For my own benefit, I am trying to figure out what drives the public opinion of Ramsey guilt. Not necessarily based on what we know now, but on what was known in, say, the first year following the murder. It seems to me that most of what that opinion is based on is related to 4 events or suppositions. 1) the lack of direct cooperation with the police in allowing unrestrained interviews immediately following the discovery of the body of JonBenet. 2) The fact of no footprints in the snow being put out in the media, making it seem as if it was impossible for any outsider to have gained access to the home during the night. 3) The CNN interview 4) The Ransom Note, purportedly in Patsys handwriting and writing style. Am I correct in this? To me, there is no evidence, at least no direct evidence, to tie anyone, Ramsey or intruder, to the crime. There is lots of circumstantial evidence, but it is hardly conclusive. The rest of the so-called evidence can be spun away depending on who you wish to believe. An example is the DNA. If you choose to believe in Ramsey guilt, that DNA got there by secondary, tertiary, even quaternary transfer or possibly was there even prior to JonBenet ever having worn them. If you choose to believe in Ramsey innocence, that DNA clearly points to the intruder perpetrator. Having stated this, Id like to pick apart each of the points above to see how they affected our own opinions on this case. As most of you know, I am on the fence, leaning toward Ramsey innocence, but I am by no means convinced of their innocence. Every once in a while, something sways me the other way. So, Ill start by giving my thoughts on each of these points. Im hoping that this can be an intelligent discussion and not degenerate into a slugfest. 1) I think that at the beginning, the Ramseys influential position in Boulder allowed them a buffer from the police. The police knew they should question the Ramseys, but chose not to so as to not upset powerful people. Then the Ramseys got some incredibly poor advice from Mike Bynum and other attorneys on not speaking with police. I think that the conditions for the interviews were probably set up by the attorneys, not by John and Patsy. Whether they knew about these conditions before hand or even approved of them is unknown to me. I think that the attorneys involved just did what they thought was right to protect their clients interest and John and Patsy naively went along with this, never realizing how this would make them look in the publics eye. When they realized it and the PR person was hired, it was too late to do anything about it and they were stuck on the track theyd been on. 2) The no footprints thing turned out to be a mistake on the part of the reporter, I believe. (Please correct me if I am wrong) Although there were no footprints in the light snow covering the grassy areas, it was quite possible to reach the house by way of concrete paths that had no snow covering them. This made it seem certain that the Ramseys were guilty at first and even a later retraction could no undo the damage, especially when added with everything else that went on. 3) Probably the most damning thing against the Ramseys in public opinion was the CNN interview not a week after the murder. What were they thinking? I forget who advised them to do it, but it sure was a mistake. Ive never seen it and never read the transcripts, so I wont pretend to have any knowledge of what went on during it. Many say they were able to give an interview to CNN not a week after the murder, but they were too distraught to give an interview with the police? This must mean they were guilty. Im not sure how the two equate. I think the interview was a stupid thing to do. What could it have accomplished anyway? Its not like JonBenet was still missing and they were pleading for her return. But how giving that interview points to their guilt I dont know and never will understand. I can see how they could view that as a positive action, putting the story out, etc and how they could view the police interviews as a waste of time. If they didnt really understand that the police needed to clear them unconditionally before they could move on to other suspects, then I can see how they could think, since they knew they were innocent, extensive interviews with the police would be a waste of everyones time. But they arent stupid people, so Im not clear on this point. 4) The Ransom Note. I remember hearing on the news, back when it was everywhere how it was found that the Ransom Note was written by the mother on the mothers stationary. I thought at that time, well, why dont they just arrest her and get it over with? But, contrary to what media would like us to believe, I dont think it can really be proved that Patsy wrote the note. I have said numerous times that I think the handwriting in that note looks very much like mine. Ive been to the website comparing Patsys writing and the note writing and I am still not convinced. I would think that if it could be proved that she did write the thing, then she would have been charged with something by now just so that some justice would have been done. Charged with extortion at least, or conspiracy to commit murder or something. Im not sure what, but that is my honest belief. Therefore, I dont think that it has been proven that she was the note writer. There seem to be as many experts to say she did as that say she didnt. It would come down to a battle of the experts. Okay. That is what I wanted to discuss. Id really like to see some pro-Ramsey guilt folks give me their versions of what these points mean. Sorry for the length of this post, but I was feeling particularly verbose today.