The Ramseys are Cleared

[Wudge]

And then there are people like you who defend child sexual abusers (Rams), child murderers (Rams), wife killers (Peterson1)and those who kill their pregnant wifes and unborn babies (Peterson2).

How do THOSE people sleep at night????

I sleep just fine. In all criminal cases, I hold to the presumption of innocence until sufficient, reliable, material and competent evidence carries me over the hurdle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unlike so many posters, I never rush to judgment.

 

[Wudge]

Oh I don't blame Wood... he's following the money.

I have no sympathy for the Ramsey's 'defamation' concerns... imo, they brought it all on themselves from the get go.

It wasn't until AFTER I read their self-serving & absolutely STUPID book that I started to believe there was something seriously wrong with that family, by the way. They SHOULD have sued whoever allowed them to publish that drivel.

I've heard many people say that because the Ramseys lawyered up, they brought this all on themselves. I've always considered that to be a pretty sad statement and evaluation.

 

[Rino]

I sleep just fine. In all criminal cases, I hold to the presumption of innocence until sufficient, reliable, material and competent evidence carries me over the hurdle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unlike so many posters, I never rush to judgment.

12 years is hardly a rush....

 

[LI_Mom]

I sleep just fine. In all criminal cases, I hold to the presumption of innocence until sufficient, reliable, material and competent evidence carries me over the hurdle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unlike so many posters, I never rush to judgment.

Except we're NOT talking about a criminal trial here... we're talking about what the preponderance of the evidence logically tells us.

 

[Wudge]

12 years is hardly a rush....

So true. After twelve years, there remains a huge dearth of sufficient, reliable, material and competent evidence that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Ramseys killed Jon Benet. In fact, as time has passes, the evidence points evermore away from them.

 

[Wudge]

Except we're NOT talking about a criminal trial here... we're talking about what the preponderance of the evidence logically tells us.

In all criminal cases, the standard of proof necessary for conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[angelwngs]

Weird, I can't post without quoting angelwngs even though I'm not trying to. Anyone else?


What I actually want to say is one of the main points for me indicating the R's guilt is that when John went to search the second time for any clues he headed straight for the basement. WHY? Wouldn't you go straight to her room? You know the last place you knew her to be? :waitasec:


J.

LOL, :waitasec::crazy:, I wish I could assume your posts quoting me is because my posts are so 'thought provoking', but I'm rather sure that it is instead because I am 'running off at the mouth' so much here... Sorry...if it is a problem for anyone. I am just passionate about justice for JBR.

I'll try to shut up after this post and just read for awhile...

Good Question. Even though they had already checked her room earlier that morning, in order to confirm or disprove what was said in the ransom note, I wonder why JR chose to go to the exact spot where she was actually found rather than starting from where she was last seen to seek evidence of her abduction. After all, the reason for the search was to see if anything was out of place. I think I would have worked my way down to the basement, but who knows.

 

[LI_Mom]

I've heard many people say that because the Ramseys lawyered up, they brought this all on themselves. I've always considered that to be a pretty sad statement and evaluation.

I don't begrudge them hiring a lawyer....

I DO begrudge them hiring a team of lawyers who made it their business to help the parents avoid cooperating with the investigation unless certain *SPECIAL* conditions were met that protected them... just in case. No rush.... it's just your kid who is dead.... whenever you get a chance to talk with us will be fine. Oh and don't bother turning over the clothes you & John wore that night.... keep them a year.... wash them.... whatever... it's just a murder case.

And I was endlessly offended by their book. Patsy didn't sound like the mother of a murdered child... she sounded like someone who was thoroughly enjoying outsmarting the investigators & media.

 

[philamena]

Originally Posted by thesleuther

You are stating hard facts that have no basis. You do not know these things.

Please when you hae a chance go to Tricia's site and read the threads on the handwriting analzysis.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/index.php?

 

[wenchie]

Good Question. Even though they had already checked her room earlier that morning, in order to confirm or disprove what was said in the ransom note, I wonder why JR chose to go to the exact spot where she was actually found rather than starting from where she was last seen to seek evidence of her abduction. After all, the reason for the search was to see if anything was out of place. I think I would have worked my way down to the basement, but who knows.

Am I the only parent who, when having temporarily "lost" a child - looked in the same places over & over again - in the same closets, under the same beds, etc. etc.

I remember that Sharon Rocha was even looking in trash cans for her daughter.

For a parent to take one cursory look through ONE FLOOR of the house and then settle into a chair is very telling, IMO.

Even if you believed the child HAD BEEN kidnapped, you'd be looking all over for clues...entry/exit points.....ANYTHING that had been left behind.

Patsy didn't go down to that basement once, did she?

 

[Medea]

I've never been able to get past the fact that this crime requires the mixing of too many genres.

The sexual sadist rapist/killer who doesn't rape her, uses small cord as ligature and then redresses her, puts a blanket on her and puts some of her favorite items around her.

The pedophile obsessed with her' who mangles her body by using ligature/garrot and doesn't rape her.

The pedophile who wants to spend time with her, dressing her up and living out his fantasy who doesn't abduct her out of the house.

The victim who wasn't raped but presents with evidence of some kind of chronic abuse.

The pedophile/sexual sadist intruder whos throws in a ransom note.

The pedophile/sexual sadist intruder who happens to know the amount of Ramsey's bonus and puts this exact amount in the ransom note.

The kidnapper who stops to assault the victim prior to the abduction and then redresses her, puts a blanket over her....

The stock answer of 'child killers do strange things' doens't work for me. Child killers and rapists usually follow a predictable pattern...most often abducting the child, raping the child and then kiling the child. Fetish killers also either abduct the victim or kill everyone in the house so they have time to indulge themselves. Kidnappers, well, they kidnap. They might also abuse their victim, but the first order of business is to get the victim so they can get the money.

The evidence doesn't compute.

 

[JMO8778]

i stand proudly but with tears with river rat. The ramseys were the only people in that house. Please tell me how patsy's jacket fibers ended up in the knot of the garotte at the time the knot and garotte were constucted and in the 2 loops of tightly wound garotte cord around jbr's little neck if patsy wasn't involved.

I have one question about this all:
:furious::furious:how much did john ramsey have to pay to get his name and burke's future all cleaned up????:furious::furious:


another thing- dna origin can now be traced to ancestry. Let us know whether or not the dna sample is asian, european, african, etc in origin.

tell us that mary lacy!!!!!!!!:furious::furious:

well-said!!

 

[trixie]

IMO there are suddenly a large number of posters here who are all experts on this case. I would suggest that they go over to www.acandyrose.com and read ,read, read and study and try to catch up with the knowlege of the posters here who have been diligently following and studying this case for 12 years now. I've read so many posts that claim to "know" this or that and these posters obviously haven't read a book or looked at a different websites.
God, it's so difficult trying to talk to somebody who doesn't know anything about this case but insists they're opinion is right, just because. How juvenile and what a waste of time. My wish is that these posters will go do some homework and come back with some knowlege of this case so that they can offer an "informed" opinion based on the facts and evidence, not because they have a certain "impression" of the Ramseys. You know who you are, and if you think this post is about you, then it probably is.

 

[LI_Mom]

LOL, :waitasec::crazy:, I wish I could assume your posts quoting me is because my posts are so 'thought provoking', but I'm rather sure that it is instead because I am 'running off at the mouth' so much here... Sorry...if it is a problem for anyone. I am just passionate about justice for JBR.

I'll try to shut up after this post and just read for awhile...

Good Question. Even though they had already checked her room earlier that morning, in order to confirm or disprove what was said in the ransom note, I wonder why JR chose to go to the exact spot where she was actually found rather than starting from where she was last seen to seek evidence of her abduction. After all, the reason for the search was to see if anything was out of place. I think I would have worked my way down to the basement, but who knows.

And remember he was in the basement earlier.... he claims he saw the window open BUT didn't think it was important to mention this to any of the crowd of people in his house.

Also... at one point, he also claimed he spotted a suspicious vehicle outside the house..... another thing he didn't bother telling anyone until later.

That always bothered me... John isn't some dummy with a menial job.... he seems to have ZERO BRAINS though when it comes to very OBVIOUS things that might be important clues. And if HE was too broken up to think clearly... all he had to do was tell one of the police or lawyers or the doctor.... I mean the house was FULL of highly intelligent & successful people who knew how to get things done under stress.

 

[Medea]

In all criminal cases, the standard of proof necessary for conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I may be wrong, but I am about 99% certain that you would never in a million years convict someone based only on the fact that minute particles of skin cells were found on the victim when it is not only possible, but plausible that they were secondary tranfer.

 

[philamena]

I sleep just fine. In all criminal cases, I hold to the presumption of innocence until sufficient, reliable, material and competent evidence carries me over the hurdle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unlike so many posters, I never rush to judgment.

It's been 10 years Wudge.
I ain't rushin to anything.

 

[jubie]

LOL, :waitasec::crazy:, I wish I could assume your posts quoting me is because my posts are so 'thought provoking', but I'm rather sure that it is instead because I am 'running off at the mouth' so much here... Sorry...if it is a problem for anyone. I am just passionate about justice for JBR.

I'll try to shut up after this post and just read for awhile...

Good Question. Even though they had already checked her room earlier that morning, in order to confirm or disprove what was said in the ransom note, I wonder why JR chose to go to the exact spot where she was actually found rather than starting from where she was last seen to seek evidence of her abduction. After all, the reason for the search was to see if anything was out of place. I think I would have worked my way down to the basement, but who knows.

No no, you're a doll post away!! For some reason my computer automatically quoted you... this time I did it on purpose. LOL.

It would make way more sense to go back to her room and start from there.

J.

 

[LI_Mom]

You know who you are, and if you think this post is about you, then it probably is.

I kind of expect to hear you burst into a verse of "You're So Vain." lol


Good post, Trixie.

 

[philamena]

Originally Posted by thesleuther
They never refused to help. From the beginning, the prosecutor thought they Ramseys were guilty and much disinformation was put forth. This dna in two different places is conclusive. They didn't do it.

You might want to read up on this case sleuther.
The Ram's never refused to help???
Shows me you haven't closely followed this case.
The Ram's gave a television interview before they talked to police.
Who in the heck would do a tv show before talking to LE about their murdered, sexually abused, redressed, wiped down, child???

Do you know that strangers who kill people don't redress them?
Do you know that loved ones who kill other loved ones redress them?

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Patsy didn't sound like the mother of a murdered child... she sounded like someone who was thoroughly enjoying outsmarting the investigators & media.

People keep coming back to the Ramseys' post-crime behavior. That's not inculpatory evidence.

As regards the Ramseys allegedly killing JonBenet, the overwhelming lack of material and reliable inculpatory evidence has always been what kept them from being indicted. All the interpretations of their behavior and/or wild speculation about a possible motive wouldn't satisfy the evidence requirements.