Patsy is innocent.

[David Rogers]

Since the statute of limitations has expired on everything in this case except for murder than I’d say Patsy is innocent. If there was any proof she killed JonBenet, it would have come out. There are too many people that could talk. The only reason the Evidence, testimony and pictures have not been released is that LE still think they can get a conviction. The only other reason is that Burke did it and they can’t implicate him. Would LE still be investigating the case if they could not implicate Burke? I’d say that pretty much points to the killer.

 

[kaykay543]

Since the statute of limitations has expired on everything in this case except for murder than I’d say Patsy is innocent. If there was any proof she killed JonBenet, it would have come out. There are too many people that could talk. The only reason the Evidence, testimony and pictures have not been released is that LE still think they can get a conviction. The only other reason is that Burke did it and they can’t implicate him. Would LE still be investigating the case if they could not implicate Burke? I’d say that pretty much points to the killer.

I don't agree. I don't think there will ever be a conviction; but I do think LE knows who did it. I don't think anyone will talk until JR dies.

 

[David Rogers]

I don't agree. I don't think there will ever be a conviction; but I do think LE knows who did it. I don't think anyone will talk until JR dies.

I’d like to hear you ideas.

 

[flourish]

Innocent of specifically what?

 

[Cortne]

Now there’s a loaded question

 

[UKGuy]

Since the statute of limitations has expired on everything in this case except for murder than I’d say Patsy is innocent. If there was any proof she killed JonBenet, it would have come out. There are too many people that could talk. The only reason the Evidence, testimony and pictures have not been released is that LE still think they can get a conviction. The only other reason is that Burke did it and they can’t implicate him. Would LE still be investigating the case if they could not implicate Burke? I’d say that pretty much points to the killer.

David Rogers,
Who thinks the wine-cellar setup is a staged crime-scene, as it patently never benefited Patsy, since she left her forensic evidence all over the wine-cellar?

Burke at such a young age does not appear to be so worldly-wise to construct such a staging?

That leaves JR, the father whose narrative surrounding JonBenet's death continues to change.

Would LE still be investigating the case if they could not implicate Burke?

The investigation has Cold Case Status. Legally this prevents the release of evidence that might be produced in court.

Some consider the Cold Case Status as a political move as it prevents closure?

Without three doctors agreeing that JonBenet had been acutely sexually assaulted at the time of her death, PDI might be a favorite front runner.

The case seems to be what it looks like : a young girl sexually assaulted then silenced via death, followed by a staged crime-scene?

The curious thing here is that given the estimated time of death Burke Ramsey will know who killed JonBenet.

Once JR leaves this earth, will Burke tell us in some yet to be published TV documentary who did it?

.

 

[David Rogers]

Innocent of specifically what?

Innocent of killing JonBenet. The DA knows who did it. If it was Patsy the info would have come out by now.

 

[2Hope4]

Innocent of killing JonBenet. The DA knows who did it. If it was Patsy the info would have come out by now.

How could they come out and say Patsy was the murderer when she isn't alive to have a trial? Thus unless they have enough evidence to say she's the sole suspect, I don't think they'll say anything. Well I don't think they'll ever say anything.

 

[TeaTime]

David Rogers - there was no trial, so no one would will ever officially come out with a statement that any of these 3 were the killer. This is particularly true since the brother is the most likely suspect in the murder with the parents as the designers of the cover up. He was about a month shy of being old enough to be prosecuted and it would be impossible to bring a case against the parents without pointing out who they covered for in the staging of the scene - a juvenile protected by law.

The grand jury indictments tell you all you need to know.

 

[UKGuy]

TeaTime,

The grand jury indictments tell you all you need to know.

Sure and they might be all Burke Ramsey requires once JR departs this earth, to claim the Grand Jury got it right first time round, and that he is an innocent caught up in the sins of his parents?

.

 

[kaykay543]

I’d like to hear you ideas.

I used to be BDI. But now I don't think so. If BR did it--no one would have kept investigating all these years. What would be the point since he couldn't be convicted? Why would they keep testing DNA if BR did it? Doesn't make sense to me. I also do not believe BR would have done the Dr Phil show if he had killed her.

PR wrote the ransom note. The note shows a huge amount of anger focused on JR. The two wouldn't even be near each other (and barely spoke to each other) the day she died. JR found the body. I think he couldn't take it anymore that no one had found the body; so he found her to get it over with.

Much has been made that JBR was previously assaulted digitally (or with an item) and not with a penis. So some think that excludes JR as the one abusing her. Pedophiles typically groom a young child by going in slow methodical steps. Especially when it is someone in the family as they have all the time in the world to keep abusing them. Many mothers typically deny what they knew was happening right under their own nose. They don't want to deal with the public shame and losing the life they are living.

I am not sure which one actually killed her. But to me it doesn't matter anymore as they are both equally culpable. To me the one that covered it up (and failed to protect JBR) is no better than the one that actually killed her.

 

[sloane7777]

Since the statute of limitations has expired on everything in this case except for murder than I’d say Patsy is innocent. If there was any proof she killed JonBenet, it would have come out. There are too many people that could talk. The only reason the Evidence, testimony and pictures have not been released is that LE still think they can get a conviction. The only other reason is that Burke did it and they can’t implicate him. Would LE still be investigating the case if they could not implicate Burke? I’d say that pretty much points to the killer.

totally agree 100%!!!!!

 

[UKGuy]

I used to be BDI. But now I don't think so. If BR did it--no one would have kept investigating all these years. What would be the point since he couldn't be convicted? Why would they keep testing DNA if BR did it? Doesn't make sense to me. I also do not believe BR would have done the Dr Phil show if he had killed her.

PR wrote the ransom note. The note shows a huge amount of anger focused on JR. The two wouldn't even be near each other (and barely spoke to each other) the day she died. JR found the body. I think he couldn't take it anymore that no one had found the body; so he found her to get it over with.

Much has been made that JBR was previously assaulted digitally (or with an item) and not with a penis. So some think that excludes JR as the one abusing her. Pedophiles typically groom a young child by going in slow methodical steps. Especially when it is someone in the family as they have all the time in the world to keep abusing them. Many mothers typically deny what they knew was happening right under their own nose. They don't want to deal with the public shame and losing the life they are living.

I am not sure which one actually killed her. But to me it doesn't matter anymore as they are both equally culpable. To me the one that covered it up (and failed to protect JBR) is no better than the one that actually killed her.

kaykay543,

I used to be BDI. But now I don't think so. If BR did it--no one would have kept investigating all these years. What would be the point since he couldn't be convicted? Why would they keep testing DNA if BR did it? Doesn't make sense to me.

They might be still investigating, e.g. it still has Cold Case Status, so to prevent any evidence leaking into the public domain. If the case is really JDI, then he can be charged with Murder in the First Degree.

I also do not believe BR would have done the Dr Phil show if he had killed her.

PR and JR were happy to do TV appearances.

JR or LW likely advised BR to do the show. On this show BR and JR revised their version of events, with BR telling us something new, e.g. his journey downstairs, and JR via Dr Phil saying he took the flashlight upstairs.

The missing episode of the CBS Documentary was probably making claims regarding JonBenet's death and the flashlight, along with recovered forensic evidence. This is why BR and JR revised their version of events, so to contest CBS claims. They knew it was a BDI centered show, so only BR could deflect their claims.

This does not prevent the case being JDI with BR colluding with JR to back up his version of events?


.

 

[Kakidoll]

I think BR will do a 'tell all' AFTER JR dies and point at both his parents for different things JUST to get a payday. I think he is TOTALLY involved and knows he can never be prosecuted... so what better way to make the accusations go away and get the huge payout.. blame the dead parents.

 

[kaykay543]

kaykay543,

They might be still investigating, e.g. it still has Cold Case Status, so to prevent any evidence leaking into the public domain. If the case is really JDI, then he can be charged with Murder in the First Degree.


PR and JR were happy to do TV appearances.

JR or LW likely advised BR to do the show. On this show BR and JR revised their version of events, with BR telling us something new, e.g. his journey downstairs, and JR via Dr Phil saying he took the flashlight upstairs.

The missing episode of the CBS Documentary was probably making claims regarding JonBenet's death and the flashlight, along with recovered forensic evidence. This is why BR and JR revised their version of events, so to contest CBS claims. They knew it was a BDI centered show, so only BR could deflect their claims.

This does not prevent the case being JDI with BR colluding with JR to back up his version of events?


.

Yes JR can still be charged. That is my point in a nutshell. BR and PR can never be charged.

Oh I am 100 percent that JR and LW told BR to do the interview. It was to give his side before the CBS show came out. I think LW is very smart. I do not think he would have advised him to do that show unless he knew BR was innocent. Very risky

The interviews that JR and PR gave were years ago. Much has changed since then. JR has given just a few recently and those have no substance.

I think BR knows what happened. But maybe he can't even admit it to himself. Especially after they put him in all that therapy. It still sticks in my mind that during the interview BR said "well unless my memories were erased" That is a very odd thing for an adult to say about a traumatic event.

 

[Swirlz]

December 23, 2016 Stan Garnett was interviewed: Prosecutor vows to solve JonBenet Ramsey murder after retesting crime scene DNA

"District Attorney Stan Garnett – the prosecutor for Boulder County, Colorado USA – has revealed to news.com.au he hopes to go to trial so he can point the finger at the six-year-old’s murderer."

He hopes to go to trial. BDI cant go to trial. Everything is off the table but murder, meaning Garnett isn't BDI.

"Asked if he thought he knew who killed JonBenet, Mr Garnett replied,“I do.” He added:“If we can ever file a case in open court, I’ll tell the world.” "

Once again, this statement doesn't infer BDI.

"The DA last week announced he was retesting DNA evidence from the 20-year-old crime scene using the latest techniques, but warned he would need “several different pieces of evidence to come together” to prosecute."

Neither does this. He can only prosecute for murder at this stage of the game.

The only person he can be referring to is John.

 

[kaykay543]

December 23, 2016 Stan Garnett was interviewed: Prosecutor vows to solve JonBenet Ramsey murder after retesting crime scene DNA

"District Attorney Stan Garnett – the prosecutor for Boulder County, Colorado USA – has revealed to news.com.au he hopes to go to trial so he can point the finger at the six-year-old’s murderer."

He hopes to go to trial. BDI cant go to trial. Everything is off the table but murder, meaning Garnett isn't BDI.

"Asked if he thought he knew who killed JonBenet, Mr Garnett replied,“I do.” He added:“If we can ever file a case in open court, I’ll tell the world.” "

Once again, this statement doesn't infer BDI.

"The DA last week announced he was retesting DNA evidence from the 20-year-old crime scene using the latest techniques, but warned he would need “several different pieces of evidence to come together” to prosecute."

Neither does this. He can only prosecute for murder at this stage of the game.

The only person he can be referring to is John.

When I read this awhile back was when it dawned on me that it couldn't be BDI.

 

[UKGuy]

December 23, 2016 Stan Garnett was interviewed: Prosecutor vows to solve JonBenet Ramsey murder after retesting crime scene DNA

"District Attorney Stan Garnett – the prosecutor for Boulder County, Colorado USA – has revealed to news.com.au he hopes to go to trial so he can point the finger at the six-year-old’s murderer."

He hopes to go to trial. BDI cant go to trial. Everything is off the table but murder, meaning Garnett isn't BDI.

"Asked if he thought he knew who killed JonBenet, Mr Garnett replied,“I do.” He added:“If we can ever file a case in open court, I’ll tell the world.” "

Once again, this statement doesn't infer BDI.

"The DA last week announced he was retesting DNA evidence from the 20-year-old crime scene using the latest techniques, but warned he would need “several different pieces of evidence to come together” to prosecute."

Neither does this. He can only prosecute for murder at this stage of the game.

The only person he can be referring to is John.

Swirlz,
Just means he is testing evidence. Garnett never said he had evidence, only what he would do, should he have such evidence.

Garnett might be IDI, so expects to get a CODIS match?

.

 

[UKGuy]

When I read this awhile back was when it dawned on me that it couldn't be BDI.

kaykay543,
Nope, only if the case is JDI, then its sit back time for Trial of the Century.


The case can be BDI with the parents staging him out of the case. So JR can be involved as the True Bills attest, but no forensic evidence might exist to prove he killed JonBenet.


Garnett has not eliminated BR, he is implicating JR via unpublished forensic lab results, so its not a done deal.

It's only a LEA implication not a sound conclusion, Garnett might have an IDI suspect in mind?

.

 

[kaykay543]

kaykay543,
Nope, only if the case is JDI, then its sit back time for Trial of the Century.


The case can be BDI with the parents staging him out of the case. So JR can be involved as the True Bills attest, but no forensic evidence might exist to prove he killed JonBenet.


Garnett has not eliminated BR, he is implicating JR via unpublished forensic lab results, so its not a done deal.

It's only a LEA implication not a sound conclusion, Garnett might have an IDI suspect in mind?

.

In my opinion Garnett never implied that an IDI. It is odd that initially he said he wanted to point at the person in a courtroom. But then later said charges will never be filed. He says that is because the scene was so corrupted and so many mistakes made in the first hours.