The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Edmond.DantesIII,
There is absolutely no forensic evidence that links to any person outside of the Ramsey Household, i.e. no intruder. All three Ramseys are linked to forensic evidence found in the wine-cellar.

<modsnip>

For the sake of argument, let's assume that, with the exception of the body and the ransom note, no forensic evidence of an intruder has yet been discovered. Does it necessarily follow that there was no intruder?

 

[UKGuy]

In order to dissuade you from cluttering up the boards with the same statement over and over again, I am going to take you off my ignore list just for this one issue so we can settle it once and for all.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that, with the exception of the body and the ransom note, no forensic evidence of an intruder has yet been discovered. Does it necessarily follow that there was no intruder?

Edmond.DantesIII,
As per Locard's Principle, no evidence of an intruder means no intruder.

There is absolutely no forensic evidence that links to any person outside of the Ramsey Household, i.e. no intruder. All three Ramseys are linked to forensic evidence found in the wine-cellar.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that, with the exception of the body and the ransom note, no forensic evidence of an intruder has yet been discovered. But there is forensic evidence that links all three residents of the Ramsey household to aspects of JonBenet lying in the wine-cellar, i.e. her underwear, her pubic area, the ligature, duct-tape, and Pink Barbie Nightgown.

So alike the Grand Jury do you consider the Ramsey's suspects in the sexual assault and murder of JonBenet Ramsey?



.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Edmond.DantesIII,
As per Locard's Principle, no evidence of an intruder means no intruder.

Funny, but that sounds like a desperate argument from authority (and a misapplication of the referenced authority to boot.)

Once more, and please, no evasion this time:

Does it necessarily follow that because no evidence of an intruder was discovered that there was no intruder?


CAVEAT: Locard's principle does not apply to the specific question asked.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that, with the exception of the body and the ransom note, no forensic evidence of an intruder has yet been discovered. But there is forensic evidence that links all three residents of the Ramsey household to aspects of JonBenet lying in the wine-cellar, i.e. her underwear, her pubic area, the ligature, duct-tape, and Pink Barbie Nightgown.

Let's assume that since all three residents of the Ramsey household, in fact, reside in the household, that transfer of clothing fibers, body hair, etc. is not only possible, it is damn likely.

So alike the Grand Jury do you consider the Ramsey's suspects in the sexual assault and murder of JonBenet Ramsey?

Of course I consider them suspects, but I consider them extremely unlikely suspects since they have no motive to kill JonBenet, no prior evidence of violent abuse, and no prior evidence of severe mental illness. What is more, the forensic evidence connecting them to the murder is so weak that is barely worth mentioning. Further still, the most glaring evidence, namely, the ransom note, does in no way fit to any reasonably consistent theory of their culpability, nor can authorship of the note be confidently attributed to any of them.

You want to know why Hunter never took this case to trial? ^ This is why.

 

[dodie20]

If I were one of the Ramseys, I would not have trusted Steve Thomas, John Eller, or any member of the BPD as far as I could throw them, once it became clear that they were, not only incompetent, but convinced that I was guilty of brutally murdering my own daughter.

They weren't incompetent. As a matter of fact, the BPD did their jobs so well, that a grand jury voted to indict both Ramseys for 'child abuse resulting in death'. LE couldn't help that when they started this investigation, the Rs had a huge head start. Is it their fault that they believed a child had been kidnapped when the parents said she had been kidnapped? and then produced a ransom note to back up their story? In hindsight, it would have been nice if LE had handcuffed the Rs and hauled them to jail, but they were giving the parents 'the benefit of the doubt', and I can't fault them for that. moo

 

[Kimster]

FROM THIS POINT ON:
Discuss the case and not each other! ​

:nono:

 

[dodie20]

I think there is a difference between staging for an intended in home discovery, and staging for an intended out and away discovery. Some things that seem puzzling such as ineffective wrist bindings and tape, would not necessarily be as suspect after a time in the elements. Imo the sloppy staging implies an intended outside discovery. Add in the note instructions, and parents blatantly inoring the note instructions and imo it really adds up to an intended outside discovery. So, in theory if the WC is a temporary storage area, it would seem that the blanket and possibly other items are there to provide comfort. It's impossible to however lend comfort to a dead body. Imo it provides some comfort to the one who placed it there.

This is a very good explanation of why the killer would stage, even if he/she intended to dispose of the body. (which is something I happen to believe). Even if the killer dumped the body, he would want it to appear as if a psycho kidnapper had dumped it, especially if he feared or wanted the body to be discovered.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

They weren't incompetent. As a matter of fact, the BPD did their jobs so well, that a grand jury voted to indict both Ramseys for 'child abuse resulting in death'. LE couldn't help that when they started this investigation, the Rs had a huge head start. Is it their fault that they believed a child had been kidnapped when the parents said she had been kidnapped? and then produced a ransom note to back up their story? In hindsight, it would have been nice if LE had handcuffed the Rs and hauled them to jail, but they were giving the parents 'the benefit of the doubt', and I can't fault them for that. moo

Getting a grand jury to hand down an indictment for this highly sensationalized case is hardly evidence of competency by either the BPD or the Prosecutor's Office, despite the fact that they were highly uncoordinated and even viciously antagonistic toward each other during much of the investigation.

LE could have discovered the body. They did not. Instead, the body was discovered by JR while he and FW were directed by Det. Arndt to search the house!

LE could have secured the crime scene. They did not. Instead, they allowed it to be literally trampled under foot.

LE could have recognized the most likely scenario of this murder as being a burglary gone bad, given that the Ramseys had definite travel plans and were, in fact, scheduled to leave for Michigan that very morning. They did not. Instead, they jumped to the conclusion that one or both of the parents had brutally murdered JonBenet and attempted to stage a kidnapping, and then they held fast to this presumption even after no one in the Ramsey household could be positively identified has having authored the ransom note, using their own rhetoric about Patsy Ramsey "not being completed ruled out" as a means of reinforcing their own self-deception as to the identity of the likely culprits.

In the meantime, with each passing day, the actual murderers were getting further and further away from the possibility of ever being charged. Sixteen years later, this case remains unsolved when the perpetrators could have been discovered had a modicum of common sense and professional expertise been applied from the very start of the investigation.

 

[dodie20]

Getting a grand jury to hand down an indictment for this highly sensationalized case is hardly evidence of competency by either the BPD or the Prosecutor's Office, despite the fact that they were highly uncoordinated and even viciously antagonistic toward each other during much of the investigation.

LE could have discovered the body. They did not. Instead, the body was discovered by JR while he and FW were directed by Det. Arndt to search the house!

LE could have secured the crime scene. They did not. Instead, they allowed it to be literally trampled under foot.

LE could have recognized the most likely scenario of this murder as being a burglary gone bad, given that the Ramseys had definite travel plans and were, in fact, scheduled to leave for Michigan that very morning. They did not. Instead, they jumped to the conclusion that one or both of the parents had brutally murdered JonBenet and attempted to stage a kidnapping, and then they held fast to this presumption even after no one in the Ramsey household could be positively identified has having authored the ransom note, using their own rhetoric about Patsy Ramsey "not being completed ruled out" as a means of reinforcing their own self-deception as to the identity of the likely culprits.

In the meantime, with each passing day, the actual murderers were getting further and further away from the possibility of ever being charged. Sixteen years later, this case remains unsolved when the perpetrators could have been discovered had a modicum of common sense and professional expertise been applied from the very start of the investigation.

I guess this depends on how you look at it. I agree that the murderers are getting away with murder, but I don't believe this case remains unsolved. IMO, the BPD and the grand jury got it right... 2 huge steps forward in bringing the killers to justice, but then the natural progression of the law was stymied by AH. Now, some people can think that the Rs would have 'won' any court case, but I disagree. I think they would have been found guilty and then paid for their crimes. IMO, this would have been the natural progression of the law, and this is the exact direction it was taking, until AH decided to intervene on the Rs behalf. Yes, 16 years later and the case hasn't been resolved, but not resolved doesn't mean not solved. This is moo based on the evidence and the grand jury's decision and then AH's decisions.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

At this point with the DNA evidence there is no way you can get a conviction on any Ramsey. I'm not a lawyer, but I could win that case for them, it would be so easy.

 

[OpenMind4U]

At this point with the DNA evidence there is no way you can get a conviction on any Ramsey. I'm not a lawyer, but I could win that case for them, it would be so easy.

Smelly Squirrel,

What DNA evidence? Would you please explain:
- what kind DNA has been found and WHERE with how many markers?
- what kind tDNA has been found and WHERE with how many markers?

If you do have answers to the above then what does it mean in your opinion?

If you do not have answers to the above then your original statement and conclusion are (at the minimum!) LIES.

jmo

 

[dodie20]

At this point with the DNA evidence there is no way you can get a conviction on any Ramsey. I'm not a lawyer, but I could win that case for them, it would be so easy.

I disagree, because it would be up to a jury, and as we have already seen, a grand jury voted to indict on the basis of 'child abuse resulting in death'. Since one jury saw enough evidence to come to this conclusion, it's my strong opinion that another jury would come to the same conclusion. Also, I disagree that there isn't enough DNA evidence. There is a lot of DNA and other technical evidence, leading to no one but the Rs. Also, in a court of law, DNA evidence isn't the only admissable evidence, and there is plenty, (mountains actually), of other evidence...circumstantial and otherwise. Starting with the Rs word for word statements to LE, compared to their own words in their books and interviews. As far as ML's exoneration of the Rs based on DNA? it's my opinion that her statements wouldn't be allowed into court. all moo

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

I guess this depends on how you look at it.

I agree that the murderers are getting away with murder, but I don't believe this case remains unsolved. IMO, the BPD and the grand jury got it right... 2 huge steps forward in bringing the killers to justice, but then the natural progression of the law was stymied by AH. Now, some people can think that the Rs would have 'won' any court case, but I disagree. I think they would have been found guilty and then paid for their crimes. IMO, this would have been the natural progression of the law, and this is the exact direction it was taking, until AH decided to intervene on the Rs behalf.

Yes, 16 years later and the case hasn't been resolved, but not resolved doesn't mean not solved. This is moo based on the evidence and the grand jury's decision and then AH's decisions.

No, it does not depend upon how you look at it. This case remains unsolved. This is an indisputable fact of reality. With the exception of the murdered body of their daughter being found in their own home, the evidence against the Ramseys is prima facie weak at best, and it does not improve upon closer examination, nor with rhetorical spin and special pleading. If this was not the case, then the Ramseys would have surely been tried by now. This has not happened. And to argue or suggest that Hunter was for some reason interested in "stymying the natural progression of the law" rather than being immortalized for successfully prosecuting one of the most notorious crimes in the annals of crime history is quite a stretch. You will need to support your assertion with considerably more than a whimsical opinion.

 

[BOESP]

I for one have reasonable doubt the Ramseys are innocent of involvement in the death of their daughter. More importantly, a Grand Jury found enough evidence to indict them for child abuse that resulted in the death of Jonbenet by either their actions or inaction to prevent it from happening. That's 12 people whose opinion was based on facts presented in a court of law held under the Laws of the State of Colorado.

Alex Hunter appeared briefly toward the end of the last major network show about Jonbenet a few years ago but after Patsy's death. Sorry I can't recall the name of the program but he made a remark that (my paraphrasing) implied that it was of no use spending money and time trying a case of a person who wasn't likely to be around very long. Wonder what he was really saying? :waitasec:

 

[UKGuy]

I for one have reasonable doubt the Ramseys are innocent of involvement in the death of their daughter. More importantly, a Grand Jury found enough evidence to indict them for child abuse that resulted in the death of Jonbenet by either their actions or inaction to prevent it from happening. That's 12 people whose opinion was based on facts presented in a court of law held under the Laws of the State of Colorado.

Alex Hunter appeared briefly toward the end of the last major network show about Jonbenet a few years ago but after Patsy's death. Sorry I can't recall the name of the program but he made a remark that (my paraphrasing) implied that it was of no use spending money and time trying a case of a person who wasn't likely to be around very long. Wonder what he was really saying? :waitasec:

BOESP,
Maybe he was employing smoke and mirrors? He certainly seems to be suggesting he knows Who Did It?

Its the sexual molestation that has eyebrows rising, not the death, was Hunter suggesting JR does not have long to go?


.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Wonder what he was really saying? :waitasec:

He was really trying to say that he did not want to look like both a fool and an ogre prosecuting a woman who was not only dying of cancer, but was the mother of the brutally murdered victim, when he had no real case against her.

 

[BOESP]

He was really trying to say that he did not want to look like both a fool and an ogre prosecuting a woman who was not only dying of cancer, but was the mother of the brutally murdered victim, when he had no real case against her.

BBM. Was that a part of what he swore to uphold when he took office?

There was enough of a case that a Grand Jury handed down an indictment for both John and Patsy.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
Maybe he was employing smoke and mirrors? He certainly seems to be suggesting he knows Who Did It?

Its the sexual molestation that has eyebrows rising, not the death, was Hunter suggesting JR does not have long to go?


.

I haven't decided about the smoke and mirrors. I do agree that he suggested he knew who did it.

Personally (verse two of "My Same Ole Song), I think the Grand Jury indictment could be interpreted to mean Steve Thomas was right and John did little or nothing to prevent it and maybe even participated in the cover-up (staging).

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

BBM. Was that a part of what he swore to uphold when he took office?

There was enough of a case that a Grand Jury handed down an indictment for both John and Patsy.

We've been over this ad nauseum. It is not enough to get an indictment, you have to have a case if you are going to trial.

Trials are expensive, particularly high-profile trials. It would have been career suicide to take this one to trial. Hunter's mistake was presenting this case to a grand jury before he had enough evidence for a reasonable chance of a conviction. In all likelihood, the only reason he presented the case to a grand jury in the first place was because he was to pressured to do so.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Indictments have lower standard of evidence, they're not BARD. Otherwise you wouldn't even need a trial. You can indict a ham sandwich, as the saying goes.

 

[DeeDee249]

He was really trying to say that he did not want to look like both a fool and an ogre prosecuting a woman who was not only dying of cancer, but was the mother of the brutally murdered victim, when he had no real case against her.

The DA KNEW who killed JB. So do the police. So do their lawyers. The case may not have been prosecutable, but it wasn't because of lack of evidence. And AH is still a fool and ogre, for failing to even try to seek justice for an innocent 6-year old girl. And for protecting those who were responsible. And for lying about the GJ issuing an indictment. And for being a coward.