Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Morag, Jul 9, 2008.
The Ramsey's behavior is not inculpatory evidence.
But for that same unknown person to also handle her pyjama leggings.......no possibility. That's why this is so conclusive.
John and Patsey
Who is to say the new evidence wasn't there proir to the murder? She was handled by many many people and the Ramsey's accused everyone they could think of through the years.
You're making up facts. Patsy's handwriting didn't "completely match the ranson note found in her home."
What other evidence?
Several legal people including a Judge iirc have agreed that the case is supported more by the intruder theory than the parents.
No I don't buy that this male dna just happened to be found in the blood on her panties and they just happened to touch the outer garments as well in areas that would be touched if they were undressing the victim and redressing them.
You are stating hard facts that have no basis. You do not know these things.
That's what I think, its transfer from some poor innocent schmuck who at some point touched either the panties or the tights at some previous time, and the 'touch DNA' tranferred from one to the other.
I find it virtually impossible to believe that the perp left DNA residue on her clothing but not on her body..if he wasn't wearing gloves the whole time, his DNA should have been found on her body, on the restraints and on the blanket.
I say red herring. I say double red herring since the panties DNA was known from the beginning, this isn't really new info. just more of the same..if the panties DNA didn't exonerate the Ramseys, then this...more of the same...can't exonerate them either.
There are shallow minded people who believe they can divine guilt from behavior. In Salem, 1692, such people judged others to be "witches". However, the witches were the judges.
Huh? I hate to be redundant, but you are stating facts and evidence that have absolutely no basis.
The evidence exonerates.
Come, this is a crime board, people here follow crimes.
Crimes and criminals and types of crimes have predictable patterns. Not every crime or criminal is going to follow the odds, but on balance, looking at tendencies overall in other cases can be used as a guideline.
In this case, the crime scene doesn't fit ANYTHING, it doens't fit a burglar or home invasion scenario, doens't fit a kidnapping, doesn't fit a sex crime abduction.
In my opinion, the crime scene most closely fits with the crime having been committed by a member of the family and everything else...restraints, tape, garrott, note...being staged to throw police off.
They had complete control of the crime scene. They disobeyed the instructions in the ransome note (d'uh, they knew it was fiction) called over many friends, lawyered up, made plans to leave, distroyed the body of evidence that was the child, did not co-operate with LE on the LE terms, allowed Burke to leave their protective sides, and left the house with their dead child still laying on the floor with only police to watch over her body to never return.
Your reasoning for finding them innocent is some my reasoning for knowing their guilt.
That entire thing was so chintzy imo. Heck, one half a point she would have been excluded all together as even writing the note. They put her on the lowest probability that she may could have written it. Imo they did so just to keep her dangling.
I don't believe for one second Patsy Ramsey was some hard core movie buff. She was a high society woman who relished in decorating, painting, putting JB in beauty pageants and taking care of their 9 year old boy.
Didn't they say that the paperwork about John's bonus was in their home? Imo this perverted *** had all the time in the world to snoop around and case the place out before they got back from the party.
Please forgive my brusqueness.
Regarding private labs: it generally means they are privately owned, and don't necessarily take material for testing from just anyone, vs. a governmental lab. Just because a lab is private doesn't mean they want to deliver results that exonerate the client. In many cases, the techs that do the testing never see the identity of the person using the services, just an ID number.
Regarding the paint brush: the brush part was missing. We'll never know if it was used to tickle JBR, or JBR to tickle someone else, or if PR made it pointy in her mouth. There's ample evidence that people do this with brushes. Look at the poor women who died of "phossy jaw" a hundred years ago. They painted radium watch & clock dials, and needed a fine point on the brush. What people might know to be true--that paint is poisonous--goes by the wayside when a person is working hard.
Yeah so much so that when a killer was out there and parents should keep their children close Burke was sent away with a neighbor .....
Patsy wrote that note. The scale that you and others keep referring to does NOT exist. Every graphology association in the country has been asked and no such 1-5 scale exists, so that half point nonsense is just that...nonsense!
This "perverted ***" was non other than one of the THREE Ramseys in the home that night
The LACK of intruder evidence is only topped by the ABUNDANCE of Ramsey involvement evidence; this intruder left absolutely nothing but some rogue skin cells after being through the house lurking and waiting for hours? Give me a break!
There is plenty of basis to suspect the Ramsey's and plenty of reasons to suspect the crime scene was staged. Books have been written about the subject.
The particular post was written in response to someone who thought that maybe there were two intruders...one was the kidnapper and the other was the pedophile and that while the kidnapper was busy writing the note the pedophile was abusing and accidentally killing JonBenet. I find this theory to be beyond implausible.
Crimes and criminals have patterns.
There are good reasons why the police first suspect the husband when the wife dies mysteriously and why the last person seen with a missing person is also considered a possible suspect. Because the history of these crimes shows that these people in the majority of cases ARE GUILTY. This is how police solve crimes, they look at evidence and precident.
Its my opinion that there exists NO precedent for an intruder coming into the home and doing what was done in this case. None whatsoever. Nothing even close.
We don't think like perverts.
They were saying last night that the DNA database is small compared to the fingerprint database.
If the guy who did this has been arrested for some reason in the past ten years and is still in jail we may not know unless DNA swabs are taken of every prisoner in every jail. Very frustrating.
Say.........like Elizabeth Smart's dad?