Who do you think is guilty? I'm relatively new here and...

I have to admit, I do not come in JBR topic most of the time. When I do, it seems people are so intense on their beliefs... either for or against the parents.

I know this is an intense topic. I'm finding so many that are against the mother.

I have a question though...

Do you believe a rookie drug detective (thomas) who NEVER DID A MURDER CASE...

OR DO YOU BELIEVE A SEASONED MURDER DETECTIVE WITH ALMOST AN IMPECABLE RECORD OF SOLVING MURDERS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 1 CASE... THINKS THIS IS AN INTRUDER MURDER.

come on people... all around us is TRUE EXAMPLES OF children abducted from their own bedrooms... this was a LARGE LARGE HOME... HE COULDN'T RESIST HIMSELF, SHE DIED PREMATURELY,

How can people be so against the parents here?

(btw, I AM NOT A JAMS SUPPORTER)


I do honestly want to know peoples perspective as mine is obviously stated.

I for one am going on intinct and not prev knowledge and IMHO...Patsy did it(premeditated JBR murder all the way)without blinking...IMHO!

The rookie solved the case, the seasoned detective is still looking for his intruder. Does that answer your question?

Originally posted by Sabrina
The rookie solved the case, the seasoned detective is still looking for his intruder. Does that answer your question?

Click to expand...

You got it, Sabrina.
The only thing the delusional detective has been "seasoned" with, is loco-weed.
Smit will go to his grave looking for his beloved intruder--count on it.


Let's take a poll:

How many years will the Ram$ey supporters mope around before it dawns on them that no intruder will ever be caught, and they bet on the wrong horse?

At first I thought the mother did it ,then I thought maybe Burke ,but when I go back to the ransome note ,which I am 100% sure Ratsy wrote,I think if she were covering for her son would she have writen the note the way it was writen ? I don't think so ,what do you think ,first I don't think she would be telling John that the small fraction respected his busniss !I don't think she would of brought in dead & dieing & beheaded if she were trying to protect Burke,all of those terrible words would be hard for a griving mom to write.I see a lot of planing ,sceeming, in the ransome note. It would be so much easer to think that BR mashed her in the head,while in the middle of a sex game ,patsy found her dead or dieing & did the staging to save Burke ,but the ransom note left was writen by a person out of there mind ,not griving for her child ,but almost saying to John , (look what you made me do this is all your fault).

Originally posted by Shylock
How many years will the Ram$ey supporters mope around before it dawns on them that no intruder will ever be caught, and they bet on the wrong horse?

Click to expand...

That is absolutely RIDICULOUS.
It is totally and completely absurd.
Clearly if the dna under the fingernails and in the panties of the murder victim were equine dna the CBI would have found that out by now.

I did,during the early weeks following the crime,think the Ramsey's participated. I thought this based on the lies presented in the media. Who else could have done this? There was snow on the lawn and walkways,and no foot prints! Forget the window being too small, this "snow" thing was huge! Forget the story about the spider web,this "snow" thing was IT. There could be no doubt that there was no one capable of levitating across that lawn,short of Santa coming down the chimney ,NO ONE gained access to that house!
It was a LIE! There was no snow on the walkways.
It was a LIE! Spiders do recreate their webs.
It was a LIE! Grown men climbed through that window to prove it.
After the early lies,it was easy to lose trust in what the media was presenting.
Clearly something was wrong . We ,media consumers, were sucking in every little puff of smoke put out there, fed a daily menu of garbage . IMO ,while I kept up with the reading,I did question ,why should what is in print today be less fiction than yesterday's lies?
People criticize me when I suggest the family as victim, IMO, there is no other way to express what has happened to them.

The Boulder PD,put all of their "eggs" in one basket,based on the same lies we believed. They were responsible to a family and to a public to do a better job, and refused,in some collective sociopathic way they could not accept being wrong,and therefore would not indict their own misinformation,would not start over. "There were no footprints in the snow",has never changed for them.

IMO JMO

I've studied this case objectivley for a very long time.
Considered every angle both intruder and family/close friends (which experts tell us is where to look - particularly the immediate family)

The known FACTS in this case (not speculation like the DNA) do
not support some intruder. If 2 facts in this case were different
I may be able to seriously consider an intruder.
Those 2 facts are the child never taken from the home, but
actually HIDDEN in a remote room within the home. (And not only
that - but she was wrapped up with a blanket, her pants pulled
back up, the door latched behind the perp - and her favorite
nightie placed near her. Nothing an intruder who "couldn't wait"
would do or care about. (And just WHEN did he place those
3 pages of note on the stairs? Not before carrying the child
down - he would have stepped on them. Patsy said she had to
step OVER them. Intruder also had a child to carry.
And he wouldn't have gone BACK upstairs and done it afterwards.
Too risky - and besides - he left via the basement window according to intruder supporters.
In addition, the supposed purpose of the note was never carried
out. NO attempt to collect any ransom - and the child never
taken. Experts say that kidnappers for ransom and child predator killers are two completely different animals. They do
not cross over. Their goals are distinct and separate.
The stager in this crime was too naive to know this and it thus
exposed him/her as stagers.

The 2nd Fact to exclude any intruder is the fake "ransom" note.
It worked only very briefly to divert attention away from what really happened. Maybe that was the only goal. A short term
goal. Long enough of a diversion though for John to make arrangements to flee the state......

These 2 very MAJOR facts in this case forever have excluded any
"intruder" for me - and for forensic experts alike who see child
sex-abuse murder cases all the time.
This crime happened on Christmas night. THE most unlikely night
of the entire year for some "intruder" to commit this crime - or ANY
crime. Other than familial.

Who do I think killed JonBenet? I think most likely it was Burke
and his parents covered it up. I think it was an accident turned
horrible tradgedy. I think the combination of their wealth, powerful attorneys, Burke's young age and the BPD's lack of
homicidial experience in crime scene preservation - kept this case
from going to trial. Not for murder as Burke was just shy of 10,
but numerous counts of obstruction of justice and others.

That is my logical and educated opinion based on the undeniable
FACTS of the case.

P.S. - Ever wonder why the Ramseys would choose to pull Burke
out of high school and move to another state when he only
has 2 years left? I have.
Why have him "start over?" ??? Very difficult age to do that to
a kid. I have a boy the exact same age as Burke.
What motivated them to move to Michigan?

Originally posted by lannie
...I go back to the ransome note ,which I am 100% sure Ratsy wrote... the ransom note left was writen by a person out of there mind ,not griving for her child ,but almost saying to John , (look what you made me do this is all your fault).

Click to expand...

I'm with you, lannie. I think that's it exactly.

IMO:

Patsy killed her.

John was molesting her.

Both of them covered up.

Burke had nothing to do with it, but behaved oddly because he has two dysfunctional weirdos for parents, one of whom kiilled his sister.

I just finished reading the Ramsey chapter in Dr. Wecht's new book Mortal Evidence and reviewed the medical info in his prior book on the case.

I now believe the head blow was not an accident. IMO Patsy, while attacking/struggling with/being very rough with JonBenét, accidentally choked her by putting pressure on her vagus nerve causing her to pass out/start to die and then appear dead.

Pressure on the neck could have (from Wecht's new book) ...pinched the vagus nerve, a key controller of many of the body's organs. The nerve runs from the brain down both sides of the neck and into the torso. Among other functions, it regulates the heart and lungs. If signals from the vagus nerve are interrupted, cardiac and respiratory responses could slow down, become irregular, and eventually cease - a process known as "electrical death." In normal function, special cells in the heart transmit neurological messages very quickly - reminiscent of an electrical impulse - that make the heart beat in a rhythmic fashion. If something interrupts those messages, a chain of events begins that can lead to death. The short-circuiting of the vagus nerve doesn't manifest itself in any obvious way, so JonBenet's death would have been inexplicable to her assailant. p. 49

If the pressure on JonBenet's vagus nerve... had short-circuited her breathing and heartbeat, she would have been rendered unconscious. Staring at a limp and lifeless [JonBenét], [the killer] may have panicked and decided to create, outwardly at least, an obvious reason for her death. He or she may have thought that the rope around her neck was not enough to attribute the death scene to some intruder. Something with more brutality was needed. Thus the massive skull fracture. p. 66

IMO John became involved after Patsy accidentally choked JB. Thinking JB was dead or near death, one of them hit her with the maglite as part of the staged intruder/kidnapping. Then, the garrote was created for the dramatic terrorist staging and to explain any neck injuries that might show up.

As for the sexual abuse, possibly Patsy caught John abusing JB that night, or figured it out, or JB told her, and then the struggle ensued where Patsy unintentionally hurt JB. Either that, or John staged the abuse to hide the prior abuse inflicted by him.

There was an ongoing investigation,shoddy at best,that included the taking of dna samples from almost all contacts of Jonbenet.
Why was this done?
IMO

I'm convinced Burke is the real killer, but Sum Yung Gai, who (as Shylock pointed out) works in the Asian underpants factory where JonBenet's underpants were made, and who, following longstanding tradition, spits on his work, is no doubt the person whose DNA was found in JonBenet's underpants.

Is an arrest imminent? Will SYG be charged in the death of JonBenet--or will he be able to outrun the Ramsey bus?

Originally posted by sissi
I did,during the early weeks following the crime,think the Ramsey's participated. I thought this based on the lies presented in the media. Who else could have done this? There was snow on the lawn and walkways,and no foot prints! Forget the window being too small, this "snow" thing was huge! Forget the story about the spider web,this "snow" thing was IT. There could be no doubt that there was no one capable of levitating across that lawn,short of Santa coming down the chimney ,NO ONE gained access to that house!
It was a LIE! There was no snow on the walkways.
It was a LIE! Spiders do recreate their webs.
It was a LIE! Grown men climbed through that window to prove it.
After the early lies,it was easy to lose trust in what the media was presenting.
Clearly something was wrong . We ,media consumers, were sucking in every little puff of smoke put out there, fed a daily menu of garbage . IMO ,while I kept up with the reading,I did question ,why should what is in print today be less fiction than yesterday's lies?
People criticize me when I suggest the family as victim, IMO, there is no other way to express what has happened to them.

The Boulder PD,put all of their "eggs" in one basket,based on the same lies we believed. They were responsible to a family and to a public to do a better job, and refused,in some collective sociopathic way they could not accept being wrong,and therefore would not indict their own misinformation,would not start over. "There were no footprints in the snow",has never changed for them.

IMO JMO

Click to expand...

The footprints were something a reporter said and it got blown out of proportion and is the favorite thing the Ramsey spin team brings up...


Yes, spiders weave webs but what are the chances of a spider recreating the web in a few hours right at that window well.

Yes,a grown man went through the window well but what are the chances an "intruder" would know that was even a window ...and broken...in the dark!! Yes, it gets dark around 5:00 in Boulder. AND it was hardly disturbed if at all. Look how difficult it was for Smit to get through the window and he practiced several times! LOL!

Right, Sabrina.

Sissi, what species of spiders rebuild their webs immediately and quickly, and in the dead of winter?

Lou Smit wasn't able to demonstrate climbing through the window without brushing his butt on the sill. I guess the "intruder" was buttless--or else he could fly.

As for there being no footprints outside, there apparently was a dusting of snow that night. Even if there wasn't enough to allow footprints, how does that exonerate the Ramseys?

Originally posted by Ivy
I'm convinced Burke is the real killer, but Sum Yung Gai, who (as Shylock pointed out) works in the Asian underpants factory where JonBenet's underpants were made, and who, following longstanding tradition, spits on his work, is no doubt the person whose DNA was found in JonBenet's underpants.

Is an arrest imminent? Will SYG be charged in the death of JonBenet--or will he be able to outrun the Ramsey bus?

Click to expand...

lol Ivy Mr. Gai better lawyer up and hide. It worked for the Ramseys.

Speaking of the DNA, from Wecht's new book:

I had talked with Dr. Henry Lee many times over the years regarding the DNA issues in the case. Both of us felt it likely there was some sort of contaminant throwing off the results. p. 77

Then he goes on to discuss the "Mr. Gai" theory and references this article:

DNA may not help Ramsey inquiry

Sabrina,no disrespect but most of what we heard those early days,and the news today, is always going to be the "words of SOME reporter".
What made you believe the Ramseys were the killers,the reports on Patsy being the note writer? Have you read reports that others couldn't be cleared on the basis of handwriting,as well?
Fact: We all have the same information,we just use our personal experiences and judgement to decide what we believe. We DO NOT KNOW who killed Jonbenet.

JMO

Britt, excellent article! Thanks for the link. Everyone--including Ramsey supporters--should read the article.

Excerpt: (Thanks again, Britt :bigthumb: )

Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.
And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."

QUOTE:Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.


NO ONE sees anything wrong with this? JMO IMO

What do you see wrong with it, sissi? Do you consider it wrong that the investigator wished to remain anonymous to avoid the wrath of the Ramseys?

Why no intruder?? The ramsome note,staged crime scene,hiding from police,no fresh dna only degraded.Body wiped clean,fibers from the R's found on tape and paint tray,their pad ,their pen,practice note, their paint brush handle,(not a very well prepared foreign faction) ect. ect

Blueclouds,
Welcome to the JonBenet forum. You are correct, so many of us are very "insistent" in our beliefs. I respect other opinions and am wiiling to listen to any new evidence that comes along.
I do not believe in the intruder theory, makes no sense to me. Too much points in the Ramsey's direction. An intruder would have never stayed in the house long enough to drag JonBenet out of bed, feed her pineapple, molest her, kill her and write such a long ransom note.
Lou Smit is a "seasoned dectective" alright. But hardly objective. Remember, he prayed with this family when they approached him while he was observing their home.
And also, much has been said about Steve Thomas never working a homicide case before this murder. I don't think the principles of investigating a homicide are much different than a drug case-you follow the evidence. Period.