Are they innocent?

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by River, Feb 14, 2004.

  1. River

    River Former Member

    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interestingly enough, this case was a topic at lunch today.

    The question was asked, do you think that there is a chance that John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey are innocent?

    I had to think about that. I can not state that they are 100% guilty. That said, is there any credible evidence that points to their innocence?

    The "foreign" DNA- no one knows if it is really foreign.
    The "Beaver" hairs could have come from Patsy's boots.

    Seriously, are there any CREDIBLE facts that point to their innocence?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Shylock

    Shylock Former Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is nothing that proves they are positively innocent of all aspects of the crime. If there was, they would have been cleared long ago.

    John, Patsy, and Burke will be the prime suspects in this case until they day they are lowered in the grave. And even then, people will continue to debate the case LONG after they're gone.
     
  4. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Yes, there's credible handwriting examination evidence that neither John nor Patsy wrote the ransom note. And there's credible polygraph evidence that neither John nor Patsy killed JonBenet and that Patsy didn't write the ransom note.

    JMO
     
  5. LovelyPigeon

    LovelyPigeon Former Member

    Messages:
    13,806
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is also credible evidence that the male DNA found under JonBenét's fingernails and in her panties, mixed with spots of her blood, belongs to an as yet unidentified intruder. It does not match John, Burke, JAR, or any extended family member.

    The male DNA was found in not just one spot of blood on her panty's crotch, but on two spots of her blood. The first spot's analysis did not produce enough of a band of DNA markers to submit to the FBI's CODIS databank, but the analysis of the second spot of blood did.

    There is also credible evidence that pairs of marks found on JonBenét's back and on the right side of her face were made by a stun gun. No stun gun was found on the premises, nor was any evidence found that the Ramseys had ever owned or been in possesion of a stun gun.

    There is also the fact there is no pathological or historical evidence to indicate the parents or Burke would have ever been involved in sexual assault or murder.
     
  6. BrotherMoon

    BrotherMoon Former Member

    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. 1234567
     
  7. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fur in her hands was never identified,fibers on her and her body weren't sourced to the house,and Patsy never owned beaver fur boots.
    A piece of the paintbrush was taken as a souvenir,along with the items he brought,tape and cord (typically sociopathic ,after all they were HIS).
    The door to the butler kitchen was ajar,there was a discarded baseball bat in the yard bearing fibers from the basement,footprints at the grated window as well as in the basement that ,regardless of speculation, have not been matched.
    The Ramseys were surrounded by odd,odd people,people, that most of us would shun out of pure fear ,they accepted into their lives. From the Santa,the Whites ,the photographers,to the fanatical Christian groupies,this naive family embraced them all.
    JMO
     
  8. Shylock

    Shylock Former Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well let's see... So far only BrotherMoon and I are the only ones to post the correct answer.
    It seems BlueCrab, LovelyPigeon, and Sissi all failed to even understand the question.

    The question was: "are there any CREDIBLE facts that point to their innocence?"
    The answer can only be "NO", or the Ramseys would no longer be suspects in ANYBODY'S book.
    How interesting is it that so few people understand the meaning of the phrase "CREDIBLE facts"...
     
  9. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If there is one thing the Ramseys AREN'T is naive
     
  10. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would say it was naive in the same sense that Catholics sent their boys off to grade school not considering a church run by many "celibate" men could have "issues" with child safety.
    LHP was aware,she was not naive,she knew that children could not be raised in the style of the fifties ....talking to neighbors,strangers and being out of sight while freely playing away from the yard. She voiced her fears to Patsy.
    Trusting your new friends,your children's playmates parents,your clergy,your doctor,your neighbors or even your "santa" to spend unsupervised time alone with your child is naive in today's world IMO
     
  11. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't disagree with you sissi, in today's world, it is naive to think your children are safe the way we used to think so.

    Sooooo, after they moved to Atlanta, why do you think they continued to keep their doors unlocked, their alarms unarmed, and their GUN CABINET unlocked as well? Is it naivety or is it the knowledge that they knew they were safe from the foreign faction?
     
  12. WolfmarsGirl

    WolfmarsGirl New Member

    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LP, I hate to differ with you but, I sincerely don't think the marks were made with a stun-gun.

    If you haven't done so already, please take a look at my link below. Even if you have seen my 'hand' pictures, look again...I have added some more photos that I think you need to see:

    http://www.geocities.com/wolfchick942003/photopage.html

    Please notice the green abrasion. Yes, I made it green, but that is not the point. The point is that no stun gun will make a pattern within an abrasion like the one you see in this photo . Plain and simple.

    If you can explain the distinct pattern with the 'stun gun' theory, please do so. If you cannot, then there was no stun gun.

    I am sorry, LP, but you seem far too educated and intelligent to make and believe a statement like this one. Would you like me to start naming names of parents who kill their kids with no previous 'historical evidence?' Why don't we start with Maryln Lemak and Susan Smith?

    I do agree with you that there was probably no sexual assault of either of the Ramsey children prior to this night. Molestation is something that occurs again and again and you are correct, the children display evidence of their assaults. Murder happens only once to a person, and hence, no 'historical evidence' is present...
     
  13. LovelyPigeon

    LovelyPigeon Former Member

    Messages:
    13,806
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wolfsmargirl, I wasn't familar with Maryln Lemak's case but it only took seconds with Google to find that she had been clinically depressed, on medication, her marriage a shambles, her friends aware of her husband's infidility, etc

    Susan Smith had a long sad history of emotional instability, a broken marriage, a boy friend who didn't want the responsibility of her children, ongoing incestual relationship with a stepfather, etc

    That isn't said as an excuse for either woman--neither had the right to kill their children out of revenge, desperation, or any other reason--but the pathology was there when each woman's life was examined.

    That pathology, that kind of history is not in the Ramsey's life.

    As for the stun gun theory, it has been scientifically demonstrated that marks like those found on the dead JonBenét can be reproduced on piglets by using a stun gun, then killing the piglets. The marks remain on the dead piglets, and are similar in size, distance apart, and coloration as those found on JBR's dead body.

    The pairs of marks on JonBenét are also similar in appearance to marks made by stun guns on other victims' dead bodies, from other cases.
     
  14. LovelyPigeon

    LovelyPigeon Former Member

    Messages:
    13,806
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here are some of my pages about stun gun marks--on JonBenét, and other cases. The photos are graphic, from autopsies. One page is my attempt to illustrate how stun gun marks can be made on skin, on how the measurements of those marks can vary.

    http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeon/stun_gun_comparisons.html
    http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeon/stungun_face_back_compare_distance.html
    http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeon/stungun_illustration.html
    http://www.geocities.com/lovelypigeon/stungun_prisoner.html
     
  15. WolfmarsGirl

    WolfmarsGirl New Member

    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are right, both of these women had a history of depression, etc, etc. However, neither one of them had a depressing past that included nearly-terminal cancer that could (and did) return at any time. We don't know about Patsy's inner-most thoughts. Some people do not seek treatment for depression until it is too late.

    A few of the reports about Lemak that I read tell about how she worked at the kids' school, was always pleasant and happy, etc. Previous to the husband's departure, this was a normal, well-adjusted woman. Even as soon as a week before the murders, she was volunteering at the school and showed no signs that this horrific plot was forming in her head. No one knew.

    Patsy had other stressors. I can only guess what they were beyond the cancer...I have a strange feeling that the older Ramsey children were not held as dearly by Patsy as we are made to believe, but that is just speculation and we can all speculate...

    Regarding the pig/stun gun tests: Yes, the marks on the pigs do look like the marks on JB's back. However, please explain to me how the ring marks on my hand look any less like the marks on JBR's back.

    My experiment was as scientific as the 'pig' experiment and both provide logical explanations for the abrasions. The difference is that most people do wear rings and most people do not carry stun guns.

    Another difference is that my theory explains exactly why the marks occur where they do, unlike the stun gun theory. In fact, an adult could probably not hold (in a rocking position) a small child without placing their fingers on those exact spots and at the same exact angle on the child's body. A stun gun can hit anywhere.

    If you have a small child, pick him or her up and try this. Try to rock the child on her back and kind of facing you. Where do your hands end up? On the child's back, where would two rings hit if they were on your middle and ring finger? Where is your other hand...On her cheek or on her neck? Check it out for yourself...It is amazing.

    Also, as I mentioned in my last post, a stun gun does not, can not, leave the pattern in the large abrasion on the cheek. See it? It looks like two eyes and a nose (that is how I saw it first). What part on a stun gun could leave such a mark?

    We know Patsy did and does wear rings. To me, it is clear that the pattern of one of her rings probably matches the pattern in the large abrasion. Look at my diagram in my link...

    No one who believes in the stun gun theory has been able to explain the pattern in the abrasion to me yet...Can you?
     
  16. sissi

    sissi Former Member

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay,Barbara,if this is true,I do wonder why? Does anyone know the "story" behind this?
    JMO
     
  17. LovelyPigeon

    LovelyPigeon Former Member

    Messages:
    13,806
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Patsy never presented as a depressed victim to anyone who knew her. In fact, she believed that not only had medical science come to her rescue, but that divine intervention had healed her.

    Whether one agrees with Patsy or not about her medical/Godly healing, Patsy believed in it and was not depressed but was spiritually encouraged and looking forward to continued life. These 10+ years later, Patsy has been proven to be on the positive side of belief.
     
  18. WolfmarsGirl

    WolfmarsGirl New Member

    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LP, I do know that good parents kill their children and good men and women kill each other with no prior history of psychosis or depression. It happens.

    I think Patsy was, at the least, stressed. I think her kids were a bit more of a handful than we have been led to believe. I think the trip on the 26th was the last thing Patsy really wanted to do the day after Christmas. I think JB woke up, or was never asleep at all. The mother and child fought. It happens. Patsy was bigger, so she 'won' the fight...

    Also, I did look at the links you posted. None of the marks resemble the marks on JB, especially the one on her face. Once again, the photos of the rings pressed to my hand more closely resemble JB's back marks than any other photo I have seen so far. And, the cluster ring fits so exactly into the mark on her face.

    Now, if you can show me a stun gun mark that looks as much like the cause of the face mark as my ring diagram, then I might consider it. The truth is, there is no way a stun gun can make a mark like the one on her cheek. If it can, then tell me how it can...
     
  19. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The burn mark left on the skin, if any, after being shocked with a stun gun is proportionate to the amount of time the prongs were held against the skin with the trigger pulled. The longer the hit, the more severe the burn.

    For instance, a one-second hit probably wouldn't leave a noticeable burn on the skin. A three-second hit would likely leave the typical "signature mark" (the shape of the business end of the two prongs) on the skin. A 15-second hit would severely burn the skin, and likely leave the ugly kind of "cooked" mark on the skin that JonBenet had.

    There are other considerations of course, such as the amperage of the gun, the angle of the hit, and the conductivity of the skin at the spot being stun gunned, but the length of the hit is the primary cause of different-looking stun gun marks. No two stun gun hits will look the same.

    JMO
     
  20. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I hope I understand your question correctly. I refer to the now infamous Atlanta break in. After they moved to Atlanta, they were once again having "work" done on the house, kept their doors unlocked, and once again, a "burglar, intruder if you will" came into the house where their son Burke lived with an UNLOCKED gun cabinet, the alarms off, the locks unlocked, etc. John was supposedly locked in the bathroom while the "intruder" left with Patsy's K Mart jewelry, etc.

    One can only speculate as to why the Ramseys didn't fear any more "intruders" from this foreign faction that murdered their daughter once they moved to Atlanta with their only other child. Personally, my belief is that they knew they had nothing to fear.

    Most of us, if innocent, would spend the rest of their life looking over their shoulder for the "foreign faction" that murdered their child. Most of us, if innocent, would spend the rest of their life watching out for their remaining child. Most of us, if innocent, would never be able to "get on with our lives" knowing that someone was after them and their children.

    Most of us, if innocent, would be running scared forever.

    But then again, most of us, would have done everything we could to cooperate with the investigation.
     
  21. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The KEY word in your first sentence is PRESENTED. Many people "PRESENT" much differently than what actually is.

    As far as your last sentence, just how has Patsy PROVEN to be on the positive side of belief? How can anyone prove a belief? Because she says so? Proves nothing.

    Anorexic people believe they are fat. Schizophrenic people believe they are God, Superman, Ghandi, Churchill, etc.

    THEY believe they are fine. Unless Patsy is not human, her word that she is just fine means nothing. Deep down, people with cancer are more likely to be depressed than others, despite their protestations.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice