Then we'll get you on your way. All that I'm saying is that the last occupant of the DA's office often acted as an unpaid agent of the Rs, so it's not unthinkable that she would have cut them "loose," as it were, regardless.
The Ramseys Were Guilty Of Something
- Thread starter Unreals
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #182- Latest: girlhasnoname
-
Then we'll get you on your way. All that I'm saying is that the last occupant of the DA's office often acted as an unpaid agent of the Rs, so it's not unthinkable that she would have cut them "loose," as it were, regardless.
Pittsburghgirl,
The DNA found could easily have been left by someone at the manufacturing plant that made the underwear. There are a myriad of ways that trace DNA can be left behind on clothing. It doesn't mean that it was left by an intruder who murdered her, and it certainly doesn't clear the parents of involvement.
At the very least, I think it's certain that Patsy wrote the ridiculous ransom note. She would not have done so had a stranger killed her daughter. However, from the very beginning, the Ramseys were treated with kid gloves by the authorities. If they'd been a poor or even a typical middle-class couple, with the dead body of their child found in their home, and an absurd, rambling ransom note left behind as well, they would have found themselves imprisoned in short order.
Mary Lacy was very anxious to "clear" the Ramseys from the moment she entered office. Thus, the misleading, inaccurate pronouncement that the DNA evidence was exculpatory towards the parents. With the mainstream media providing its usual support for the Ramseys as well, it was very successful.
The DNA found could easily have been left by someone at the manufacturing plant that made the underwear. There are a myriad of ways that trace DNA can be left behind on clothing. It doesn't mean that it was left by an intruder who murdered her, and it certainly doesn't clear the parents of involvement.
At the very least, I think it's certain that Patsy wrote the ridiculous ransom note. She would not have done so had a stranger killed her daughter. However, from the very beginning, the Ramseys were treated with kid gloves by the authorities. If they'd been a poor or even a typical middle-class couple, with the dead body of their child found in their home, and an absurd, rambling ransom note left behind as well, they would have found themselves imprisoned in short order.
Mary Lacy was very anxious to "clear" the Ramseys from the moment she entered office. Thus, the misleading, inaccurate pronouncement that the DNA evidence was exculpatory towards the parents. With the mainstream media providing its usual support for the Ramseys as well, it was very successful.
Agh, somebody that I can relate to here. You and I see things the exact same way. I am not sure what classroom you are referring to but I have a feeling that you may be over qualified for the discussions that seem to persist on this board. I hope you hang around some. There are some really good posts that are made here and I feel comfortable as well that someone else killed JBR but I do learn that many inconsistancies that have occured from the parents actions. I tend to believe they were frightful of just how bad the PD screwed up but I won't count out a Ramsey being somewhat involved until they at least ID the DNA. It will be the biggest piece of the puzzle no matter RDI or IDI.
Chiquita71
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 3,835
- Reaction score
- 2
Hello WS 
The Ramsey case to me is "that famous case from TV", during the time of the crime I was younger. I do not have emotions invested in my sleuthing of this case. It goes without saying that I feel horrible about what happened to JonBenet. I mean no disrespect to those that are emotionally involved in the case.
It was obvious in 1997 the Ramsey's knew more regarding their daughter's death or that they were hiding something, and in 2010 it is even more obvious. Time has told.
My husband, has little to no interest in this case and no extra knowledge besides what he knew because it is a famous case. He said to me, "Obviously they(the Ramseys)were treated differently, they were allowed to leave Denver. Regular people would not have been allowed to leave."
LE at the house was surprised JR was planning to leave. But leave they did. And they were allowed to send in a family member to retrieve items from a crime scene. Yes, this investigation was bungled but always in the favor of the Ramseys and never against them. I had read FWs letter to the people of Boulder a while ago, but less understanding of facts in the case kept me from receiving the impact of what Mr. White had to say, not so when I re-read it last week.
The Ramsey's are guilty of something. Guilty of hindering the investigation of the death of their daughter. Guilty of accusing many close friends of the death of their daughter, with(as time has told)nothing to back up those serious charges. The Ramseys cry "unfair persecution" while doing exactly the same.
The Ramseys were allowed to leave and this case was never investigated because the investigation was leading LE to John and Patsy Ramsey. More powerful people than the local LE were in control to cover up what happened to JonBenet Ramsey. "Relying on the general ignorance of the public of the purpose of a Grand Jury"(paraphrased but really close), relying on the ignorance of the general public in general; worked very well in this case indeed.
The world may or may not ever know the truth about the murder of JonBenet but the world can now see her parents knew. And wanted to hide the truth.
Is there a statute(?)of limitations or some kind of way, what was said during the Grand Jury investigation will or would become pubic domain? Does anyone know?
If you read what FW describes in his letter, like you were watching a movie-you would have no question in this story, who the bad guys were.
:twocents:
The Ramsey case to me is "that famous case from TV", during the time of the crime I was younger. I do not have emotions invested in my sleuthing of this case. It goes without saying that I feel horrible about what happened to JonBenet. I mean no disrespect to those that are emotionally involved in the case.
It was obvious in 1997 the Ramsey's knew more regarding their daughter's death or that they were hiding something, and in 2010 it is even more obvious. Time has told.
My husband, has little to no interest in this case and no extra knowledge besides what he knew because it is a famous case. He said to me, "Obviously they(the Ramseys)were treated differently, they were allowed to leave Denver. Regular people would not have been allowed to leave."
LE at the house was surprised JR was planning to leave. But leave they did. And they were allowed to send in a family member to retrieve items from a crime scene. Yes, this investigation was bungled but always in the favor of the Ramseys and never against them. I had read FWs letter to the people of Boulder a while ago, but less understanding of facts in the case kept me from receiving the impact of what Mr. White had to say, not so when I re-read it last week.
The Ramsey's are guilty of something. Guilty of hindering the investigation of the death of their daughter. Guilty of accusing many close friends of the death of their daughter, with(as time has told)nothing to back up those serious charges. The Ramseys cry "unfair persecution" while doing exactly the same.
The Ramseys were allowed to leave and this case was never investigated because the investigation was leading LE to John and Patsy Ramsey. More powerful people than the local LE were in control to cover up what happened to JonBenet Ramsey. "Relying on the general ignorance of the public of the purpose of a Grand Jury"(paraphrased but really close), relying on the ignorance of the general public in general; worked very well in this case indeed.
The world may or may not ever know the truth about the murder of JonBenet but the world can now see her parents knew. And wanted to hide the truth.
Is there a statute(?)of limitations or some kind of way, what was said during the Grand Jury investigation will or would become pubic domain? Does anyone know?
If you read what FW describes in his letter, like you were watching a movie-you would have no question in this story, who the bad guys were.
:twocents:
Hi Roy.
"I am not sure what classroom you are referring to but I have a feeling that you may be over qualified for the discussions that seem to persist on this board" - Roy
lol.
pittsburghgirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2005
- Messages
- 3,520
- Reaction score
- 8,864
Thanks everyone, for the welcome. I promise I will check in from time to time to see what you all are up to. I am a veteran of the old Natalee Holloway forum, which offered consistently deranged debate, and I've tried to be a rational presence on the Haleigh Cummings forum, although about 65% of those people hate everything I say. But I am such an amateur here that it will take me some time to catch up with the points of contention, of which I am sure there are many.
Chiquita71
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 3,835
- Reaction score
- 2
Quote Respect DeeDee
Yeah, but if this had been a "normal" investigation wouldn't LE have asked the family to not leave the state? I thought LE didn't want them to leave?
And, (maybe I have just seen too much TV)can't LE tell people, "don't leave town" without arresting anyone? During an investigation. People of interest type of thing. No one can leave town until they are cleared...(way too much TV...)
I can see my ignorance shows in this post DeeDee, I'm not questioning you as much as I am finding out why I am wrong.
TIA...jmo...
Quote Respect DeeDee
Yeah, but if this had been a "normal" investigation wouldn't LE have asked the family to not leave the state? I thought LE didn't want them to leave?
And, (maybe I have just seen too much TV)can't LE tell people, "don't leave town" without arresting anyone? During an investigation. People of interest type of thing. No one can leave town until they are cleared...(way too much TV...)
I can see my ignorance shows in this post DeeDee, I'm not questioning you as much as I am finding out why I am wrong.
...jmo...
You're not ignorant. Many people don't know the ins and outs of a murder investigation, and this was by no means a properly-done investigation. Yes, the police would not want them to leave. But legally they couldn't stop them unless they arrested them, and the DA would not allow them to do that.
When police heard JR making plans to leave Boulder to fly to Atlanta RIGHT AFTER finding his daughter's body, they did tell him he couldn't leave, but at that point they were expecting to be allowed to question both parents (separately) and quite honestly, thought they'd be arresting one or both of them.
Yeah, that was real nice. But, I suppose we're all entitled.
Chiquita71
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 3,835
- Reaction score
- 2
Hello WS
"The Ramseys were guilty of something", is an excellent way to describe where I am coming from in my amateur sleuthing of this case. The more I read about this case online, the more I see that some people have strong emotions attached to this case(other than feeling badly for JonBenet, of course). I did not expect that. I look at this case like one would look at the case of Cleopatra, or Jack the Ripper. I mean no offense to those who feel differently nor offense to JonBenet or the fact that she has loved ones who are very much alive.
I also do not feel I have read enough or have enough information to be coming on strong about anything I am posting. I am a certain amount sleuther by nature, and so I am here sleuthing answers to questions I have had regarding some cases that have interested me. This is one of them, Caylee Anthony is another. In the Anthony case, that is very different for me, because it is certainly not history!
I followed a link given on the TruTV message board(I only gave the link to the material, not the link to the message/message board) and found this interview John and Patsy did for "The 700 Club."
http://www.cbn.com/700club/scottross/interviews/jonbenet2.aspx
SCOTT: Are you bitter, angry, cynical?
PATSY: On days it's yes, yes, yes. Just like normal, you have a good day or a bad, you have a good hour, a bad hour. We were at the beach on vacation and I see all these little families running around playing, little blondes, cute little beach clothes and having fun and frolicking, you know, and I'm bitter because that was taken away from us. I should be enjoying my children -- both of them. You know, that is hard.
(I think it's telling that Patsy does not mention JonBenet by name here, or something personal about her daughter. Patsy says she is bitter because "running around playing, little blondes, cute little beach clothes and having fun and frolicking" have been taken from them. Not JonBenet? I am sure that is who/what she meant, it's just not what she said. Patsy's obsession with pageants and clothing and all that, does not mean she killed her daughter. But, one thing I think the Ramseys were guilty of was treating a baby/little girl like a woman. MOO, truly. )
They had a little corner of the room where they learned about baptism and christening, and JonBenet's christening gown was a part of that display.
(Here again is the obsession with clothing. With things "being on display." I wonder if every child had their own corner with their gown on display? No, really I'm asking. If this is something everyone does, or gets to do then I am being nit picky here.)
SCOTT: The bottom line, below the bottom line, people will ask me, "O.K., you've come out of this, confidentially, what do you think? There is also a side not only as a journalist, but being an ordained minister in the church, to say to other pastors, if they ask me, "Would you recommend to let these people come to my church?"
JOHN: Let me ask you this? What if we were murderers? Would we be denied access to a church? I hope not.
(I find this part funny in that sad kind of way. I wonder why John didn't just answer the question? He answered the question with a question. He wants to be sure that if he and Patsy were murderers, they would still have access to the church! John seems offended/upset at the idea of murderers being denied access to a church. Patsy joins in: )
PATSY: That's the people who need to be there. Aren't we "preaching to the choir" as they say.
(I mean, if you don't have murderers at church, why even bother?! You're just preaching to the choir, everybody else has "got it" and is in agreement except for those darn murderers. They, they are the one's that need to be there...)
SCOTT: Well, they still say that.
(Really? Huh. )
JOHN: That is a problem we Christians have in our churches.
(John agrees this is a problem we have in their churches, the denying of murderers access to church. Is this a policy I don't know about? Are they just speaking of their church in particular? Because, from my understanding inmates, (I am supposing we are talking about convicted murderers here) have access to and are encouraged to speak with clergy during an incarceration process.)
PATSY: We need to welcome everyone.
(Okay. Same thing here, just pressing the point that murderers should be welcome in the church. All answers to a man being asked if having the Ramseys at their church would be safe. Neither John or Patsy have answered that question yet. )
JOHN: We think it's a club we belong to because we are all good and we are better than most. Jesus addressed the worst of the worst in his society.
(John is on a soapbox at this point, a call back to reason found with humility! Yes! Yes! Murderers should not be denied access to a church. We (like he who are all good and better than most) think we belong to some (exclusive is inferred because we have been keeping "murderers" out) club because we are all good and better than most but Jesus addressed the worst of the worst and I guess John is saying so should they.)
"Let me ask you this...what if we were murderers?" :waitasec:
ETA: P.S. I would like to know how "Scott" would have answered his own question. What would he say to other Pastors? Would he "recommend to let these people come to my church?"
:twocents:
"The Ramseys were guilty of something", is an excellent way to describe where I am coming from in my amateur sleuthing of this case. The more I read about this case online, the more I see that some people have strong emotions attached to this case(other than feeling badly for JonBenet, of course). I did not expect that. I look at this case like one would look at the case of Cleopatra, or Jack the Ripper. I mean no offense to those who feel differently nor offense to JonBenet or the fact that she has loved ones who are very much alive.
I also do not feel I have read enough or have enough information to be coming on strong about anything I am posting. I am a certain amount sleuther by nature, and so I am here sleuthing answers to questions I have had regarding some cases that have interested me. This is one of them, Caylee Anthony is another. In the Anthony case, that is very different for me, because it is certainly not history!
I followed a link given on the TruTV message board(I only gave the link to the material, not the link to the message/message board) and found this interview John and Patsy did for "The 700 Club."
http://www.cbn.com/700club/scottross/interviews/jonbenet2.aspx
SCOTT: Are you bitter, angry, cynical?
PATSY: On days it's yes, yes, yes. Just like normal, you have a good day or a bad, you have a good hour, a bad hour. We were at the beach on vacation and I see all these little families running around playing, little blondes, cute little beach clothes and having fun and frolicking, you know, and I'm bitter because that was taken away from us. I should be enjoying my children -- both of them. You know, that is hard.
(I think it's telling that Patsy does not mention JonBenet by name here, or something personal about her daughter. Patsy says she is bitter because "running around playing, little blondes, cute little beach clothes and having fun and frolicking" have been taken from them. Not JonBenet? I am sure that is who/what she meant, it's just not what she said. Patsy's obsession with pageants and clothing and all that, does not mean she killed her daughter. But, one thing I think the Ramseys were guilty of was treating a baby/little girl like a woman. MOO, truly. )
They had a little corner of the room where they learned about baptism and christening, and JonBenet's christening gown was a part of that display.
(Here again is the obsession with clothing. With things "being on display." I wonder if every child had their own corner with their gown on display? No, really I'm asking. If this is something everyone does, or gets to do then I am being nit picky here.)
SCOTT: The bottom line, below the bottom line, people will ask me, "O.K., you've come out of this, confidentially, what do you think? There is also a side not only as a journalist, but being an ordained minister in the church, to say to other pastors, if they ask me, "Would you recommend to let these people come to my church?"
JOHN: Let me ask you this? What if we were murderers? Would we be denied access to a church? I hope not.
(I find this part funny in that sad kind of way. I wonder why John didn't just answer the question? He answered the question with a question. He wants to be sure that if he and Patsy were murderers, they would still have access to the church! John seems offended/upset at the idea of murderers being denied access to a church. Patsy joins in: )
PATSY: That's the people who need to be there. Aren't we "preaching to the choir" as they say.
(I mean, if you don't have murderers at church, why even bother?! You're just preaching to the choir, everybody else has "got it" and is in agreement except for those darn murderers. They, they are the one's that need to be there...)
SCOTT: Well, they still say that.
(Really? Huh. )
JOHN: That is a problem we Christians have in our churches.
(John agrees this is a problem we have in their churches, the denying of murderers access to church. Is this a policy I don't know about? Are they just speaking of their church in particular? Because, from my understanding inmates, (I am supposing we are talking about convicted murderers here) have access to and are encouraged to speak with clergy during an incarceration process.)
PATSY: We need to welcome everyone.
(Okay. Same thing here, just pressing the point that murderers should be welcome in the church. All answers to a man being asked if having the Ramseys at their church would be safe. Neither John or Patsy have answered that question yet. )
JOHN: We think it's a club we belong to because we are all good and we are better than most. Jesus addressed the worst of the worst in his society.
(John is on a soapbox at this point, a call back to reason found with humility! Yes! Yes! Murderers should not be denied access to a church. We (like he who are all good and better than most) think we belong to some (exclusive is inferred because we have been keeping "murderers" out) club because we are all good and better than most but Jesus addressed the worst of the worst and I guess John is saying so should they.)
"Let me ask you this...what if we were murderers?" :waitasec:
ETA: P.S. I would like to know how "Scott" would have answered his own question. What would he say to other Pastors? Would he "recommend to let these people come to my church?"
:twocents:
Chiquita, my bro in law is a Baptist preacher, & yes, they keep certain people out. His son is living with his pregnant girlfriend, (they already have one child), & my sis is worried sick that he'll be kicked out of his church. I asked her if that wasn't wrong, but she assured me that it's the right thing to do. If they get married & live a 'godly' life, then he'll be welcomed back. Or he can leave his girlfriend-which seems wrong on so many levels. So yes, churches are very picky about who they allow in. Forget about those who need it most. My bro n law is in charge of the Texas Baptist prison ministry. What a crock...because he's never once been to minister a single inmate. He mails out flyers, but has his church voluntarily stuff the envelopes. For this, he is paid 1,000 bucks a week, every week. He's paid through mission funds & is even covered by mission health insurance. When I think about real missionaries, traveling the world & not seeing their families, while scrimping by on donations...I get so mad. He's the biggest loser, I know.
& in my last post, I wasn't trying to knock Baptist people, in general. All denominations come with pros & cons. But my bro n law, has really soured my opinion on this one. He's a straight up con man, & the fact that the people who 'hired' him didn't recognize that, makes me question their intelligence. Before he got this ministry, it had always been a voluntary, done out of the goodness of the heart job. But leave it to my bro n law, to find a way to get his hands on mission funds.
Didn't Jesus dine with prostitutes and the reviled of his day? This was to show us that ALL God's children are loved by God and all should be welcome at the table of salvation. Judgement is the divine right of God. It is not for us to decide who He would embrace in his House.
The way I see it, there are not different Heavens for each faith. Rather, I think of Heaven as a huge parking lot, with God as the attendant. He doesn't care what kind of car you drive in, He'll find you a place to park.
Believe me, there is a place in Heaven for all sinners, even the ones who commit heinous acts like this one, as long as they come to terms with what they have done and strive to atone.
I talk to dead people all the time. You'd be surprised at who is in Hell.
The way I see it, there are not different Heavens for each faith. Rather, I think of Heaven as a huge parking lot, with God as the attendant. He doesn't care what kind of car you drive in, He'll find you a place to park.
Believe me, there is a place in Heaven for all sinners, even the ones who commit heinous acts like this one, as long as they come to terms with what they have done and strive to atone.
I talk to dead people all the time. You'd be surprised at who is in Hell.
Chiquita71
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 3,835
- Reaction score
- 2
Hello WS
I don't think my sarcasm came through in my last post. The man giving the interview is a pastor as well as a journalist. He asks the Ramseys what he should say to any other pastor who would want to know if it was okay to have the Ramseys at their church. In other words: wanting "Scott's" opinion if they are murderers or not.
Scott asks this of John and Pasty and instead of saying, "well, of course it is safe." John asks "what if we were murderers?" And everybody launches into how it's not right to keep murderers out of church.
That is beside the point. And, if you want to be religious: a given. But, what does letting murderers go to church have to do with the question asked? Nothing. Unless John and Patsy are guilty. I found it strange that John answered that question with, "Well, what if we were murderers?" But, no more strange than everything else in this case.
Sorry to confuse anyone.
I don't think my sarcasm came through in my last post. The man giving the interview is a pastor as well as a journalist. He asks the Ramseys what he should say to any other pastor who would want to know if it was okay to have the Ramseys at their church. In other words: wanting "Scott's" opinion if they are murderers or not.
Scott asks this of John and Pasty and instead of saying, "well, of course it is safe." John asks "what if we were murderers?" And everybody launches into how it's not right to keep murderers out of church.
That is beside the point. And, if you want to be religious: a given. But, what does letting murderers go to church have to do with the question asked? Nothing. Unless John and Patsy are guilty. I found it strange that John answered that question with, "Well, what if we were murderers?" But, no more strange than everything else in this case.
Sorry to confuse anyone.
Chiquita71
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 3,835
- Reaction score
- 2
Hello WS
Let's say I stole a cookie. I am being asked by a person, if someone else asks them, if they think I stole the cookie(after this interview/meeting with you)and if it would be safe to have me at their house...
I answer that question with this answer: "Well, what if I did steal the cookie?" It's answering a question with a question first of all: quite the defense tactic for those that are lying. And, second: why, in the middle of speaking of the murder of your daughter and if you are guilty or not or that people think you are guilty...would you start a conversation regarding the idea that murderers are not always welcome in church but they should be?
Sorry to confuse again. And if I am still making no sense, I apologize. This might be a thought I needed to keep to myself.
SCOTT: The bottom line, below the bottom line, people will ask me, "O.K., you've come out of this, confidentially, what do you think? There is also a side not only as a journalist, but being an ordained minister in the church, to say to other pastors, if they ask me, "Would you recommend to let these people come to my church?"
JOHN: Let me ask you this? What if we were murderers? Would we be denied access to a church? I hope not.
:twocents:
Let's say I stole a cookie. I am being asked by a person, if someone else asks them, if they think I stole the cookie(after this interview/meeting with you)and if it would be safe to have me at their house...
I answer that question with this answer: "Well, what if I did steal the cookie?" It's answering a question with a question first of all: quite the defense tactic for those that are lying. And, second: why, in the middle of speaking of the murder of your daughter and if you are guilty or not or that people think you are guilty...would you start a conversation regarding the idea that murderers are not always welcome in church but they should be?
Sorry to confuse again. And if I am still making no sense, I apologize. This might be a thought I needed to keep to myself.
SCOTT: The bottom line, below the bottom line, people will ask me, "O.K., you've come out of this, confidentially, what do you think? There is also a side not only as a journalist, but being an ordained minister in the church, to say to other pastors, if they ask me, "Would you recommend to let these people come to my church?"
JOHN: Let me ask you this? What if we were murderers? Would we be denied access to a church? I hope not.
:twocents:
Becky319
Member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 209
- Reaction score
- 0
Hey Chiquita I figure they avoided answering the question because they didn't want to pile up to many sins for God to have to overlook, they are already guilty of murder, we certainly don't want them to be known as liars too! ...being smarty, enjoy your post.
Ravyn
New Member
What would anyone do with that question...God is the true judge...God forgives,...But really I can see this for the guilty and innocent..., But being an ordained minister,why would he ask this....