The Big Question

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by K777angel, Aug 19, 2006.

  1. tumble

    tumble New Member

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    they can sneak out the body. dump it somewhere

    Dumping your loved one outside maybe is not so easy. The perp showed great care 'after the fact'. JB was tucked in and wiped down.
     


  2. MistyM

    MistyM Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    222
    Trophy Points:
    63
    was she wiped down after death or after peeing the bed? wasn't there alot of things on her face like saliva and brownish liquid?
     
  3. Lurker Steve

    Lurker Steve New Member

    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The great care usually points to the family - or someone else who cares about his victim. I can't see a kidnapper doing it. Someone who was "in love" with her - yes.

    But dumping the body is pretty easy. Just drive up the mountains onto a forest service road, hike a little bit, and place her down.

    Eeeegah, it's waay too late for me since I'm going hiking early in the morning. See you all later! This is a great board, I like talking with all of you.
     
  4. Tristan

    Tristan New Member

    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LurkerSteve....I didn't mean to be presumptuous in saying that you were
    certain of Ramsey innocence.

    I just want justice for this little girl, no matter where it leads.

    The trouble with this case, is that there are many possible motives
    and many inconsistancies due to poor handling of the case early on
    by police.

    As for the Ramseys not dumping the body, I try to think what I would do if
    I were in their situation, and faced with a dead child and a less than savory explanation.....I would consider removing the body from the house, but they may have been extremely concerned about being spotted.
    Believe me, it can happen.
    Also, one or both may have been totally against leaving their precious daughter out in the cold where she would be subject to the elements and animals, etc.

    If I were in their situation, I would have been FREAKING out and trying to keep my composure enough to figure out what to do.
    If the Ramseys killed Jonbenet,.....and I believe they did, they had only two
    options to consider if they wished to conceal this very fact:
    Write the ransom note and remove the body from the house,
    or write the ransom note and hide her body in the house.

    There are many reasons why they chose the latter.
    We will probably never know why Jonbenet was not taken from
    the house, but I am 100% certain that whoever made the decision
    not to remove her, did it for a VERY good reason.
     
  5. MistyM

    MistyM Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    222
    Trophy Points:
    63
    well yeah, once you remove the body from the scene of the crime. you have to deal with extra evidence. car tires. footprints. gas receipts. security cameras. people seeing you. your own possible fibers and dna at the spot where the body is found. you know what i'm talking about.
     
  6. tumble

    tumble New Member

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I meant it would be very hard emotionally. The RN writer also shows concern about a proper burial. I don't think this perp wanted JB to be lying outside in the wintercold 'unattended'.
     
  7. Hyatt

    Hyatt New Member

    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, he's mad at the press because most legal analysts familiar with the case are now repeating the same things they did 10 years ago and most are NOT taking Karr as a plausible explanation. So, all the old suspicions regarding the Ramseys are now resufacing and he don't like that. Godd grief, what did he expect?

    JMO
     
  8. SuperDave

    SuperDave Former Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    "In a ruling March 31, 2003, by U.S. District Judge Julie Carnes on a libel case brought against the Ramseys stemming from their book, Carnes found evidence that an intruder killed JonBenet more persuasive than evidence that her mother might have done so."

    None of the evidence the police collected against the Ramseys was PRESENTED at that trial, in case anyone's forgotten. As for the DA agreeing, Michael Kane said that if she came to that conclusion, she hadn't read her own file!

    "A grate over the window well appeared to have been moved, leaving green foliage caught under its edge. Leaves and debris from the window well were found on the basement floor directly below the open window. There appeared to be less debris next to the central window, which was open, than elsewhere in the window well."

    No, the photo shows that there was no disturbance in the window well.

    "Many significant hairs and fibers associated with the crime don't belong to John or Patsy. A hair, possibly a pubic hair, from a Caucasian male was found on the blanket covering JonBenet. The hair doesn't match John Ramsey."

    It was matched to Patsy, like I said. I went over the broadcast last night.

    "The stun gun: Marks on JonBenet's back and face matched those caused by a stun gun. The marks were not on her face the previous evening, according to photos of her opening Christmas presents. Her parents didn't own a stun gun."

    The majority of pathologists say this was not a stun gun.

    "It always amazes me when the Ramseys or their relatives use the same words that were in the ransom note."

    it impressed the linguistic analysts, too.

    "well yeah, once you remove the body from the scene of the crime. you have to deal with extra evidence. car tires. footprints. gas receipts. security cameras. people seeing you. your own possible fibers and dna at the spot where the body is found. you know what i'm talking about."

    Precisely.

    "So, all the old suspicions regarding the Ramseys are now resurfacing and he don't like that. Godd grief, what did he expect?"

    No kidding! Pat Browne, a criminal profiler, had this to say:

    "If this guy isn't it, I'm with Wendy (Murphy) all the way."
     
  9. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You've said it all and as always, EXCELLENT!

    Just wanted to say hi after all these years K777Angel

    I see you are as strong and intelligent as ever! :blowkiss:
     
  10. K777angel

    K777angel Member

    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18

    Thank you so much Barbara - and to all who voiced similar sentiments. :D

    This news brought me back to the forums once again. Haven't been here much.

    Am anxiously awaiting the next development in this bizarre and never-ending case!

    Hugs to all..... ~Angel~
     
  11. gaia

    gaia Cat Servant

    Messages:
    940
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    K777angel, let me add my happiness in seeing you return to this forum. Your above post really "nails it"!!


    gaia:dance:
     
  12. K777angel

    K777angel Member

    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18

    OK, two points.

    First, zeroing in on one teensy speck of DNA found in her underwear that was SO small they could not even get a FULL profile, - and ignoring the bigger point that that is ALL the "DNA" they found - is well, kind of inept, don't you think? It assumes that because they found the almighty "DNA" to - it's "end of case." Hold on!
    WHERE is all the rest of the DNA you should rightfully expect to find then at the crime scene?? With the amount of time the perp spent on that crime!
    Where are the foreign fibers?
    Where are the foreign fingerprints on, say, the pen cup holder?
    The note pad?
    The Sharpie pen?
    To name just a few items we KNOW the perp handled.
    There are none.
    Because there was no intruder.

    It is just as important in evaluating a crime scene to consider what ISN'T there (and should be) - as what is there.

    ~Angel~
     
  13. K777angel

    K777angel Member

    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18

    Ahh...You are so kind!! I'm glad to be back! :woohoo: thank you.
     
  14. tumble

    tumble New Member

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it is also important to recognize that JBR's DNA in the blood in which the foreign DNA was found was not that degraded. If they were deposited at the same time they should be of the same quality.
     
  15. K777angel

    K777angel Member

    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    OOps - forgot 2nd point:

    Just what did Mary Keenan "review" about this case?
    What Judge Carnes wrote? :doh:
    Gee. Talk about an "opinion" (and that's ALL it was folks) based on totally one-sided and biased information! (from the suspects' lawyer! good grief!)

    What was reported is that Mary Lacy (Keenan) read Judge Carnes' opinion and said, "Hmm... ok, that makes sense."
    Did she ever REALLY evaluate every piece of evidence in this case?
    Or did she rely instead on the Ramsey's lawyer and those detectives who, all along have been on the "intruder" side?
    And just what did THEY present to her?
    Biased and incomplete data?
    It is very possible.

    Something stinks in Boulder.
    And it isn't the sewer plant. :sick:
     
  16. sandraladeda

    sandraladeda Inactive

    Messages:
    2,588
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree, K777. Keenan should hang out here at WS, read all books written on the case, meet all the players, review the police files. She might get a handle on the case.

    imo, it was irresponsible of the judge to write this opinion, without fully exploring all the facts of the case. Now there are far too many people who place too much value on this judge's opinion, as though it represents the final word.

    imho
     
  17. RJML

    RJML New Member

    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Err, gloves? Would explain the lack of finger prints. Why would you expect fingerprints of someone doing a crime?

    As for the dna thing...so because there isn't a lot then that means no intruder? Interesting. There are many cases where they find no dna of the perp so why can't that be the same here?

    Listen, I am undecided if I think it was a parent or intruder crime but I think a lot of the evidence people state for the Ramseys doing it is well, silly. Things like fingerprints, fibres, etc of people living inside the house means nothing since well, they live there. If Patsy was wearing her sweater that Xmas day then why wouldn't some fibres be found? If she hugged JB that day then you could logically conclude fibres from a sweater would get on her body, etc. Some say fibres were found on the paintbrush...so? Maybe she was in her basement painting xmas morning or maybe they transfered from JonBenet to the burh or whatever. Even if she didnt, fibres can be in the air and can get onto people as they walk around.

    I just don't see how people can be so certain it was Patsy or John. If it was such a simple case pointing to their guilt then obviously they'd have been arrested for it but they haven't so there is OBVIOUSLY something that shows it isn't so simple like some here are trying to imply. They have charged humans for crimes with less evidence than people here claim points to them doing it so again, there is a reason why in 9.5 years they haven't charged them for it.
     
  18. RJML

    RJML New Member

    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A male's pubic hair was from Patsy Ramsey? Interesting.
     
  19. dragonfly707

    dragonfly707 New Member

    Messages:
    292
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I never really was able to follow the JB case in great detail, and I joined WS when Laci Peterson first went missing so most of my time here was spent in the forums regarding that case.

    The above quote really stands out to me, and bothers me greatly as to how exactly were these fibers explained away? In other words why did they not carry more weight in solving the case and a possible arrest? How in the world would fibers from a mother's sweater be intwined in tape or the garotte if the person wearing the sweater was not there?

    I also have another question, was it ever released as to what the pages of the note that were thrown in the trash said?
     
  20. tumble

    tumble New Member

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, this is one of the strongest evidence, but appearantly not enough for an arrest.

    The missing pages from the pad were never located.
     

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