Jayelles
New Member
I would say that the vast majority of people following the case have a viewpoint about who they believe killed Jonbenet. I can honestly say that I don't have a scooby-doo. I can also be entirely self-critical here and say that as a general rule, I don't like to make my mind up about anything - until I have to. I am a fencesitter in real life with regard to most issues and it infuriates my family.
Anyway, I have a hard time making my mind up about this case. I find it impossible to imagine any scenario which resulted in the Ramseys killing Jonbenet so brutally. I truly believe she was the apple of Patsy's eye and that the Ramseys are devastated by her death. However, I also recognise that I am not suspicious by nature and during the Westerfield trial, I really struggled to imagine this man as the child killer he clarly is - so I look to the evidence and try not to be influenced by my personal feelings.
The evidence as I see it, has problems in that much of the potential evidence cannot be accurately dated. The hit-tec print, the hair on the blanket, the palm print - these have all been cited as evidence but are possibly not related to the murder.
Then there is the foreign DNA in her underwear and under her nails. However, the nail samples are so degraded that it seems unlikely they would ever be deemed a match in a court of law. Then we have Tom Bennett - who is the investigator on the case - saying that the DNA may NOT be from the killer. That is the official word on the DNA - it may NOT be the killer's. So basically, we are left with the ransom note and the animal hair. If Jonbenet had been covered in animal hairs - would it not be more significant - more indicative of her killer being an animal owner? Dog and cat owners are usually covered in their pets' hairs (unless like me you own a non-shedding breed!). I believe there was only one hair on JonBenet - that could have been transferred in any manner of ways and therefore, may not be related to her murder either.
That leaves the ransom note which was written on Ramsey notepaper, with a Ramsey pen, using Ramsey language ("and hence") and Patsy cannot be eliminated as the author of the note. On top of this, despite taking over the investigation and focusing on the search for an intruder, the Boulder DA has indicated that the Ramseys have not been cleared. I am guessing that this is because the DNA evidence is not strong enough.
So really, my heart tells me they didn't do it - but the evidence doesn't clear them 100% in my mind. So I listen to the arguments of other case followers. It is always helpful to read the thoughts of other people. Certain aspects of the case don't interest me - the pageants for example, or the Krebs affair. Other aspects of it do interest me. I am interested in behaviour and relationships because I think that ultimately, these will provide the key to JonBenet's death.
Then we have their supporters. It has become absolutely apparent to me over the years that the majority of ramsey supporters (RST) are utterly biased. Whilst going out of their way to discredit anyone who speaks against the ramseys - or even those who do not support them 100% - the RST simultaneously appear to believe every word which comes from a Ramsey's lips. Ramsey say-so is gospel. Deep down, this makes me feel uncomfortable. My mother never criticised myself or my siblings - she always praised us, so it got that if anything really counted, we didn't ask for her opinion because we didn't trust her to give a truthful answer!
Then during the trial of David Westerfield, something interesting happened. Many of the same posters who believed the ramseys to be innocent - also believed David Westerfield to be innocent. This was despite a mountain of evidence against him. What was almost scary was the fact that some of them concocted the most bizarre alternative scenarios to explain the evidence. I began to regard the RST with a new scepticism.
Since then I have witnessed that some of the staunchest Ramsey supporters not only support David Westerfield - but they also support Scott Peterson and Jeffrey McDonald. Sure, if I were accused of murder, I'd want to have people believe in my innocence - but if the people who believed in my innocence were people who believed in everyone's innocence (regardless of the evidence against them) then I'd we worried that this wasn't such a good thing.
Then there is the propaganda. "No footprints in the snow". How often have we heard that used against the BPD? The FACT is that the police officer's report is online and he did say that there were no footprints in the snow - but he didn't say that the snow was everywhere. Instead, he described where there was a covering of snow and noted that it had no footprints. Add to that the stories about how Michael kane tried to destroy evidence which pointed to an intruder (false - he requested that Lou Smit's COPIES of the evidence which he was leaking to the media be destroyed). Then there was jameson's claims that Patsy's inconclusive polygraph was due to "polygrapher error" - also a lie.
Then there is Tracey's documentary. With hindsight and research, I now know that they are incredibly misleading. The latest documentary was nothing but an hour of misinformation, fasle speculation and one-sided propaganda.
If the Ramseys are innocent - why the need to make them look suspicious by propagating lies about the investigation?
The bias is clear. Only this week, the poster Dave said that he thought jameson should delete any post on her forum which promotes a RDI theory. This is the same Dave who did his own analysis of the 911 tape (multi-generational copy) using an old computer, a "Lite" version of some audio program and a little program her wrote himself. Having done so, he declared that there were no voices on the 911 tape. He wrote a lengthy report about his analysis which was full of technobabble but which fell desperately short of the basic standards required for a technical report - for example, it didn't actually include any proof of testing or any mention of adherence to Forensic Audio Standards.
This case consists of many wheels within wheels but the bottom line is that there is evidence which does not clear the ramseys and which does not incrimate any other suspect. Whomever brutally killed JonBenet Ramsey has gotten away with murder.
Anyway, I have a hard time making my mind up about this case. I find it impossible to imagine any scenario which resulted in the Ramseys killing Jonbenet so brutally. I truly believe she was the apple of Patsy's eye and that the Ramseys are devastated by her death. However, I also recognise that I am not suspicious by nature and during the Westerfield trial, I really struggled to imagine this man as the child killer he clarly is - so I look to the evidence and try not to be influenced by my personal feelings.
The evidence as I see it, has problems in that much of the potential evidence cannot be accurately dated. The hit-tec print, the hair on the blanket, the palm print - these have all been cited as evidence but are possibly not related to the murder.
Then there is the foreign DNA in her underwear and under her nails. However, the nail samples are so degraded that it seems unlikely they would ever be deemed a match in a court of law. Then we have Tom Bennett - who is the investigator on the case - saying that the DNA may NOT be from the killer. That is the official word on the DNA - it may NOT be the killer's. So basically, we are left with the ransom note and the animal hair. If Jonbenet had been covered in animal hairs - would it not be more significant - more indicative of her killer being an animal owner? Dog and cat owners are usually covered in their pets' hairs (unless like me you own a non-shedding breed!). I believe there was only one hair on JonBenet - that could have been transferred in any manner of ways and therefore, may not be related to her murder either.
That leaves the ransom note which was written on Ramsey notepaper, with a Ramsey pen, using Ramsey language ("and hence") and Patsy cannot be eliminated as the author of the note. On top of this, despite taking over the investigation and focusing on the search for an intruder, the Boulder DA has indicated that the Ramseys have not been cleared. I am guessing that this is because the DNA evidence is not strong enough.
So really, my heart tells me they didn't do it - but the evidence doesn't clear them 100% in my mind. So I listen to the arguments of other case followers. It is always helpful to read the thoughts of other people. Certain aspects of the case don't interest me - the pageants for example, or the Krebs affair. Other aspects of it do interest me. I am interested in behaviour and relationships because I think that ultimately, these will provide the key to JonBenet's death.
Then we have their supporters. It has become absolutely apparent to me over the years that the majority of ramsey supporters (RST) are utterly biased. Whilst going out of their way to discredit anyone who speaks against the ramseys - or even those who do not support them 100% - the RST simultaneously appear to believe every word which comes from a Ramsey's lips. Ramsey say-so is gospel. Deep down, this makes me feel uncomfortable. My mother never criticised myself or my siblings - she always praised us, so it got that if anything really counted, we didn't ask for her opinion because we didn't trust her to give a truthful answer!
Then during the trial of David Westerfield, something interesting happened. Many of the same posters who believed the ramseys to be innocent - also believed David Westerfield to be innocent. This was despite a mountain of evidence against him. What was almost scary was the fact that some of them concocted the most bizarre alternative scenarios to explain the evidence. I began to regard the RST with a new scepticism.
Since then I have witnessed that some of the staunchest Ramsey supporters not only support David Westerfield - but they also support Scott Peterson and Jeffrey McDonald. Sure, if I were accused of murder, I'd want to have people believe in my innocence - but if the people who believed in my innocence were people who believed in everyone's innocence (regardless of the evidence against them) then I'd we worried that this wasn't such a good thing.
Then there is the propaganda. "No footprints in the snow". How often have we heard that used against the BPD? The FACT is that the police officer's report is online and he did say that there were no footprints in the snow - but he didn't say that the snow was everywhere. Instead, he described where there was a covering of snow and noted that it had no footprints. Add to that the stories about how Michael kane tried to destroy evidence which pointed to an intruder (false - he requested that Lou Smit's COPIES of the evidence which he was leaking to the media be destroyed). Then there was jameson's claims that Patsy's inconclusive polygraph was due to "polygrapher error" - also a lie.
Then there is Tracey's documentary. With hindsight and research, I now know that they are incredibly misleading. The latest documentary was nothing but an hour of misinformation, fasle speculation and one-sided propaganda.
If the Ramseys are innocent - why the need to make them look suspicious by propagating lies about the investigation?
The bias is clear. Only this week, the poster Dave said that he thought jameson should delete any post on her forum which promotes a RDI theory. This is the same Dave who did his own analysis of the 911 tape (multi-generational copy) using an old computer, a "Lite" version of some audio program and a little program her wrote himself. Having done so, he declared that there were no voices on the 911 tape. He wrote a lengthy report about his analysis which was full of technobabble but which fell desperately short of the basic standards required for a technical report - for example, it didn't actually include any proof of testing or any mention of adherence to Forensic Audio Standards.
This case consists of many wheels within wheels but the bottom line is that there is evidence which does not clear the ramseys and which does not incrimate any other suspect. Whomever brutally killed JonBenet Ramsey has gotten away with murder.