Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[txsvicki]

Those two sat there knowing full well that they had lied about burke being asleep that morning and how they made him pretend to be asleep. If he really did any of the things done to jonbenet i can see how he might have gotten so messed up by living with people like that. If he had nothing to do with it at all, that lie alone was enough to cause him damage. If any preacher with a church can' t see that then he's only in the work for the money.

 

[BOESP]

Those two sat there knowing full well that they had lied about burke being asleep that morning and how they made him pretend to be asleep. If he really did any of the things done to jonbenet i can see how he might have gotten so messed up by living with people like that. If he had nothing to do with it at all, that lie alone was enough to cause him damage. If any preacher with a church can' t see that then he's only in the work for the money.

I watched the video more times than I want to say mostly observing body language. My opinion is the interviewer, who said he was also a preacher, didn't believe the Ramseys any more than I believe cows jump over the moon.

 

[OpenMind4U]

I watched the video more times than I want to say mostly observing body language. My opinion is the interviewer, who said he was also a preacher, didn't believe the Ramseys any more than I believe cows jump over the moon.

Agree. Just enough to see his face expression at the end...priceless...

 

[midwest mama]

They are repulsive - everything about them curdles my blood. The nerve of them, to sit there with those smug self-righteous smiles, bloviating about Christianity! "What if we were murderers..." Aaaargh. I'm with midwest mama: uke:

The Ramsey's should have studied their Bible a bit closer. Here's what the Lord really thinks about 'murderers':
Proverbs 6:16-19 "There are six things the Lord Hates - no, seven things he detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord among brothers."

Hello?? Anyone recognize a couple of 'good Christian' R's in the above??

And, if this case has stymied to the point it looks hopeless that CO authorities are not going to consider a prosecution, here are a couple of verses that assure us we MUST NOT GIVE UP HOPE, again, from the Christian Bible, to which the Ramsey's clung: Job 11:10-11 " If God comes along and puts a person in prison, or if he calls the court to order, who is going to stop him? For he knows those who are false,and he takes note of all their sins."

I say, raying:raying: and raying: some more!!

 

[LinasK]

I don't understand what you are saying exactly --

if they had called 911 for whatever really happened - child abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and/or maybe something that went wrong with Burke would obviously have been more of a risk to go to prison than what they decided to do instead.

They did what they did to avoid going to prison. And it worked.

I don't follow your logic. Because that argument is for IDI, but you, I thought, were RDI. So, I am not sure what you are saying..it's like it discounts your own argument...

Whaleshark, although I agree with you about the staging (but not for protecting Burke, I think it was all about protecting Ramsey image- but I admit there are parents like the Anthony's), why does it only have to be BDI vs. IDI, or PDI vs. IDI??? I am an RDI and more specifically JDI! I believe John did the killing and Patsy was in on the staging. Why is that so difficult to believe?

 

[BOESP]

The Ramsey's should have studied their Bible a bit closer. Here's what the Lord really thinks about 'murderers':
Proverbs 6:16-19 "There are six things the Lord Hates - no, seven things he detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord among brothers."

Hello?? Anyone recognize a couple of 'good Christian' R's in the above??

And, if this case has stymied to the point it looks hopeless that CO authorities are not going to consider a prosecution, here are a couple of verses that assure us we MUST NOT GIVE UP HOPE, again, from the Christian Bible, to which the Ramsey's clung: Job 11:10-11 " If God comes along and puts a person in prison, or if he calls the court to order, who is going to stop him? For he knows those who are false,and he takes note of all their sins."

I say, raying:raying: and raying: some more!!

Grandma Walton, you rock. :great:

In reading Kolar's book last night I got through some of the Lou Smit section. It dawned on me that Smit was hired by the DA to be a devil's advocate for the prosecution. Somehow this concept escaped me until reading Kolar's work. Smit was supposed to dredge up any and all evidence that would benefit a defense team so the DA's office could have advance notice of how to prepare a rebuttal; in other words, the DA wanted to be prepared for whatever Team Ramsey might present in case this went to trial.

I know this is rare :what: but perhaps Smit's views were not his personal views but those maintained to fulfill his job as a paid devil's advocate. Investigators have to do some repulsive things when gathering information.

I'm trying to figure out Smit's part in all this, especially since the Christian angle was used by him and the Ramseys.

 

[LinasK]

Grandma Walton, you rock. :great:

In reading Kolar's book last night I got through some of the Lou Smit section. It dawned on me that Smit was hired by the DA to be a devil's advocate for the prosecution. Somehow this concept escaped me until reading Kolar's work. Smit was supposed to dredge up any and all evidence that would benefit a defense team so the DA's office could have advance notice of how to prepare a rebuttal; in other words, the DA wanted to be prepared for whatever Team Ramsey might present in case this went to trial.

I know this is rare :what: but perhaps Smit's views were not his personal views but those maintained to fulfill his job as a paid devil's advocate. Investigators have to do some repulsive things when gathering information.

I'm trying to figure out Smit's part in all this, especially since the Christian angle was used by him and the Ramseys.

And how well did this devil's advocate work, when he prayed with the Ramsey's (how could that not be his personal beliefs?) and steered investigators towards an IDI theory???

 

[DeeDee249]

Whaleshark, although I agree with you about the staging (but not for protecting Burke, I think it was all about protecting Ramsey image- but I admit there are parents like the Anthony's), why does it only have to be BDI vs. IDI, or PDI vs. IDI??? I am an RDI and more specifically JDI! I believe John did the killing and Patsy was in on the staging. Why is that so difficult to believe?

I don't think it is difficult to believe- but I don't agree. I think when you have a crime like this, with SUCH a compromised crime scene, a body that was allowed to be contaminated too (thanks, Arndt and French) then, none of the Rs can be excluded as having been involved. To me, NONE of the RDI possibilities are not believable, though some seem more likely than others.
I do believe very firmly, however, that NO R did this all of this (crime and staging or parts thereof) alone. If one R alone was responsible for her death (including the sexual assault and head bash, possibly the ligature as well) then I see BOTH parents as being involved in the coverup, including writing the phony ransom note. BOTH parents had input as to the content with Patsy as the physical author (those "Qs" say it all to me, as did the periods between S.B.T.C. (a peculiarity of Patsy's grammar seen in letters to friends). As with ALL my posts, MOO.

 

[UKGuy]

Grandma Walton, you rock. :great:

In reading Kolar's book last night I got through some of the Lou Smit section. It dawned on me that Smit was hired by the DA to be a devil's advocate for the prosecution. Somehow this concept escaped me until reading Kolar's work. Smit was supposed to dredge up any and all evidence that would benefit a defense team so the DA's office could have advance notice of how to prepare a rebuttal; in other words, the DA wanted to be prepared for whatever Team Ramsey might present in case this went to trial.

I know this is rare :what: but perhaps Smit's views were not his personal views but those maintained to fulfill his job as a paid devil's advocate. Investigators have to do some repulsive things when gathering information.

I'm trying to figure out Smit's part in all this, especially since the Christian angle was used by him and the Ramseys.

BOESP,
Whut? Lou Smit, he of the psychotic pedophile intruder, he that prayed with John Ramsey?

He that pays the piper calls the tune!

simples.

 

[BOESP]

And how well did this devil's advocate work, when he prayed with the Ramsey's (how could that not be his personal beliefs?) and steered investigators towards an IDI theory???

I do not understand how he possibly could think the Ramseys were innocent. It does not make sense to me that Smit would, outside of acting as a devil's advocate to find holes in the prosecution, come to the conclusion the Ramseys were innocent based on such ludicrous analyses of evidence. The only thing I can think of to make sense of it is he was just doing his job trying to find holes in the prosecution so the DA could fill those holes before going to trial.

Was he senile at the time? (Serious question.)

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
Whut? Lou Smit, he of the psychotic pedophile intruder, he that prayed with John Ramsey?

He that pays the piper calls the tune!

simples.

I understand and agree but Smit was (at one time) a good homicide investigator. He taught at seminars. I just do not understand him (or John Douglas) reneging on things they wrote about and taught in classes.

Until reading in Kolar's book the reasons for the DA's office hiring Smit it had not occurred to me that maybe Smit was "in character" as the devil's advocate. I could be very wrong and probably am but some one please tell me why he thought the Ramseys innocent if that is truly what he thought ... or was his part in this just an extension of fulfilling his job as a hired devil's advocate for the prosecution.

 

[midwest mama]

I do not understand how he possibly could think the Ramseys were innocent. It does not make sense to me that Smit would, outside of acting as a devil's advocate to find holes in the prosecution, come to the conclusion the Ramseys were innocent based on such ludicrous analyses of evidence. The only thing I can think of to make sense of it is he was just doing his job trying to find holes in the prosecution so the DA could fill those holes before going to trial.

Was he senile at the time? (Serious question.)

Serious answer BOESP: There are several comments on various sites by some who said at his older age Smit had become delusional. And, so sad to say that some Christians are very easily swayed by those deceptive "false" Christians that become very practiced at what they do. I think Mr. Smit got 'snookered' but good!!

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't think it is difficult to believe- but I don't agree. I think when you have a crime like this, with SUCH a compromised crime scene, a body that was allowed to be contaminated too (thanks, Arndt and French) then, none of the Rs can be excluded as having been involved. To me, NONE of the RDI possibilities are not believable, though some seem more likely than others.
I do believe very firmly, however, that NO R did this all of this (crime and staging or parts thereof) alone. If one R alone was responsible for her death (including the sexual assault and head bash, possibly the ligature as well) then I see BOTH parents as being involved in the coverup, including writing the phony ransom note. BOTH parents had input as to the content with Patsy as the physical author (those "Qs" say it all to me, as did the periods between S.B.T.C. (a peculiarity of Patsy's grammar seen in letters to friends). As with ALL my posts, MOO.

Ditto, all I know for sure....the murder/murderers resided in that home!

At the very least, two Ramsey's were involved.
I strongly believe Patsy wrote the note and covered her with her favorite blanket.
I can see any one of them being the murderer.
Short a full confession this case will never be solved. I honestly don't know why I've tortured myself for the last 15 years reading every scrap as if the answer will somehow reveal itself to me with total clarity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

I do not understand how he possibly could think the Ramseys were innocent. It does not make sense to me that Smit would, outside of acting as a devil's advocate to find holes in the prosecution, come to the conclusion the Ramseys were innocent based on such ludicrous analyses of evidence. The only thing I can think of to make sense of it is he was just doing his job trying to find holes in the prosecution so the DA could fill those holes before going to trial.

Was he senile at the time? (Serious question.)

Lots of seemingly intelligent people find it difficult if not impossible to believe a wealthy white women could kill her own child or take part in staging. Throw in "good Christian church going family" it's insurmountable.

This case IMO has the most reasonable doubt as to who, what, where and when exactly that I have ever seen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chrishope]

Ditto, all I know for sure....the murder/murderers resided in that home!

At the very least, two Ramsey's were involved.
I strongly believe Patsy wrote the note and covered her with her favorite blanket.
I can see any one of them being the murderer.
Short a full confession this case will never be solved. I honestly don't know why I've tortured myself for the last 15 years reading every scrap as if the answer will somehow reveal itself to me with total clarity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You couldn't be more right, this case will never be solved "officially". Even if JR were to confess some would say he's covering for BR. If BR confessed some would say he covered for JR since BR can't face prosecution. We can spend another 15 years on it, and we'll still be talking about pineapple and the word "hence".

 

[Chrishope]

I understand and agree but Smit was (at one time) a good homicide investigator. He taught at seminars. I just do not understand him (or John Douglas) reneging on things they wrote about and taught in classes.

Until reading in Kolar's book the reasons for the DA's office hiring Smit it had not occurred to me that maybe Smit was "in character" as the devil's advocate. I could be very wrong and probably am but some one please tell me why he thought the Ramseys innocent if that is truly what he thought ... or was his part in this just an extension of fulfilling his job as a hired devil's
advocate for the prosecution.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[UKGuy]

I understand and agree but Smit was (at one time) a good homicide investigator. He taught at seminars. I just do not understand him (or John Douglas) reneging on things they wrote about and taught in classes.

Until reading in Kolar's book the reasons for the DA's office hiring Smit it had not occurred to me that maybe Smit was "in character" as the devil's advocate. I could be very wrong and probably am but some one please tell me why he thought the Ramseys innocent if that is truly what he thought ... or was his part in this just an extension of fulfilling his job as a hired devil's advocate for the prosecution.

BOESP,
Its entirely possible that Lou Smit, once briefed by the DA, simply played along with the Ramsey's, in an attempt to acquire inside information. Hence the communal praying, etc.

But it all starts to break down once Lou Smit begins to promote an IDI, interpreting forensic evidence to this end. Hardly the mark of a seminar lecturer or professional detective. The reasons for this might be legal, financial, or employment related, or a combination thereof.

Politics and finance play a big role in people like John Douglas offering particular opinions. Consider all these top scientists who are paid by leading multinationals to trash climate science, similar happened with the large tobacco manufacturers, where any links to medical harm are minimized. Anyone remember the smoking Beagles?

What you think Lou Smit believed, and what his actual beliefs were, might be two different things. Lou Smit's public role and declared objective, can be different from his private employee role, which can differ from his personal role and beliefs.

This is what I think was the case. So publicly inline with the prevailing ethos the Ramsey's are innocent, e.g. presumption of innocence. In employment terms, the DA probably had another role for him to undertake, even if that meant praying with suspects etc. Then of course we can have Lou Smits personal belief, which might be, if he is such a seasoned investigator, alike Henry Lee's: rice cooked etc. Maybe he knew at the end of the day, there would be no court trial, and hence no conviction, so if the DA required a particular spin on the evidence, then Lou Smit might think he can cook the rice in any manner he sees fit, after all, who can contradict him?

If you consider Lou Smit unprofessional wrt claiming the R's innocent, just consider his use of the forensic evidence, which was used in various documentaries, he treated it as his own property. Does that not suggest Lou Smit was engaged in a process that was independent of the BPD investigation into the death of JonBenet?

 

[Chrishope]

BOESP,
Its entirely possible that Lou Smit, once briefed by the DA, simply played along with the Ramsey's, in an attempt to acquire inside information. Hence the communal praying, etc.

But it all starts to break down once Lou Smit begins to promote an IDI, interpreting forensic evidence to this end. Hardly the mark of a seminar lecturer or professional detective. The reasons for this might be legal, financial, or employment related, or a combination thereof.

Politics and finance play a big role in people like John Douglas offering particular opinions. Consider all these top scientists who are paid by leading multinationals to trash climate science, similar happened with the large tobacco manufacturers, where any links to medical harm are minimized. Anyone remember the smoking Beagles?

What you think Lou Smit believed, and what his actual beliefs were, might be two different things. Lou Smit's public role and declared objective, can be different from his private employee role, which can differ from his personal role and beliefs.

This is what I think was the case. So publicly inline with the prevailing ethos the Ramsey's are innocent, e.g. presumption of innocence. In employment terms, the DA probably had another role for him to undertake, even if that meant praying with suspects etc. Then of course we can have Lou Smits personal belief, which might be, if he is such a seasoned investigator, alike Henry Lee's: rice cooked etc. Maybe he knew at the end of the day, there would be no court trial, and hence no conviction, so if the DA required a particular spin on the evidence, then Lou Smit might think he can cook the rice in any manner he sees fit, after all, who can contradict him?

If you consider Lou Smit unprofessional wrt claiming the R's innocent, just consider his use of the forensic evidence, which was used in various documentaries, he treated it as his own property. Does that not suggest Lou Smit was engaged in a process that was independent of the BPD investigation into the death of JonBenet?

That says it.

 

[UKGuy]

Lots of seemingly intelligent people find it difficult if not impossible to believe a wealthy white women could kill her own child or take part in staging. Throw in "good Christian church going family" it's insurmountable.

This case IMO has the most reasonable doubt as to who, what, where and when exactly that I have ever seen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Linda7NJ,
So far there is no smoking gun. All three R's are implicated, some more than others. IMO there was enough evidence to charge Patsy, her fibers are all over the staged crime-scene.

Any good defense attorney would have blown holes in a Ramsey prosecution, e.g. the fibers are secondary transfer, JonBenet must have arose to snack pineapple, the intruder fed her etc. She put the size-12's on herself, as Patsy claimed.

This and not knowing who whacked her on the head and if this was the same person who aspyxiated her with the ligature, must mean they cannot be certain who to charge with muder, and who to charge with sexual assault and battery etc.

This might be why the Autopsy Report's conclusion is so ambiguous regarding the cause of death. Most of us here think the asphyxiation caused her death, since with medical assistance JonBenet might be alive today?

If the Ramsey's were poor, and it was a BDI, then a similar process might have unfolded with similar results, and all the paperwork might have been tailored to suit minor confidentiality etc. But with the R's being millionares this can offer another reason why much due process was overlooked, lost or ignored?

It is curious that Kolar, who has read and listened to the Grand Jury stuff, is able to publish a book that offers such an obvious conclusion?


.

 

[BOESP]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I can say one thing. The DA's office got their money's worth.

Smit surely saw the same evidence Thomas, Kolar and Arndt saw. It is disturbing to me that either he was not what he professed to be in law enforcement and took the job any way or he was too senile to have been hired.