Everyonbe had their own opinion on Patsy...

[Britt]

Why wasnt't patsy ever convicted of this crime if she commited it??

I recommend reading Perfect Murder Perfect Town and JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation for the answer to that question.

 

[michelle]

I recommend reading Perfect Murder Perfect Town and JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation for the answer to that question.

I have that book, I have read it once already ita been awhile though.

 

[Louisa]

Whoa, Nellie: Richard Jewell was mistakenly arrested because he fit a "profile". He was soon absolved, because he was innocent. And......*some* people had susupicions about Mark Lundsford, mainly because of his general *look* and lifestyle. He was soon cleared, too. I don't know much about Ricci, but I believe there was at least some indication that he may have been the perp.


These three people bear NO comparison to Patsy Ramsey and her situation. Those of us who believe she is guilty feel this way because REAMS of circumstantial evidence point RIGHT TO HER. And all these many years later, there has never been ONE piece of exonerating evidence that turned up, not ONE shred of evidence that anyone but the family was in the home that night, that anyone but Patsy wrote that note, or that the scene was anything but STAGED by someone close to Jonbenet. Her demeanor and statements and lack of cooperation with LE put a bow on the package of CE.

All roads lead to Patsy....just like they did to Scott Peterson.

You're right about one thing--you don't know much about Ricci. REAMS of circumstantial evidence pointed RIGHT AT HIM.

 

[wenchie]

You're right about one thing--you don't know much about Ricci. REAMS of circumstantial evidence pointed RIGHT AT HIM.

Would you mind explaining further? I said that I don't know much about Ricci. You agree that I don't know much about Ricci.

Is there a point to your reaffirmation of my statement?

 

[detectivewannabe]

Not to get in the middle of a "discussion" but I believe Richard Ricci had taken his vehicle out of a mechanics garage, drove it several hundred miles and brought it back to the garage with muddy tires and no explanations as to where he went and why he felt the need to take the vehicle out that night. Someone else could probably clarify or correct me. I, understand that this is not a Richard Ricci, OJ Simpson, Scott Peterson, Richard Jewel, etc. thread, but I do understand the previous poster's point. No one knows for 110% who killed that little girl except for the person responsible. I couldn't even tell you if JonBenet knew herself. I have not kept up with this case and I don't pretend to know all the facts so please don't killl the messenger. I just can relate to what the poster said about other individuals who have been "accused" and it turned out not being them at all.

JMHO
DWB

 

[BBB167893]

"IMO the medical evidence of prior abuse indicates JonBenet was an abused child. Beyond the staged theatrics, I don't see this case as any different from all those other horrible cases of an abused child ending up dead at the hands of the abuser. Therefore, I disagree that any of us could find ourselves in this scary situation. Child abusers, on the other hand..."

That's always bothered me, Britt. That's the white elephant, isn't it?

 

[lilsister]

Anyone see that they are going to air a report on Court tv tonight re DNA and JBR?

 

[Eagle1]

Re prior abuse, evidently there had been some.

Nice to see you here, SuperDave.

Hope people are watching Court TV about the DNA and will report for us. I forgot.

 

[Louisa]

Not to get in the middle of a "discussion" but I believe Richard Ricci had taken his vehicle out of a mechanics garage, drove it several hundred miles and brought it back to the garage with muddy tires and no explanations as to where he went and why he felt the need to take the vehicle out that night. Someone else could probably clarify or correct me. I, understand that this is not a Richard Ricci, OJ Simpson, Scott Peterson, Richard Jewel, etc. thread, but I do understand the previous poster's point. No one knows for 110% who killed that little girl except for the person responsible. I couldn't even tell you if JonBenet knew herself. I have not kept up with this case and I don't pretend to know all the facts so please don't killl the messenger. I just can relate to what the poster said about other individuals who have been "accused" and it turned out not being them at all.

JMHO
DWB

You're not "getting in the middle" at all--your help in responding to Wenchie is appreciated as I wasn't on the boards this afternoon to answer. And you're right, this board does focus on JBR, not other cases, so I won't dig through old files to pull up all old evidence against Ricci, but will add to what you've posted just off the top of my head.

In addition to the several hundred miles Ricci couldn't account for on his vehicle, there was also supposedly mud/dirt matching some remote location in the Utah mountains he couldn't account for on the vehicle undercarriage. Additionally, eyewitnesses said they saw him taking things out of the vehicle and putting those things into bags before returning the vehicle to the mechanic's garage, and if I recall correctly, some of those items were believed to be interior floor mats from the vehicle which couldn't be accounted for.

Furthermore, and very critical, Mary Katherine Smart's original description of the man she saw take Elizabeth in the middle of the night was specific as to type and color of clothing and specific as to type and color of hat the man was wearing. Items matching those descriptions were found, if I recall correctly, in the home of Ricci's father and belonged to Richard Ricci. The hat was of an unusual type (i.e., not your typical ball cap or something like that) and because the type and color matched the description Mary Katherine had given, this really tipped the scales and brought the cries of "slam dunk, he done it" down upon the head of Richard Ricci.

It's funny (funny sad) that I got resistance to my original post on this thread at all, though, when all I asked was that 100% Patsy-did-it believers reserve one measly percent possibility that she might NOT have done it, based on cases like Ricci's. That's the kind of thing that drove me away from JBR boards some years ago after spending so many years discussing the case.

Having strong conviction that one's theory is correct is one thing. Blindly refusing to admit that no one is 100% certain of what happened in the case is another thing altogether.

Just my humble opinion . . .

Thanks again, DW, for your response to Wenchie in my absence.

 

[wenchie]

You're not "getting in the middle" at all--your help in responding to Wenchie is appreciated as I wasn't on the boards this afternoon to answer. And you're right, this board does focus on JBR, not other cases, so I won't dig through old files to pull up all old evidence against Ricci, but will add to what you've posted just off the top of my head.

Thanks again, DW, for your response to Wenchie in my absence.

Could you please explain what you're talking about, and what it was that I needed to be "responded to" about?

Someone else compared Patsy to Lundsford, Jewell and Ricci. I responded that there was NO comparison, and that although I knew little about it, I believed there were some indications of evidence against Ricci.

What the heck was there in my statement that needed some big response to?

 

[GuruJosh]

i think it is absolutely morally apparent that if patsy accidentally killed JB, or killed her in a fit of insane rage, she does NOT deserve to "burn in hell". I dont believe in hell or heaven but if i take the meaning of "hell" to be "everlasting punishment" then OBVIOUSLY the punishment would not fit the crime in this case.

burn in hell because she suffered a psychotic episode, or burn in hell because she made a stupid decision that she later couldn't retract? (a lie?) Don't be ridiculous. Burn in hell for a coverup?

patsy ramsey was not a homicidal vicious killer. Burke had no fear, John stuck with her. An accidental killer, maybe. but choose your terms carefully. Murder is not the same as accidental death. And a coverup does not warrant punishment in hell.

Honestly, people!

 

[wenchie]

i think it is absolutely morally apparent that if patsy accidentally killed JB, or killed her in a fit of insane rage, she does NOT deserve to "burn in hell". I dont believe in hell or heaven but if i take the meaning of "hell" to be "everlasting punishment" then OBVIOUSLY the punishment would not fit the crime in this case.

burn in hell because she suffered a psychotic episode, or burn in hell because she made a stupid decision that she later couldn't retract? (a lie?) Don't be ridiculous. Burn in hell for a coverup?

patsy ramsey was not a homicidal vicious killer. Burke had no fear, John stuck with her. An accidental killer, maybe. but choose your terms carefully. Murder is not the same as accidental death. And a coverup does not warrant punishment in hell.

Honestly, people!

(Not that there is a "hell" to burn in, but....)....maybe those who make other people suffer for THEIR mistakes would deserve such a fate. Maybe people who point the finger at OTHERS and accuse them for their own "mistake" would deserve it.....maybe people who would slander and villify the very people (LE) who CARED about their victim would deserve it.

Ya think?

 

[narlacat]

i think it is absolutely morally apparent that if patsy accidentally killed JB, or killed her in a fit of insane rage, she does NOT deserve to "burn in hell". I dont believe in hell or heaven but if i take the meaning of "hell" to be "everlasting punishment" then OBVIOUSLY the punishment would not fit the crime in this case.

burn in hell because she suffered a psychotic episode, or burn in hell because she made a stupid decision that she later couldn't retract? (a lie?) Don't be ridiculous. Burn in hell for a coverup?

patsy ramsey was not a homicidal vicious killer. Burke had no fear, John stuck with her. An accidental killer, maybe. but choose your terms carefully. Murder is not the same as accidental death. And a coverup does not warrant punishment in hell.

Honestly, people!

Honestly Guru
Why do you feel the need to defend Patsy all the time??

Let's bring it home a bit for you....
If your wife accidently, and I say accidently meaning completely losing her temper, killed your daughter would you feel that it would be ok to cover it up?

Would that be ok with you?
The way you put it, it would seem that you would be ok with that, that she wouldn't have to pay for what she did.
In my mind, covering up is worse than momentarily losing your temper and accidently killing someone.
Look at what lengths were taken to cover up JonBenet's death, someone moved her, wiped her down, constructed a garrotte to put around her neck and even went as far as to sexually violate her.
If you think that's ok, well I shake my head whilst saying 'good grief'.

 

[lilsister]

Did any one watch the special tonight re DNA evidence and the fact that it was not connected to the Ramseys foreign DNAE. Let's all take a breath and re think this horrible tragedy.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Did any one watch the special tonight re DNA evidence and the fact that it was not connected to the Ramseys foreign DNAE. Let's all take a breath and re think this horrible tragedy.

Yes, I really think you need to.

 

[michelle]

What is with this DNA that they say they found that matches Nobody in the house or circle the Rmaseys are in?? Where exactly did they find it, in JBR's Undies?? I am rusty, dont mind me.

 

[lizziedripping]

I think that some of us feel that we're being told "hands off" Patsy because of her death.

Exactly, why don't we just nominate her for a Knighthood??? :bang: :bang:

 

[Karole28]

i think it is absolutely morally apparent that if patsy accidentally killed JB, or killed her in a fit of insane rage, she does NOT deserve to "burn in hell". I dont believe in hell or heaven but if i take the meaning of "hell" to be "everlasting punishment" then OBVIOUSLY the punishment would not fit the crime in this case.

burn in hell because she suffered a psychotic episode, or burn in hell because she made a stupid decision that she later couldn't retract? (a lie?) Don't be ridiculous. Burn in hell for a coverup?

patsy ramsey was not a homicidal vicious killer. Burke had no fear, John stuck with her. An accidental killer, maybe. but choose your terms carefully. Murder is not the same as accidental death. And a coverup does not warrant punishment in hell.

Honestly, people!

Can I get your contact info just in case I'm ever accused of a crime and sent to trial? I want you on my jury.
I've already got 3 of the OJ jurors on standby.

 

[Solace]

What is with this DNA that they say they found that matches Nobody in the house or circle the Rmaseys are in?? Where exactly did they find it, in JBR's Undies?? I am rusty, dont mind me.

Michelle,

They found blood, looked like a miniscule amount mixed with some unidentified DNA, which they said came from an adult male, but it could have been anything, someone could have touched the panties or sneezed near them, any of that. This does NOT prove an intruder.

 

[texaslb218]

Michelle,

They found blood, looked like a miniscule amount mixed with some unidentified DNA, which they said came from an adult male, but it could have been anything, someone could have touched the panties or sneezed near them, any of that. This does NOT prove an intruder.

They said, I believe, "an adult, caucasian male." They said it matched no "known" person. They also said with the expanding DNA base, that it is very possible (my adjectives) that someone will be identified.

I thought this was a very good refresher program. I don't remember ever knowing Burke's fingerprints were on the tea glass. Schiller said Patsy didn't recognize the pineapple spoon.

It was a good summary for a non-expert like me.