Are they innocent?

[WolfmarsGirl]

Here's another story about parents killing kids. Sorry, I don't have names and locations.

I think you have to define 'history' of psychosis. I mean, to me, Patsy Ramsey always comes across as being a few cards short of a deck, if you get my meaning :crazy:

How about Darlie Routier??? Who knew with her?

You've got to understand, with stats like they are with parental killings, not everyone who kills their babies can be given their '15 minutes of fame.' And hence, no news coverage.

What I do know is that parents lose control frequently, especially under stress. Even good-kind-loving-All-American-white-God Fearing-blonde-haired-blue-eyed-birth parents snap from time to time.

Of course, there aren't any useful statistics for the evil-hateful-foreign-non-white-atheist-adoptive parents out there. After all, we naturally expect, them to abuse their kids, right???

Yes, I am still fuming from that remark...Don't worry, LP, I will get over it. I am just kind of prodding at you light-heartedly... :furious:

http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2001/07/09/p3s1.htm

"...Though few incidents attain the notoriety of the Yates case, filicide is fairly prevalent in American society. A study in the 1960s found that 1 in 22 homicides in the US was committed by a parent who killed his or her child. More recently, an FBI study of data from 1976 to 1997 showed that a parent is most often the culprit whenever a child younger than 12 is killed.

Worldwide, the figure may be higher. Larry Milner, a Chicago physician who has written extensively on filicide patterns throughout the ages, estimates that 10 percent of all children die at the hand of a parent - either from abuse or from a single, sudden event.

Many experts draw a sharp distinction in motive between parents who kill their babies soon after they are born and those who do so after a child's role in the family has been established. Those latter cases, they say, fall into five categories: altruistic, delusional, unwanted, accidental, and vengeful..."

(emphasis mine)

I don't know...take your pick. I always thought this was an accident. I didn't know we had five choices...

 

[SisterSocks]

Stun gun? What stun gun? It has never been established that a stun gun was used on JonBenet.

IMO

Stun gun was used IMO Ivy--- What makes you think one was NOT used?
Socks

 

[Shylock]

Stun gun was used IMO Ivy--- What makes you think one was NOT used?

So tell us Socks, was the stun gun used before or after he fed her the pineapple? Or maybe he used the stun gun to cause her to swallow the pineapple when she wasn't hungry!...LOL :croc:

 

[BlueCrab]

So tell us, was the stun gun used before or after he fed her the pineapple?

I know you meant it in jest Shylock and it wasn't addressed to me, but I'm gonna answer your question anyway.

The answer is AFTER, and in my opinion it was by Burke or his friend (the fifth person in the house that night). There's strong evidence a stun gun was used on JonBenet, but it didn't have to have been administered by an unknown intruder. A Ramsey could have done it.

The marks on JonBenet sure looked like stun gun injuries, and a host of board certified forensic pathologists agreed the injuries were consistent with a stun gun -- including the only one who saw the injuries in person, Dr. John Meyer.

JMO

 

[sissi]

How do we feel about this statement.
"DNA clears suspects in the Jonbenet Ramsey case"

 

[sissi]

this search is a cache for those that don't want to be identified(tracked) for looking at the site over "yonder" as it's called......
note the stun gun marks on the dead man..are the similar in both appearance and placement?
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...usa.htm+garrotte+pictures+rope&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

[twilight]

How do we feel about this statement.
"DNA clears suspects in the Jonbenet Ramsey case"

Of what?

Writing the note?
Garrotting JonBenét?
Bludgeoning JonBenét?
Posing her body?
Entering/exiting through the window?
Feeding her pineapple?

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Wolfsmargirl, we're still waiting for that specific case where a birth mother with no history, no pathology killed her own child or children.

I've never said that mothers and fathers don't kill their own children, and I've never seen anyone else say so, either. You may be missing the distinction.

 

[why_nutt]

Wolfsmargirl, we're still waiting for that specific case where a birth mother with no history, no pathology killed her own child or children.

I've never said that mothers and fathers don't kill their own children, and I've never seen anyone else say so, either. You may be missing the distinction.

For future purposes of discussion, I would like you to make clear your position on a certain issue. If a person is taking antidepressants such as Paxil, Prozac or Klonopin, is that person to be considered as having a pathology? In other words, would you consider that person to be experiencing mental illness? And if that person was prescribed the medication at X time, would you consider the illness meant to be treated started only on the day the medication was prescribed, or would you say the illness predated the beginning of medication?

 

[Britt]

However, the level of importance Patsy placed on the pageants and JonBenet could be considered some pathology by many and is one area where pathology can be well hidden, although in this case, was not hidden at all.

Exactly, and IMO Patsy's "merging" with JonBenet was a pathology. IMO Patsy used JB as an extension of herself to a pathological degree. There is the "pathology," the visible one that is. (Not that one is even necessary.) But I also believe there was another "pathology" at play here which was just as obvious if one pays attention to the clues JB's body revealed. That poor kid never had a chance with those two pervs for parents. IMO!

 

[sissi]

Of what?

Writing the note?
Garrotting JonBenét?
Bludgeoning JonBenét?
Posing her body?
Entering/exiting through the window?
Feeding her pineapple?

No,simply,I have it on solid information that the "prophet" was cleared through dna,we have all heard that Wolfe and other's have been cleared by the same dna. How can we explain this? How can "stutter","degraded",or factory dna clear anyone?
Writing the note.....doesn't every office have one employee that they can call in to forge one forgotten signature out of 10 that was overlooked during signing?
Garrotting Jonbenet...? any one of the suspects could have done that
Bludgeoning............."""""""
Posing ?
entering/exiting..anyone
feeding her pineapple....not sure what part it played..is anyone?
JMO

 

[Shylock]

this search is a cache

Your link doesn't work, sissi. But judging from what you wrote I assume you are refering to the Boggs photos--which the swamp like to show off and always fails to mention that the marks on his body looked NOTHING like those on JonBenet until he was buried in the ground for almost a year. Typical swamp propaganda...

 

[twilight]

No,simply,I have it on solid information that the "prophet" was cleared through dna,we have all heard that Wolfe and other's have been cleared by the same dna. How can we explain this? How can "stutter","degraded",or factory dna clear anyone?
Writing the note.....doesn't every office have one employee that they can call in to forge one forgotten signature out of 10 that was overlooked during signing?
Garrotting Jonbenet...? any one of the suspects could have done that
Bludgeoning............."""""""
Posing ?
entering/exiting..anyone
feeding her pineapple....not sure what part it played..is anyone?
JMO

Sissi - here's how it works. Let's say your DNA profile is as follows:

AAABBBNMTZXOWP

Only these letters can or ever will appear in your DNA profile - being YOU.

Let's say that the degraded DNA from JB looks something like this:

BABBBBNTZOXPPY

Here's the problem. You cannot be a Y. Ever, ever.

Now, let's say they know that JB was a:

BBAATTZOPPNTTA

Then the Y does not belong to her either.

And that's how it works. The Y belongs to the other sample or whatever the degraded substance is. I purposely chose a 'y' because this would indicate a male. Male what, however, is very much in question.

___________________

Now, this is my point. Because you did not contribute to the DNA sample does not mean you did not write the ransom note, or bludgeon the victim, or strangle the victim, or pose the victim, or enter/exit the window, or feed her pineapple. Get it? It means - simply, and irrevocably, that you did not contribute to the DNA sample.

 

[sissi]

Your link doesn't work, sissi. But judging from what you wrote I assume you are refering to the Boggs photos--which the swamp like to show off and always fails to mention that the marks on his body looked NOTHING like those on JonBenet until he was buried in the ground for almost a year. Typical swamp propaganda...

I can't get the darn link to post correctly,sorry!
Yes,the Boggs photos!
Here is where I must have missed something. I understand he was exhumed for the purpose of testing the skin,however,I recall there were autopsy pictures taken at the time of his death showing these marks . These marks were reason enough to exhume him for further skin testing which proved the gun was used.
IMO

 

[sissi]

Twilight,
I do understand, you are saying,this dna belonged to the killer.

 

[SisterSocks]

So tell us Socks, was the stun gun used before or after he fed her the pineapple? Or maybe he used the stun gun to cause her to swallow the pineapple when she wasn't hungry!...LOL :croc:

This could be a plausable explaination--- Stunning her in to eating the pine apple Hum LOL

Its just that as a fence sitter, I would like to hear more views other than Bent on Rams guilt. Yanno? No offence to any Poster I do enjoy them all.


Socks

 

[LovelyPigeon]

The Boggs case was a murder case, so autopsy photos were taken. Marks on the face were noted in the autopsy, but the cause of those marks was not known. The marks were not recognized at the time as having been made by a stun gun.

After the suspected killer was found to be in possession of a stun gun the body was exhumed to see if that stun gun's configuration of probes fit the pair of marks on Bogg's face.

In the photos taken postexhumation, one of the pair of marks is quite large & dark, and is on the side of the face right beside the ear. The other mark is smaller, lighter in color, and on the earlobe.

Photos were made of the stun gun held to the pair of marks to demonstrate that the configuration of the gun's probes were consistent with that particular gun.

 

[SisterSocks]

The Boggs case was a murder case, so autopsy photos were taken. Marks on the face were noted in the autopsy, but the cause of those marks was not known. The marks were not recognized at the time as having been made by a stun gun.

After the suspected killer was found to be in possession of a stun gun the body was exhumed to see if that stun gun's configuration of probes fit the pair of marks on Bogg's face.

In the photos taken postexhumation, one of the pair of marks is quite large & dark, and is on the side of the face right beside the ear. The other mark is smaller, lighter in color, and on the earlobe.

Photos were made of the stun gun held to the pair of marks to demonstrate that the configuration of the gun's probes were consistent with that particular gun.

Thank you LP!
This is just the posts I enjoy-- Facts--- although, opinion are what makes this group special.

Socks

 

[Shylock]

How can we explain this? How can "stutter","degraded",or factory dna clear anyone?

We can't, it can't, and it hasn't. You're mistaken in thinking that anyone has been "cleared" by the DNA. There is no way to do that since (as you pointed out) the DNA can't be proven to be part of the crime.

Take for example Chris Wolf. In his depo, Beckner clearly states Wolf did not match ANY of the DNA found at the crime scene. But when asked if Wolf has been cleared by the DNA, Beckner replies, "You're using the word cleared. We've never cleared Chris Wolf." He goes on to say that Wolf has only been removed from under the famous "umbrella of suspicion".

 

[Shylock]

In the photos taken postexhumation, one of the pair of marks is quite large & dark,

Exactly. Except you forgot to mention that NONE of the marks, prior to the exhumation of his body 10 months after his death, looked the least bit like any of the marks on JonBenet.