CATCH THE LATEST WEBSLEUTHS RADIO AS WE LOOK INTO THE TERRIFYING WORLD OF MEDICAL SERIAL KILLERS
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

If Judge Julie Carnes Is Right ...

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by BlueCrab, Jun 14, 2004.

  1. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ... then Burke likely murdered JonBenet.

    Carnes: "... the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet, than it is with the theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so."

    Judge Carnes, if right, has exonerated Patsy and thus narrowed the list of likely suspects to three -- John, Burke, and an intruder.

    But the probability of the crime being committed by a lone intruder who was unknown to the Ramseys is close to zero. For example:

    o an intruder would not have known the private family information he included in his naive three-page fake ransom note;

    o he would not have spent hours in an occupied house after committing a murder;

    o he would not have sat at the breakfast room table and snacked on pineapple with JonBenet two hours before she died;

    o he would not have made himself a glass of tea while JonBenet snacked on the pineapple;

    o he would not have wrote a fake ransom note trying to cast suspicion on an intruder (which would be himself);

    o he would not have left the body in the house;

    o he would not enjoy the lies and coverup perpetrated by Ramsey family members trying to shield his identity;

    o he would not have been able to commit a rape/murder without leaving forensic evidence at the crime scene; and

    o he would not have crept upstairs to find clean underwear (ridiculous size 12's) to put on JonBenet while cleaning up the victim in an obvious attempt to hide the sexual aspects of the crime.

    There are many other reasons that indicate the killer of JonBenet was not an unknown intruder. There is, of course, a possibility that a fifth (or even a sixth) person was in the house that night, but he would had to have been there with the full knowledge of at least one of the remaining three Ramseys in the house (John, Patsy, or Burke).

    With Patsy eliminated by Judge Carnes, and common sense based on the points listed above eliminating an intruder, that would leave just John and Burke.

    John was exonerated by handwriting experts. Burke was not.

    John was exonerated by the Gelb lie-detector exams. Burke was not.

    Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple. John's were not.

    Conclusion:

    If Judge Carnes is right and Patsy didn't do it, and the evidence is clear and convincing that an intruder didn't do it, leaving just John and Burke as suspects, then the weight of the evidence is more consistent with the theory that Burke murdered JonBenet, than it is with the theory that John did so.

    JMO
     
  2. Nedthan Johns

    Nedthan Johns New Member

    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Either that BC or we can simply come to the conclusion that judge Carnes did not have ALL the information regarding this case in front of her therfore came to the ONLY conclusion logical due to the little evidence she had to go on.

    IMO no way could a 9 year old pen that note. My daughter is 10 now and she could not pen that note
     
  3. VespaElf

    VespaElf Little Miss Showcase(runner-up)

    Messages:
    2,380
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just dont buy the Burke did it theory either.

    I know 9 yearold can/have/do commit murder/molestation,but I just dont get that feeling in this case............I also didnt get the theory that Burke had friends involved (can anyone expand on that theory?) as youd think LE wouldve investigated said friends/their parents.


    I think the Judge ruled against Patsy because she lacked all the evidence and I still cant rule Patsy out.
     
  4. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay, let's say you have a bowl of M&M's. Lin Wood and Darnay Hoffman have removed all the blue ones. You say, "As far as I can tell from this bowl, there's no such thing as blue M&M's." Are you right?
     
  5. why_nutt

    why_nutt New Member

    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Post Of The Day.
     
  6. ACandyRose

    ACandyRose New Member

    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is priceless !!


    ==================================================
     
  7. Cherokee

    Cherokee Member

    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Excellent analogy, Britt. :clap:

    Judge Carnes didn't have access to all the case evidence. Therefore, her ruling is worthless and a joke. To be more accurate, her "ruling" should be called an "uninformed opinion based on partial and one-sided evidence."


    IMO
     
  8. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly, Cherokee. Can you imagine if her ruling exonerated an intruder? Ya think the RST would be extolling her brilliance then? lol

    Not that BlueCrab is RST... hardly... but I am a little worried that he's one BlueCrab step away from declaring that Judge Carnes thinks Burke did it. :D

    (Wow, guys, thanks... :blushing: )
     
  9. Shylock

    Shylock Former Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BlueCrab,
    Carnes has nothing to do with this case. Carnes was presented half a story because the other half was represented by a complete moron who shouldn't even be representing people in parking ticket court.

    So anything "Carnes" related doesn't advance your BDI (or any other - including "intruder") theory.
     
  10. Shylock

    Shylock Former Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wrong Britt. If your anology was correct, Lin Wood would have to remove all the blue M&M's while Darnay Hoffman stands by with his thumb up his ass asking what the color "blue" looks like...
     
  11. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I agree, but you are missing my point.

    The Ramseys are playing Carnes' tricky words for all they are worth and getting away with it. The truth of the matter is Carnes' words and Keenan's endorsement of the words is working for them and helping to publicly clear ALL of the Ramseys and put the case permanently to rest, not just clear Patsy.

    So what do the words actually imply? Carnes' words imply that Patsy didn't do it, but that's all they imply. What about John and Burke? For instance, Carnes' says nothing about the evidence being more consistent with the theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet, than it is with the theory that John or Burke did so.

    Why didn't Carnes include John and Burke in her statement while comparing evidence against them to the evidence of an intruder? Why just Patsy?

    Is it because Carnes knows Burke did it, so it was necessary to use only Patsy's name and not all of the Ramseys? Please remember that no one of authority has cleared Burke in the killing of JonBenet and all are careful NOT to officially say Burke is cleared, including Carnes and Keenan.

    JMO
     
  12. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
    ROFLMAO... oh Shylock, thanks for that visual. I stand corrected :D
     
  13. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Or is it because Carnes "knows" JOHN did it?
     
  14. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0

    If Carnes knew John did it then the case would be closed and John would be in prison.

    If Carnes knew Burke did it then there's nothing she nor anyone else could do about it because Burke would be protected under the Colorado Childrens Code that prevents children under 10 years old to be charged with a crime and even prevents the child's name to be revealed.

    JMO
     
  15. Britt

    Britt New Member

    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ??? How on earth do you figure that? Carnes presided over a civil case in a whole other jurisdiction. She has no power whatsoever in any Boulder criminal case.

    There's nothing Carnes could do about it anyway. Like I said, see above.

    Besides, she didn't even have access to police files. Carnes knows nothing... actually, less than nothing... she knows Ramseyfied "evidence."
     
  16. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Shylock,

    You have failed to factor in Julie Carnes judging the M&M color debate and concluding in a 30-page report there is evidence of there being 21 colors of M&M's, including blue and light blue, but an intruder must have eaten all the blue ones because Lin Wood and Darnay Hoffman could NOT have eaten them since they're both sitting on the floor in the corner with belly aches.

    JMO
     
  17. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Ahem, most embarassingly, the point of (excellent) blue M&M analogy has gone completely over jameson's head. I'll be interested to see if any of her more astute members enlighten her :) Maybe Ashley will have a go?

    I think poor jameson had a bad day yesterday because she made several faux-pas in her posts - including posting that "Seeker is not BORG" in reference to a post where Seeker was in fact posting her JDI theory. jameson also posted yesterday that the Ramseys weren't connected to the Internet at the time of the murder when in fact the search warrant and John Ramsey's own testimony prove that not only did they have an internet connection, but that they even had a telephone line dedicated to the Internet!
     
  18. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

    Priceless Jayelles!
     
  19. Cherokee

    Cherokee Member

    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    No, BlueCrab, I did not miss your point. I don't agree with it.

    Judge Carnes was not given access to all of the available case evidence. Therefore, any conclusions drawn by her regarding the identity of the perp are meaningless and void. Her uniformed opinion, disguised as a legal ruling, does not exonerate Patsy, nor incriminate Patsy. It does not prove PDI, BDI, JDI, IDI or M-O-U-S-E. It is worthless.


    IMO
     
  20. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Cherokee,

    You are looking at Carnes' opinion from a legalistic viewpoint, and in that regard I agree with your viewpoint.

    But you are NOT looking at Carnes' opinion from a public relations viewpoint, and in that regard the Ramseys are winning the day. The public doesn't know the case like most of us on WS. The public is being fed information from a judge, with that information being verified by a district attorney, that implies an intruder killed JonBenet. That's all the public understands.

    From a public relations standpoint Carnes and Keenan are conspiring to convince the public that an intruder killed JonBenet, and thus put the unsolved Ramsey case to bed forever -- and they are succeeding. The Ramseys will walk even though at least one of them is directly involved in the death of JonBenet.

    JMO
     

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