My doubts about the case

New Posts

kimba said:
What is the airspeed of an unladen African swallow??????

The idea that a tiny swallow could even be unladen it really the phsycological effect of that question. And stop questioning my late night spelling.
Click to expand...

I'm questioning something other than your spelling.
 
There are some real loose screws around here sometimes. Kimba, now you are seeing at least one of them.

Just my opinion!!!!
 
BrotherMoon,

There is no other quite like you and I quite like you just the way you are.


I have come to read here often and I am amazed at the dedication of heart and mind of many of these posters. Surely there is more love and desire for justice here at WS than ever in the Ramsey Team.


Just my thoughts,
Jubie
 
jubie said:
BrotherMoon,

There is no other quite like you and I quite like you just the way you are.


I have come to read here often and I am amazed at the dedication of heart and mind of many of these posters. Surely there is more love and desire for justice here at WS than ever in the Ramsey Team.


Just my thoughts,
Jubie
Click to expand...

I am emboldened. Backatcha. :blushing:
 
twizzler333 said:
I watched the Lou Smit documentary on Court TV last night, and while he brought up some interesting questions as to what may be evidence and what may not be, I had to sit and look at the whole idea that the BPD seemed, to me, to be one sided. I guess my problem with it all is, that if indeed they had all this evidence they claim they have pointing towards the Ramsey's guilt, and then someone they called in to help investigate presented possibilities of some other scenarios, etc., why in the world did they just blow off all of his findings, essentially fired him from the case, asked that the grand jury NOT be allowed to hear any of his evidence and also wanted it permanently deleted from record? To me that is just wrong. I don't care who the case is about, that should NEVER be an option to dismiss any potential evidence or theories. What if they were allowed to dismiss the evidence pointing to SP in the Laci case? While I think the evidence that his lawyer is trying to bring in sometimes is far fetched, it still should be presented if it is indeed a fact or a possibilty, regardless of how someone feels about it. I like to think the jury will see through the BS, and they usually do.

I think the BPD has forgot that this is a case about getting justice for precious little JonBenet, NOT a who's right/who's wrong case. If they are right, they are right, if they are NOT right, then so be it and accept it! Deal with it! We all make mistakes everyday and sometimes we have to swallow our pride and just get over it!

I feel like if the BPD had enough evidence as so many seem to think they have, then they certainly would have indicted the Ramey's. They did not do that, so that alone should tell you something. It may come out one day that they really did this, but for now they have to investigate all avenues available and pursue the justice for JonBenet.

We cannot overlook these other things- I hear all the time people making fun of Lou going through the basement window, etc. He said last night that someone either went through the window or attempted to. He did not say they definitely went through the window. There was evidence there from the BPD photos, and I saw it with my own two eyes, where foliage was present underneath the iron cover going down to the window, there was disturbance of the dust on the window seal, etc. And these were photos that the BPD took. It doesn't mean someone went in that window, but someone did get in that area at some point.

The sloppy investigation should also tell you something. C'mon, if any of these other high profile crimes were investigated so sloppily, all these people who apparently are supportive of the RDI theory and the BPD, would have a fit! I don't get it.

I read these posts on here and no matter what other "evidence" may be presented here, someone always discloses it. I would hope that if this happened to my child, (while I know I would have to be investigated) I certainly would want the police to do a thorough job and all the evidence be presented, not just the evidence that suits the prosecutor or police departments thoughts, especially if it were sloppily investigated to begin with and THEY KNOW IT. That is just disturbing to me to think that someone can just take justice into their own hands and because they have a certain opinion about it or have so much pride, or think they're position in the investigation is superior and without fault, turn someone's life upside down without looking at all the facts and without taking into consideration they may have failed from the get go on the investigation and admitting it.

Pride! puh! phooey on that! Get the truth out there NO MATTER what it is! They could have solved this crime already, they look like bigger idiots now than if they had just said they messed up and needed to redo the investigation completely!

And as for this forum (and I may be banned for my opinion here) It seems like anyone who presents some other idea other than the one of the RDI, the thread is just closed. It doesn't matter if it is a ridiculous theory to some, it may well prove to have some merit and it may not. Why is it fair to close it? If people don't like that particular thread, then they can choose NOT to read it. I certainly do that myself when I get into a thread that has a lynch mob mentality to it. Of all the threads on this Websleuths forum, the JonBenet threads are the most unfair. If I am banned for my opinion here then adios! I think there are a few posters on here with quite a few screws loose! Sorry, but that is my opinion. Have a nice day. :)
Click to expand...

I enjoyed reading your post and I too agree that if the BPD had the evidence they needed then why didn't they do what they knew they should do...???
IMHO it's bigger than us/them...it goes beyond our imagination/thinking in that good people do bad things and to show face (admit to wrong-doing) about these things is WAY too much for them...the bigger picture being "it was MORE PROFITABLE TO CREATE CONFLICT/CONFUSION/CHAOS for "ALL INVOLVED" to date by how/why/when/where/&who.
 
As someone who was accused of commiting a very serious crime I can understand the actions of the Ramseys. I was accused of something I had nothing to do with and it was amazing to me how the police took a lot of evidence and made it seem what it was not. Put in that position, you become very concerned with everything that is coming out of your mouth. You hesitate and try to think how they can twist it around. You have to keep in mind all of the things these people are dealing with. Not only are they dealing with the lose of their daughter, they are dealing with being investagated. I do not pretend to know if they were involved but it is possible for someone to know their habits and routines, that would explain the basement beliveing that no one would catch them there. What if someone new they would be out at the christmas dinner and wrote the note while they were gone and waited in the basement for everyone to go to bed. What if they killed the girl because she screamed in the house so that when they got her outside she would not scream again. Maybe the body was left in the basement because while they were placeing the note on the stairs they heard Patsy coming down the stairs, knowing she would soon be going to wake the kids, paniced ran back down to the basement left the body for fear if police did pull them over they would be caught and went out the window after hiding her in the room where it would take longer to find her, giving them more time for escape. Lie detector test are not given as evidence in court for a reason, they are not reliable! I failed the first two because of the emotional stress I was going through. I even failed the test when I was giving my real name. I know what my name is. As far as Patsy wearing the same cloths, I have worn the same thing from the night before when going on a trip not wanting to leave dirty things in the house and having packed the others, how many of you can say you have never worn the same thing twice?
There is so many ways this could have happened and sooner or later it will be solved, like in the Martha Moxley case, all this time everyone belived that Tommy not Michael was the guilty person look how that turned out.
As in my case it may take years but someone somewhere always talks. Just incase you are wondering, I was cleared of all charges when the real person who commited the crime confessed in prison because he found God and knew that was the only way to true redemtion to confess all his sins. I am more angry at the police than this person because they were so concerned in framing me they refused to look anywhere else, much like the Ramseys. Still to this day even one detective still belives that I am involved when it has been proven over and over I have never met this guy. Unfortuntaly for the Ramseys even if someone confessed today some would still believe they are guilty. So I understand why the attorney trys to sue anyone who accuses them. You do have to protect yourself for the sake of finding the killer, after all if they had corporated more and the police treated them as they did me and they were found guilty and they were innocent the real killer would still be free to stalk others. Try to remember in this world anything is possible. Final thought, as far as the handwriting goes, there are as many experts that says if was Patsy as there are that says it is not and they ALL have something to gain.
 
KATKAT19691 said:
As someone who was accused of commiting a very serious crime I can understand the actions of the Ramseys. I was accused of something I had nothing to do with and it was amazing to me how the police took a lot of evidence and made it seem what it was not. Put in that position, you become very concerned with everything that is coming out of your mouth. You hesitate and try to think how they can twist it around. You have to keep in mind all of the things these people are dealing with. Not only are they dealing with the lose of their daughter, they are dealing with being investagated. I do not pretend to know if they were involved but it is possible for someone to know their habits and routines, that would explain the basement beliveing that no one would catch them there. What if someone new they would be out at the christmas dinner and wrote the note while they were gone and waited in the basement for everyone to go to bed. What if they killed the girl because she screamed in the house so that when they got her outside she would not scream again. Maybe the body was left in the basement because while they were placeing the note on the stairs they heard Patsy coming down the stairs, knowing she would soon be going to wake the kids, paniced ran back down to the basement left the body for fear if police did pull them over they would be caught and went out the window after hiding her in the room where it would take longer to find her, giving them more time for escape. Lie detector test are not given as evidence in court for a reason, they are not reliable! I failed the first two because of the emotional stress I was going through. I even failed the test when I was giving my real name. I know what my name is. As far as Patsy wearing the same cloths, I have worn the same thing from the night before when going on a trip not wanting to leave dirty things in the house and having packed the others, how many of you can say you have never worn the same thing twice?
There is so many ways this could have happened and sooner or later it will be solved, like in the Martha Moxley case, all this time everyone belived that Tommy not Michael was the guilty person look how that turned out.
As in my case it may take years but someone somewhere always talks. Just incase you are wondering, I was cleared of all charges when the real person who commited the crime confessed in prison because he found God and knew that was the only way to true redemtion to confess all his sins. I am more angry at the police than this person because they were so concerned in framing me they refused to look anywhere else, much like the Ramseys. Still to this day even one detective still belives that I am involved when it has been proven over and over I have never met this guy. Unfortuntaly for the Ramseys even if someone confessed today some would still believe they are guilty. So I understand why the attorney trys to sue anyone who accuses them. You do have to protect yourself for the sake of finding the killer, after all if they had corporated more and the police treated them as they did me and they were found guilty and they were innocent the real killer would still be free to stalk others. Try to remember in this world anything is possible. Final thought, as far as the handwriting goes, there are as many experts that says if was Patsy as there are that says it is not and they ALL have something to gain.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for what you went through KATKAT. I cannot imagine how awful it would be to be accused of something you did not do. Thank God you were exonerated.
But it is different with the Ramseys. There are very valid factual reasons why they are STILL suspects in their daughter's death and cover-up.
The lies they were caught in for one. Why would they feel the need AT ALL to lie about their son Burke being awake that morning if there was nothing to hide? They DID lie. And it makes no sense to have lied unless they NEEDED him to simply "be alseep" through everything so as not to cast any suspicion his way.
Patsy's fibers from the clothing she wore that night were found on the blanket covering JonBenet, entwined in the knot in the cord around JonBenet's neck, on the sticky side of the tape covering JonBenet's mouth and in the paint tote where the broken paint brush was taken and broken for the cord around her neck. Patsy claims she was NEVER down in the basement. The tape and paint tote never came upstairs after JonBenet was discovered that afternoon.
The linguistics and punctuation in the fake ransom note were Patsy, Patsy, Patsy. Familiar phrases and words she was known to use among the exclamation points and signed acronym she was known for using.
Not to mention that she cannot be eliminated through her handwriting.
What are the odds of the dead child being found right there in THAT house where the same woman I've just described with those known facts of fiber evidence and incriminating evidence in the note (left on the stairs SHE always came down in the morning and on the steps SHE always left things to be noticed to go upstairs) were found? The MOST opportunity of ALL women on the face of the earth as she was right there at the crime scene.

And let's not forget that John Ramsey has stated that there was CHAIR shoved up against the door on the OUTSIDE of the room where the famous "window" was that delusional Smit so conveniently likes to ignore as a crucial piece of evidence. No one could escape through the window and at the same time shove a chair up against the door in the hallway outside the room!

There is more but you get my point here. There are true facts and evidence in this case - and these are just some of what we know of - that PREVENT the police from eliminating the Ramseys.
And rightfully so.

I think the police HAVE looked elsewhere - but the EVIDENCE points right back home. It's just that the Ramseys don't want it to.
After all - it's what they paid good money for. -----> To keep them out of jail.
~Angel~
 
K777angel said:
Why would they feel the need AT ALL to lie about their son Burke being awake that morning if there was nothing to hide? They DID lie. And it makes no sense to have lied unless they NEEDED him to simply "be alseep" through everything so as not to cast any suspicion his way.

Where is this documented as a fact that they lied? And if they said one time he was asleep and then later it was found he may have been awake, then don't you think that it could have been from all the chaos and stress of the morning that, however many months later when they were interviewed, they simply just could not recall what was said or done that morning? I cannot remmber everything I did a few hours ago and all the FACTS of who was where, doing what, etc. on a normal day, let alone under extreme stress and fear?

Patsy's fibers from the clothing she wore that night were found on the blanket covering JonBenet, entwined in the knot in the cord around JonBenet's neck, on the sticky side of the tape covering JonBenet's mouth and in the paint tote where the broken paint brush was taken and broken for the cord around her neck. Patsy claims she was NEVER down in the basement. The tape and paint tote never came upstairs after JonBenet was discovered that afternoon.

Is this a FACT? It is entirely possible her fibers were there. She probably bought the rope, she already owned the paintbrushes. Did they do their laundry there in that area of the house? She helped get JonBenet ready for bed the night before, didn't she? Fibers could have transposed from any number of things. Could have been on JonBenet from the previous night when she tucked her in and transposed that way. That is not enough evidence for me to be convinced.

The linguistics and punctuation in the fake ransom note were Patsy, Patsy, Patsy. Familiar phrases and words she was known to use among the exclamation points and signed acronym she was known for using.
Not to mention that she cannot be eliminated through her handwriting.
What are the odds of the dead child being found right there in THAT house where the same woman I've just described with those known facts of fiber evidence and incriminating evidence in the note (left on the stairs SHE always came down in the morning and on the steps SHE always left things to be noticed to go upstairs) were found? The MOST opportunity of ALL women on the face of the earth as she was right there at the crime scene.

Goes right back to my thoughts of someone really knew them quite well!!! I think if they were going to stage a kidnapping they would have made it LOOK like a kidnapping! If you are staging a crime scene to cover up another incident (accidental death or deliberate death from rage) you are going to make it really appear to be what you are claiming it to be. If you are really attempting to kidnap the child and things go terribly wrong or off course from what you intended to do initially, then you might panic and run out leaving the child in the house. The ransom note- again, someone who knew them quite well. And as for the analysis of her handwriting- I promise you I could not be eliminated as the writer either, my handwriting style is VERY similar to that you see on the candyrose site. I am sure if a lot of other people took the analysis they would not be 100% cleared either.


And let's not forget that John Ramsey has stated that there was CHAIR shoved up against the door on the OUTSIDE of the room where the famous "window" was that delusional Smit so conveniently likes to ignore as a crucial piece of evidence. No one could escape through the window and at the same time shove a chair up against the door in the hallway outside the room!

Lou Smith didn't say someone for a FACT someone came in or out of that window. He just said someone definitely had been in the area outside probably attempting to get in or checking it out at the very least. The suitcase could have been placed there after someone was already in the house thinking of going out that window and then realized they would not be able to hoist a child out the window too. Besides, I think the person went right out the door without being heard at all. I really don't think the suitcase or anything in that particular room has anything to do with the case, other than the fact that the foliage was disrupted and the iron cover had certainly been moved from the outside. That would certainly explain the "scraping" noise the neighbors heard.
Click to expand...

The ONLY slightly questionable thing in this case to me is the pineapple, and I certainly can think of ways to explain this away as well. In her interview she wasn't sure if she had pineapple or not. I am sitting here now and I could not tell you if I have any pineapple in the house at this precise moment or not. I do buy it and I usually buy it at the same market I go to, but sometimes I do occasionally stroll into Walmart or another store and pick it up. Not unusual to NOT know exactly when, if, or WHERE you bought something so trivial. The child could have got up and fed herself in the middle of the night, the intruder could have been someone she knew who offered it to her to coherse her downstairs, she could have snuck some earlier in the evening without anyone noticing it. Was there other food found in her stomach contents? Does pineapple take longer to digest than crab meat? Lots of uncertainties here IMO.
 
We can rule out the possibility that JonBenet got up in the middle of the night and fed herself pineapple. According to the Ramseys' own statements, she wasn't tall enough to have reached the pineapple in the fridge. Someone would have to have taken it out of the fridge for her. Common sense should tell us that an intruder didn't do it. The only fingerprints on the bowl were Patsy's and Burke's. BlueCrab knows the details of the following, so maybe he'll be so kind as to jump in and explain in detail...the bowl was found on the table at the place Burke always sat.

I don't think John and Patsy knew that Burke fed JonBenet pineapple or noticed the bowl of pineapple on the table when they made up the "JonBenet was alseep when we returned from the Whites'" story, or they wouldn't have locked themselves into it.

imo
 
Just to let you know, I understand what you are saying and my thought is that Burke did it and his parents are covering for him. That is the only exp. for everything in stead of a few here and there. Remember that Burke was not elim. from the hand. I still am not sure patsy wrote the note after all her score was 4.5 to be elim. you need a 5. i am not sure what score burke got. let me know if you do.
 
Why BrotherMoon? Because we are allowed to have more than one opinion here? It is a forum for discussion, not a "The Ramseys DEFINITELY did it Forum". We may soon find out they did it and then again, we may find out someone else did it. This is just a discussion of different opinions and POV. I would say the majority of the people here agree with you anyway.
 
Ivy said:
We can rule out the possibility that JonBenet got up in the middle of the night and fed herself pineapple. According to the Ramseys' own statements, she wasn't tall enough to have reached the pineapple in the fridge. Someone would have to have taken it out of the fridge for her. Common sense should tell us that an intruder didn't do it. The only fingerprints on the bowl were Patsy's and Burke's. BlueCrab knows the details of the following, so maybe he'll be so kind as to jump in and explain in detail...the bowl was found on the table at the place Burke always sat.

I don't think John and Patsy knew that Burke fed JonBenet pineapple or noticed the bowl of pineapple on the table when they made up the "JonBenet was alseep when we returned from the Whites'" story, or they wouldn't have locked themselves into it.

imo
Click to expand...


Ivy, you are correct. The unedited version of the police interviews reveal that JonBenet was too little to reach the bowl and the waterglass that had been put away in the highest cabinets in the kitchen, but Burke was tall enough to reach them. The bowl and waterglass were found on the breakfast room table at the respective seats at the table where Burke and JonBenet normally sat. The bowl contained the pineapple with the large inappropriate spoon stuck in it. The waterglass contained a used tea bag. JonBenet was not a tea drinker; Burke was the resident tea drinker. Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple.

JMO
 
BlueCrab said:
The unedited version of the police interviews reveal that JonBenet was too little to reach the bowl and the waterglass that had been put away in the highest cabinets in the kitchen, but Burke was tall enough to reach them. The bowl and waterglass were found on the breakfast room table at the respective seats at the table where Burke and JonBenet normally sat. The bowl contained the pineapple with the large inappropriate spoon stuck in it. The waterglass contained a used tea bag. JonBenet was not a tea drinker; Burke was the resident tea drinker. Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple.

JMO
Click to expand...

I have wondered about the physical aspects of JonBenet's supposed inability to reach a bowl on a table. Nobody incorporates into this scenario the fact that JonBenet was 47 inches tall, one inch shy of four feet. How tall were these counters and tables, anyway? My kitchen counter is 37 inches high, and my dining table's eating surface is 29 inches high. A 47-inch-tall child would be able to reach a bowl placed on either easily, unless the bowl was put a couple of feet or more away from the edge of the table/counter. How is this unrealistic? If all reading this take a tape measure and set it to a 47-inch measure, then set it next to their various eating surfaces, is it really visually obvious that more likely than not someone of that height would not be able to reach a bowl? And since when did JonBenet become incapable of doing what all children do, climbing up on a chair by the table to reach things on it?
 
Since they obviously tested the bowl for fingerprints, did they find any of JonBenet's DNA on the spoon (unless she ate with her fingers, which kids do sometimes)? Did they find evidence of her drinking from the water glass someone mentioned above? That would certainly have her DNA on it if she used these things. Just because she could not reach the pineapple in the refridgerator doesn't mean she didn't get it herself. She could have used a chair, most kids do in their lifetime if they cannot reach something. Not sure if this is significant or not. Could be though.
 
Ivy said:
I don't think John and Patsy knew that Burke fed JonBenet pineapple or noticed the bowl of pineapple on the table when they made up the "JonBenet was alseep when we returned from the Whites'" story, or they wouldn't have locked themselves into it.
imo
Click to expand...

I agree, Ivy.
 
Ivy said:
I don't think John and Patsy knew that Burke fed JonBenet pineapple or noticed the bowl of pineapple on the table when they made up the "JonBenet was alseep when we returned from the Whites'" story, or they wouldn't have locked themselves into it.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 174 more.
Total: 3,044 (members: 175, guests: 2,869)

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
2,869
Total visitors
3,044
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,502
Messages
17,970,034
Members
228,788
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top