POLL: Has the DNA evidence changed your theory on who killed Jonbenet?

Who do you believe killed Jonbenet?

  • John and/or Patsy Ramsey

    Votes: 104 53.3%
  • Burke Ramsey

    Votes: 4 2.1%
  • A friend of the Ramsey's that they covered for

    Votes: 11 5.6%
  • an intruder

    Votes: 76 39.0%

  • Total voters
    195
  • Poll closed .

Tristan

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2004
Messages
806
Reaction score
12
In light of the new DNA evidence, who do you believe killed Jonbenet?
 
This should be interesting. :)
The DNA evidence did nothing to change my belief that Patsy killed JBR when in a fit of rage and John helped cover it up.
 
Before - I figured the parents were possible, but I leaned towards an intruder - not strong either way. Now - it's an intruder. Not impossible to have parental involvement - but without evidence of that (and I know the evidence - it is well short of showing their involvement - all of it has innocent interpretations or is too vague) - I do not believe it. It's never really rang true to me.

I've been right and wrong on these cases, but more often right than wrong. The Couey case - before he was found, I never did think her father or grandfather were responsible for Jessica's disappearance. This one - LE lied from the start, which set up the adversarial relationship. Ransom notes and pineapple are part of the stuff that in a court case we never ever find out why and how they happened unless the killer decides to reveal what happened. It could be so many things that are not the parents. Family friend, charismatic stranger, or stun gun. So many options.
 
I've always respected and been swayed by the posters who believe the Ramseys were responsible, but felt that there are strangers who can be crazy and cunning enough to pull off something like this. At times I've leaned more towards a pedophile intruder than Patsy Ramsey, but just wasn't sure. Now I think it was most likely an intruder who somehow knew the family or a total stranger who targetted JonBenet awhile before the crime.
 
don't be fooled.that's exactly what the R's and Lacy want everyone to think.this case has always been a fine example of one of the largest cover-ups in US history.
 
I didn't have a theory. I tried reading some early on but opinions by experts countered each other. I entertained both theories equally; intruder v. parents. I felt like it was unknowable from all the countering I read. I felt I had no choice but to accept that I couldn't know. It never came to trial, not enough evidence to indict anyone, nothing entered into evidence in a court of law, no judge, no jury, no defendant, no sworn witnesses. I do feel like the initial da bungled it and set up a whirlwind of them v. us camps that spiraled down a road to nowhere. I thought that was a shame for such an innocent little baby girl.

If the evidence that came out today is true, I have no choice but to believe whoever killed the child is an unknown. I voted intruder.
 
don't be fooled.that's exactly what the R's and Lacy want everyone to think.this case has always been a fine example of one of the largest cover-ups in US history.

You're proof people do think with independent minds. Just because all may not share your opinion doesn't mean you shouldn't allot them the same permission you give yourself.
 
don't be fooled.that's exactly what the R's and Lacy want everyone to think.this case has always been a fine example of one of the largest cover-ups in US history.

A cover up because.......................?????
 
Child molestation, murder, and political corruption.
 
RR, don't leave out 'personal gain', both in a pathetic attempt to repair a publically humiliated reputation and in 'cash in the pocket'. I'll kiss your grits if there is not a book deal in all of this mess!
 
Too bad there wasn't "None of the above" on that poll. I've always believed that it was an intruder but that it was someone the Ramseys knew or were acquaintenances. However I don't believe the Ramseys covered for anyone.

I'm amazed that there are so many people who WANT the Ramseys to be guilty, even if it is finally proven they aren't! :eek:
 
Pepper, just to explain my personal position. I do not "want" family members to be guilty. I came into this case as a fence sitter. I explored the IDI possibilities every which way to Sunday... Actually, I sincerely hoped to find a logical way that an intruder could have committed this crime. I posted various intruder theories, but when you combine all of the evidence, the R's just kept casting themselves into the middle of the melting pot.

I can't speak definatively for other posters here, but I sincerely feel that many RDI's came to the same conclusion which I did, in virtually the same way that I did: based on the totality of the evidence.
 
Although I believe I have never posted a complete theory in forum about how and why the murder happened or who took part in it, I did have a theory that I was working on and the pieces seemed to fit. The new DNA evidence released has not messed up that theory but it has reminded me to rethink all the possibilities involved. I think that is a good thing because I would not want to become complacent.

I now have 2 competing theories in mind. Both introduce an unknown person into the picture. Theory one involves 3 people and theory two currently involves only one person. But that person in theory two had left some very telling evidence behind in a way because the ransom note disclosed that he had overheard things he should not have been able to overhear (over a period of many days or weeks) and that can help focus L.E. on where to look for culprits and possibly at which person to look.

BTK (not involved in the ramsey case but used as an example here) was known to have hidden in his victims house often in a closet and listened to them in their normal routines and then later one day would pop out at a time they were not expecting it and kill them. But that meant he had a way into those homes. In his case he had installed the security devices in some of the homes of his victims and that was his means of entry but he had knowledge of their every day routines from observing them and listening to them, from within their own homes sometimes.
If BTK had written a ransome note that showed detailed knowledge of the movies the people he murdered had watched and showed a knowledge of the bonus a family member earned at work but discussed at home then it might have tipped off L.E. to look for a reason as to how someone gained such knowledge and that might have alerted them to his method of operation and thus led to his discovery sooner.

It might be possible that L. E. will be finally able to narrow things down if it should turn out this truly was a one man operation.

So has the DNA changed my thoughts on who did the crime? Well, untold theory number one is still my favorite but the DNA findings being released did make me rethink the possibilities and theory number two which mostly involves a BTK type of stalker/killer whose ransom letter may have been more of a taunting flaunt of his intimate knowledge of the family to L.E. than anything else, (Sort of like saying "This is a clue as to how I did this and who I am but you are too stupid to figure it out."), is an interesting alternative to my main theory.

I will say that I believe this probably was never ever a true kidnap-for-ransom plot. To me it seems that the object was to do what was done to the child and the letter served its own purpose and that bit holds true in both my theories.
 
I have to say the DNA evidence is changing my mind away from RDI. These people weren't the type to keep a bonus secret. Therefore, I think it's either an angry co-worker familiar with the house and JBR, or a family friend.
That said, I do think the Ramseys helped cover up the crime.
 
Pepper, just to explain my personal position. I do not "want" family members to be guilty. I came into this case as a fence sitter. I explored the IDI possibilities every which way to Sunday... Actually, I sincerely hoped to find a logical way that an intruder could have committed this crime. I posted various intruder theories, but when you combine all of the evidence, the R's just kept casting themselves into the middle of the melting pot.

I can't speak definatively for other posters here, but I sincerely feel that many RDI's came to the same conclusion which I did, in virtually the same way that I did: based on the totality of the evidence.

OK, my thinking evolved exactly opposite. I first believed the Ramseys were guilty, but changed my opinion over the months and years that followed based on logical explanations of the intruder theory, and my own personal experiences with childhood sexual abuse.

So my question now is if the totality of the evidence clearly points away from the Ramseys and toward another individual, would you change your opinion? I venture to say that some here won't.

Even worse there are some (not you) who believe in a big conspiracy theory involving the labs, Mary Lacy, the BPD, etc. Get your foil hats ready folks!
 
Too bad there wasn't "None of the above" on that poll. I've always believed that it was an intruder but that it was someone the Ramseys knew or were acquaintenances. However I don't believe the Ramseys covered for anyone.

I'm amazed that there are so many people who WANT the Ramseys to be guilty, even if it is finally proven they aren't! :eek:

I couldn't understand the choice "friend/Ramesey's covered for" either. Who/why would the Ramseys "cover for?"
:waitasec:
 
New "evidence?"

This new 'evidence' does not explain away all the OLD EVIDENCE.


Specifically, why did they find fibers on JB's crotch that were consistent with the sweater John was wearing that night?

This crazed kidnapper turned pedophile snuck upstairs to borrow John's sweater to frame him?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
2,093
Total visitors
2,189

Forum statistics

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