If JonBenet's death was an accident...

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by eileenhawkeye, Jan 29, 2011.

  1. Ames

    Ames New Member

    Messages:
    5,838
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really now? Just what theory has been cancelled out? RDI's are pretty much on the same page. We weren't there...and neither were you...so we don't know exactly WHAT happened that night, only that the parents were involved. It's like a puzzle....you fit all of the evidence together, and when you are finished, you have a picture of the Ramseys, that you can frame and hang on your wall.
     


  2. Ames

    Ames New Member

    Messages:
    5,838
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And that is the reason that they are NOW "UNCLEARED".
     
  3. MurriFlower

    MurriFlower Inactive

    Messages:
    1,980
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So, Ok, Ames. Let's just say there WAS another person in the house that night. In your opinion, would that make this person more likely, less likely, or equally likely to be the murderer?
     
  4. cami

    cami Keep your fork......

    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    1,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ITA, I don't think much of ST theory either. This was not toilet rage. There is proof JB was being molested.
     
  5. SunnieRN

    SunnieRN Active Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    38
    A lot of people have already addressed this one. My suggestion, if you want to know what, how your 'enemy' thinks, study their tactics. Try reading threads that will answer this question.

    Have you heard the expression, 'Burden of proof'? RDI has crossed that bridge, as the other 3 R's were known to, never denied that, they were in the house when JBR was killed. NO ONE has EVER proven another person was in the house that night.

    Depends upon whom they were. A stranger, a doctor, a pastor, a fixer...etc etc etc. Show us proof MF. Also, please address my original question. You have been off on tangents for several weeks now. These ALL cancel one another. You are accusing us of twisting facts, but you are guilty of worse. Remember, our suspects have been PROVEN to be present.
     
  6. cami

    cami Keep your fork......

    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    1,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  7. cami

    cami Keep your fork......

    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    1,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not only was she wearing the same clothes she wore the night before (party clothes), she was in full makeup with her hair done.

    Someone didn't go to bed that night, IMO.
     
  8. madeleine

    madeleine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,973
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    48
    their presence in the house doesn't make them guilty,I don't think that's what people think.
    it's other things that bother us,like -they never helped the cops to rule them out,actually they made it pretty difficult,look at what LW did during the Atlanta interviews.
    DNA isn't definite proof that someone else killed JB,it only proves someone unknown to US handled her clothes at some point.
    you can't put the murdr weapon in the hands of a R but you can't place it in the dna owners hands either,hey we don't even know what the murder weapon was,we are not even sure what the CAUSE of death was.

    you need so much more in order to name this dna owner the killer of JB.
    and on the other hand there are so MANY questions that the R's simply refused to answer and so many suspicions regarding their behaviour post crime.
    their timeline s#cks for example,things just couldn't have happened like they said.so many I don't recalls and I don't remember.they don't recall important things but they remember ridiculous details,makes you wonder.bad lawyering?don't think so,LW is GOOD.he fought hard,that tells me he had good reasons and it's not just about the R's IMAGE.
     
  9. Toltec

    Toltec New Member

    Messages:
    1,644
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly...there is no way in the world Patsy would get into a tiny plane unshowered...can u imagine the smell? She said she wanted to impress Melinda's boyfriend Stewart.

    Patsy did not shower because she did not go to bed that nite and knew she was not going to get on that plane.
     
  10. madeleine

    madeleine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,973
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    48


    am not Ames but I would love to answer.
    it all depends on who this person was.could be the killer,could be an accomplice,could be a doctor,could be someone from AG called over to clean up the scene.
    its not about IF there was someone else there that night ,it's about who it was.unless they got a name they got nothing.IMO
     
  11. MurriFlower

    MurriFlower Inactive

    Messages:
    1,980
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    My big bold

    Well, when I asked what was the proof, that is what I was told. In the house = guilty.
     
  12. MurriFlower

    MurriFlower Inactive

    Messages:
    1,980
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Why do you need to know who was in the house to decide if that person was equally, more or less likely to be guilty? It appears that RDI believes that simply the presence of someone in the house is sufficient evidence of guilt.
     
  13. MurriFlower

    MurriFlower Inactive

    Messages:
    1,980
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
     
  14. SunnieRN

    SunnieRN Active Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    38
     
  15. SunnieRN

    SunnieRN Active Member

    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    38
    QQuotes seem to be 'off' again. MF, I was quoting and responding to your post, with your post, above. Not sure why Camis' name came up?
     
  16. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,053
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    63
     
  17. MurriFlower

    MurriFlower Inactive

    Messages:
    1,980
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
     
  18. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,053
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    63
     
  19. MurriFlower

    MurriFlower Inactive

    Messages:
    1,980
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
     
  20. joeskidbeck

    joeskidbeck Rest in Peace

    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Why would you dismiss actual physical evidence in favour of the perceived unusual behaviour of someone?" Respectfully snipped

    Murri, the dna is not the only "physical" evidence found in the house. It is a very small part, as a matter of fact. The rest of the physical evidence belonged to the R's. Of course I'm talking about the fibers and paint brush to name a couple. Together with the fact that we know there were 3 members of the family in the house, how would you come to the conclusion that an intruder ever went into the home? The evidence against the R's is not just about their presence that night or their "behavior". It's both. Now, I ask you, how could you ignore the preponderance of physical evidence in favor of one piece which cannot even be connected to a name?
     

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