosomes, the technique becomes useful in certain cases, such as sexual assault, in which a struggle may leave traces of a suspect's DNA underneath the fingernails of the victim. Touch DNA, used in cases where no fluids are available to analyze, use traces of skin cells that may be left at a crime scene."

And since the DA already formed the opinion that it was a male intruder, that's what they'd look for.

As this passage confirms:

"Ian Rodway, chief deputy attorney for the Commonwealth of Virginia, said DNA evidence could be very useful when given the right context.
'That's not to say it doesn't have its limits. Finding traces of a person's DNA or fingerprints on the rearview mirror of a car, for instance, doesn't automatically implicate a person in that crime.'"

Isn't that interesting? Like I keep saying: it's the DA's imagination that gives this "evidence" it's power.
 
Hey, folks!

I just found something. It may answer why none of Patsy's touch DNA was found on the leggings:

http://connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=318702&paper=80&cat=104

This is it:

"In those rare cases in which blood or other fluids of a suspect are not evident at the scene of a crime, the lab makes use of several of the more niche technologies available, such as Touch DNA or YSTR, to form the profile they need. YSTR analysis works the same way as standard STR, only it isolates the DNA with Y chromosomes. Since only males have Y chromosomes, the technique becomes useful in certain cases, such as sexual assault, in which a struggle may leave traces of a suspect's DNA underneath the fingernails of the victim. Touch DNA, used in cases where no fluids are available to analyze, use traces of skin cells that may be left at a crime scene."

And since the DA already formed the opinion that it was a male intruder, that's what they'd look for.

As this passage confirms:

"Ian Rodway, chief deputy attorney for the Commonwealth of Virginia, said DNA evidence could be very useful when given the right context.
'That's not to say it doesn't have its limits. Finding traces of a person's DNA or fingerprints on the rearview mirror of a car, for instance, doesn't automatically implicate a person in that crime.'"

Isn't that interesting? Like I keep saying: it's the DA's imagination that gives this "evidence" it's power.

Well that is alot!!!!
 
If those who believe it was an intruder wish to qualify who they think that intruder is here is another poll?
I am not claiming that an intruder did it or supporting any side: this is just a poll for further information.

Who was the intruder:
1. employee of Access,
2. a friend of the Ramseys,
3. Oliva,
4. Helgoth,
5. Wolf
6. Unknown Individual
7. It was not an intruder

8. The pineapple..the pineapple did it!
(sry,couldn't resist)
 
8. The pineapple..the pineapple did it!
(sry,couldn't resist)

The pineapple AND the spoon. Oh, and the bowl. And the Kleenex box. THAT was the "small foreign faction" after all. All those products were made overseas!
 
IMO the case has already been resolved. It was solved by the 13-month grand jury investigation that ended in October of 1999. And I think John and Patsy Ramsey have been officially cleared in the death of JonBenet. The problem is it can't be publicly announced.

The evidence and common sense tells us one of the three Ramseys in the house that night had to be directly involved in the death of JonBenet.

If John and Patsy are publicly cleared, by the process of elimination that would leave Burke as the killer for all to see --

a violation of Colorado law, and the court protective order, shielding the identities of the children.

JMO....

Is it a crime, when someone covers up a murder in Colorado?
 
Sissi,

But the Ramseys have been lying and covering up for someone.

They would do this only if a family member was involved or if children were involved,

and they certainly wouldn't do it to protect neighbor Barnhill or his boarder Myers.

JMO....

This makes a lot of sense....imo
 
I would think BlueCrab makes sense if not for the facts of the JMK fiasco. If the DA's office knew that BR was the killer, they would not have gone through the charade of bringing JMK back to the US and making complete fools of themselves.

imo
 
Sissi,

There are many instances of the Ramseys lying and covering for Burke.

For example, all three Ramseys lied during the interviews about Burke being in bed until 7:00 A.M.

when the enhanced 911 tape proved he was downstairs talking to John and Patsy at 5:52 A.M.

They tried to distance Burke from the crime scene with the lies, but the lies instead incriminated all three Ramseys --

John, Patsy, and Burke -- in a conspiratorial coverup to shield Burke.

JMO.....

I remember hearing Burkes voice on the 911 tape, made at 5:25 AM....

always wondered WHY they claimed B. was in bed asleep, when there was proof he wasn't..

I questioned why he wasn't being questioned as to any

sights or sounds he may have heard during the night.

Why didn't B. look for his missing sister all over the house that morning???....jmo
 
I would think BlueCrab makes sense if not for the facts of the JMK fiasco. If the DA's office knew that BR was the killer, they would not have gone through the charade of bringing JMK back to the US and making complete fools of themselves.

imo

I never thought of that - it makes perfect sense. Unless of course, they thoiught they could pin it on him anyway, without expecting that he would have been proved not to have been anywhere near Boulder? Nuh, surely not.
 
It is a crime, Letsthink. Trouble is, Colorado law says you can't prosecute the coverup without prosecuting the murder itself.
 
I remember hearing Burkes voice on the 911 tape, made at 5:25 AM....

always wondered WHY they claimed B. was in bed asleep, when there was proof he wasn't..
they made those claims before finding out BR was on the 911 tape...later,they recanted,saying he was awake..but they didn't know it! and get this...Patsy said BR had tears in his eyes,and was very upset..he knew something was very wrong! Umm...how could she not know he was awake,if she saw this?? another big foot in the mouth,Patsy!
 
I questioned why he wasn't being questioned as to any

sights or sounds he may have heard during the night.
it is odd,what parent wouldn't have wanted to know if he'd seen or overheard anything,well,if they're innocent,that is!

Why didn't B. look for his missing sister all over the house that morning???....jmo
he was shuffled off too quickly,the R's didn't want him q'd..in case he had overheard something!! then JR has the nerve to complain about police q'ing him for 40+ minutes at the White's house that morning,saying that was illegal..who cares about legal if it might offer some substantial info as to where their missing daughter might be???
 
it is odd,what parent wouldn't have wanted to know if he'd seen or overheard anything,well,if they're innocent,that is!

he was shuffled off too quickly,the R's didn't want him q'd..in case he had overheard something!! then JR has the nerve to complain about police q'ing him for 40+ minutes at the White's house that morning,saying that was illegal..who cares about legal if it might offer some substantial info as to where their missing daughter might be???

Yep, that was 'telling', to say the least.

And the way they got Burke from the Whites and took him to the Steins also told me more than I wanted to know. There was already trouble brewing with FW at that point in my opinion and the R's knew he was on to them...
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
92
Guests online
2,193
Total visitors
2,285

Forum statistics

Threads
590,008
Messages
17,928,897
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top