Who do you think is guilty? I'm relatively new here and...

[shamu]

Originally posted by ajt400
It seems if it where so easy, as some people act s it is, they would definetely have been at least tried by now!

They can't be tried because nobody can prove who did it. You can't try a family because you think "they" did it. You need to have a clearer idea of who to charge; it can't be just general family fishiness. Even those of us who suspect family involvement concede that one or two Rams may be innocent. (Or at least, I do.)

 

[ajt400]

The only reason I say why not just try them, it's because some people make it seem like such an open and shut case. So, the basis of the case simply comes down to fishiness? Of a hinky feeling?

Just curious, who do you think committed the crime? Which parent or family member?

 

[shamu]

Originally posted by ajt400
Do most of the families you mention above stage as an accident or as a murder by a elusive "bushy-hair stranger?"

Well, they don't stage as an accident because that's what it already is. (Accidental death by strangling during masturbation.) When it's portrayed as murder I don't know the "typical" way of staging that. (Broken window? "He had enemies?") I don't know. But usually when there's staging, it's portrayed as suicide. Any crossdressing attire is removed... pictures and magazines are tossed... victim is re-dressed fully clothed...

Of course, this has nothing to do with Ramseys. But I mention it because it's amazing how ordinary "good" people--who never lie--will change in a flash when something dreadful happens. Suddenly it's time to practice deceit; time to try to deceive the authorities. They are so ashamed that -- during the worst minutes of their life-- they are busy altering the premises before they ever call 911! It shows me what "good people" can do, unthinkingly, when they are feeling terribly shocked and ashamed.

 

[Britt]

Originally posted by ajt400
Do you think that that is what happened? Do you think she wasn't molested unil a few days before?

IMO all we know for sure is what the autopsy findings say, per the meaning of "chronic":

In the world of forensic pathology, chronic means at least forty-eight to seventy-two hours old. There's no fudging that time frame... Mortal Evidence, p. 54.

Therefore, JonBenét had vaginal injury that was inflicted during that time frame. Whether she was molested/abused prior to that is speculation. It's possible, but the 48-72 hour window is what we know for certain based on the medical findings. She had an ongoing bedwetting problem, which may be a clue but is hardly proof in and of itself that she was being abused.

 

[Britt]

Originally posted by shamu
...it's amazing how ordinary "good" people--who never lie--will change in a flash when something dreadful happens. Suddenly it's time to practice deceit; time to try to deceive the authorities. They are so ashamed that -- during the worst minutes of their life-- they are busy altering the premises before they ever call 911! It shows me what "good people" can do, unthinkingly, when they are feeling terribly shocked and ashamed.

So true, shamu.

It's called self-preservation.

 

[Barbara]

Originally posted by ajt400
Doesn't a child show signs of being abused, not just nec. the physical but things such as excessive wetting of the bed, drawing away from group activites? (I am drawing at blanks here because I am not sure...)

Agreed, their needs to be something more done to assure that child abuse does not happen to any child, well-hidden or not.
I would be thourougly disappointed in any physician that didn't report the abuse if they thought it could be happening....

Also Barbara, I am sorry about my earlier tone. I am a bit of a smart-*advertiser censored*%, it is one of my best and worst qualities, I can't hold it back sometimes.

Hopefully my apology is accepted, I mean no harm to anyone hear.

To be honest I love to debate and discuss this case because there are many avenues that need to be checked. I am convinced this case could be solved if someone that is not biased looked at the evidence.

No problem AJT, we all have days like that. I tend to overreact from time to time myself. Those things happen. Thanks for the apology.

 

[Blazeboy3]

IMHO...IT'S (INFO ON WHO/WHAT/WHEN/WHERE) IS IN THE LATEST BOOK OUT BY W.A. DAVIS ...
Today - May 1997
http://www.burrelles.com/transcripts/nbc/toda9705.htm

"SEARCH FOR 'JONBENET' AND SEE WHAT YOU FIND FYI...:

Parents of JonBenet Ramsey speak with reporters for the first time since their daughter's death;

:nono: :bigthumb: :dontknow:

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by ajt400
The only reason I say why not just try them, it's because some people make it seem like such an open and shut case. So, the basis of the case simply comes down to fishiness? Of a hinky feeling?

Just curious, who do you think committed the crime? Which parent or family member?

Really curious: Who: IMHO Patsy + John (tragedy/trama/unthinkable-speakable) acts ... why?!

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by shamu
They can't be tried because nobody can prove who did it. You can't try a family because you think "they" did it. You need to have a clearer idea of who to charge; it can't be just general family fishiness. Even those of us who suspect family involvement concede that one or two Rams may be innocent. (Or at least, I do.)

I agree...IMHO this trial/court is "outside" the real one...FWIW,... just like the latest book says/states...read it if you can obtain a copy ... it's TRUELY COMPELLING IMHO...A MUST READ! HE(DAVIS) AS WRITTEN MANY BOOK OFF TOPIC...FYI


An Evening with JonBenet Ramseyby Walter A. Davis List Price: $21.99 eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details. Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours
Edition: Paperback Other Editions: List Price: Our Price: Other Offers: Hardcover $31.99 $31.99 Order it used!

http://www.fetchbook.info/search_Walter_A._Davis/searchBy_Author.html

Control of Tumour Growth & Its Biological Bases
Walter Davis, W. Davis Hardcover / January 1984 / 0898386039

Deracination: Historicity, Hiroshima, & the Tragic Imperative
By Walter A. Davis Hardcover / February 2001 / 0791448339

Deracination: Historicity, Hiroshima, & the Tragic Imperative
By Walter A. Davis Paperback / February 2001 / 0791448347

Early Records of the Town of Lunenburg, 1719-1764
By Walter A. Davis Library Binding / March 1995 / 0832846414

 

[Pepper]

I have not followed this case closely, have not read any of the books, and my knowledge is only from the snippits of information on TV, so I am no "expert."

But based on what little I know, I tend to believe in the intruder theory. I wonder if the intruder/killer just could be a.....WOMAN?

Everyone seems to think that only a man could have committed this crime probably because of the sexual overtones. But maybe, just maybe it was a very clever woman. The tone of the ransom note to me suggests a woman. Perhaps this person was the mother of another girl competing against JBR in the pagents who saw JBR as a threat to her daughter's success. Perhaps she was a friend of Patsy who had been in the Ramsey home. Perhaps JBR knew her and trusted her........

This is only my admittedly uninformed speculation. As a woman, we generally don't view our gender as capable of something like this. But we all know there are sick women out there too. If she was exceptionally clever, she might have staged the scene to make it look like a man did it. :dontknow:

 

[Toth]

Originally posted by Pepper
I wonder if the intruder/killer just could be a.....WOMAN?

A great many posters have seen a second 'voice' in the ransom note, that of a female. I have not.
A great many posters have from time to time remarked on the absence of semen and have considered that perhaps the most obvious explanation might be relevant. However, I do not think that any woman pedophile, even if she existed, could deposit the male dna that was found under the fingernails and in the panties.

Sure women are increasing in the ranks of criminals and in violent crimes particularly, but I don't see this as a female crime at all.

 

[Shylock]

Originally posted by Pepper
But maybe, just maybe it was a very clever woman. The tone of the ransom note to me suggests a woman.

Why don't you give serious consideration to the idea that the writer of the note was a mother trying to cover-up an act committed by her son against her daughter.

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Toth
A great many posters have seen a second 'voice' in the ransom note, that of a female. I have not.
A great many posters have from time to time remarked on the absence of semen and have considered that perhaps the most obvious explanation might be relevant. However, I do not think that any woman pedophile, even if she existed, could deposit the male dna that was found under the fingernails and in the panties.

Sure women are increasing in the ranks of criminals and in violent crimes particularly, but I don't see this as a female crime at all.

Forgive me--can't believe I posted that...

 

[Britt]

Originally posted by Pepper
If she was exceptionally clever, she might have staged the scene to make it look like a man did it.

Absolutely. And Patsy Ramsey may have done exactly that. If you theorize this woman is someone other than Patsy, you'd have to explain the Ramseys' apparent guilty knowledge of the crime - their lies and evasiveness, avoidance of police, attempt to leave town moments after 'finding' JonBenét's body, lying about Burke being awake, etc. Why would they cover for this other woman?

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Shylock
Why don't you give serious consideration to the idea that the writer of the note was a mother trying to cover-up an act committed by her son against her daughter.

IMHO TRUTH: A WOMEN(PATSY) DID THIS! Minus the last 5 words in your post, I agree as you guoted/with what you posted to be the truth(absolute) IMHO to date FWIW... "Why don't you give serious consideration to the idea that the writer of the note was a mother trying to cover-up an act committed by her
... !!!???"""

$$$ ... they made alot of money$$$ by Burke because of JonBenet...follow the "money$$$..."

:nono: :dontknow:

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Britt
Absolutely. And Patsy Ramsey may have done exactly that. If you theorize this woman is someone other than Patsy, you'd have to explain the Ramseys' apparent guilty knowledge of the crime - their lies and evasiveness, avoidance of police, attempt to leave town moments after 'finding' JonBenét's body, lying about Burke being awake, etc. Why would they cover for this other woman?

IMHO..."they wouldn't cover for another women!" COMMON SENSE says : NOT! :bigthumb: :nono: :evil: :dontknow:

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Britt
Absolutely. And Patsy Ramsey may have done exactly that. If you theorize this woman is someone other than Patsy, you'd have to explain the Ramseys' apparent guilty knowledge of the crime - their lies and evasiveness, avoidance of police, attempt to leave town moments after 'finding' JonBenét's body, lying about Burke being awake, etc. Why would they cover for this other woman?

Anyone remember what page it's on: John states in DOI that he could do better(staging) LOL...

 

[Britt]

Originally posted by Blazeboy3
IMHO..."they wouldn't cover for another women!" COMMON SENSE says : NOT! :bigthumb: :nono: :evil: :dontknow:

I agree, Blazeboy.

Any viable theory must be able to explain the Ramseys' lies and evasive behavior.

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by blueclouds
I have to admit, I do not come in JBR topic most of the time. When I do, it seems people are so intense on their beliefs... either for or against the parents.

I know this is an intense topic. I'm finding so many that are against the mother.

I have a question though...

Do you believe a rookie drug detective (thomas) who NEVER DID A MURDER CASE...

OR DO YOU BELIEVE A SEASONED MURDER DETECTIVE WITH ALMOST AN IMPECABLE RECORD OF SOLVING MURDERS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 1 CASE... THINKS THIS IS AN INTRUDER MURDER.

come on people... all around us is TRUE EXAMPLES OF children abducted from their own bedrooms... this was a LARGE LARGE HOME... HE COULDN'T RESIST HIMSELF, SHE DIED PREMATURELY,

How can people be so against the parents here?

(btw, I AM NOT A JAMS SUPPORTER)


I do honestly want to know peoples perspective as mine is obviously stated.

IMHO... use "COMMON SENSE" ... and ask yourself ... who is this for...???OK, 1st things first...it's not about others...it's about JONBENET!...and JonBenet died in her home BECAUSE _______?!

 

[Blazeboy3]

Originally posted by Britt
I agree, Blazeboy.

Any viable theory must be able to explain the Ramseys' lies and evasive behavior.

I find that rare that others agree...I've read all books w/an open mind (beyond tragic and back) and I still say Patsy did this to her and her family without a doubt...!!!...AND HOW SAD/SHAMEFULL--HELP(IF YOU SEEK IT) IS AVAILABLE...WHY PATSY DIDN"T SHE/YOU SEEK HELP...???