Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[DeeDee249]

I don't think anyone has ever accused PR of being the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Patsy graduated college with honors as a journalism major. She may have chosen to play the "dim bulb" or come off that way, but she was a lot sharper than many people thought.

 

[BBB167893]

Your reply was addressed to SD but perhaps you won't mind if I chime in?

Short of a confession, I suspect everything that implicates them has already surfaced. The problem is that the GJ didn't find the evidence sufficient to indict the Rs. I let people with more case knowledge discuss the ins and outs of what was presented to the GJ and whether or not the GJ should have handed down indictments. The fact is, they didn't.

So, it's not a matter of something coming to the surface. It's just that the GJ wasn't persuaded.

Not that it really matters in terms of outcome, Chrishope, but you might get some argument over that assertion. As I've often mentioned, case insiders on BOTH sides of the issue agree that the GJ WAS persuaded and that the DA pulled the plug preemptively.

To put it another way, someone got away with murder. It's hard to accept (no matter your theory of the case) but people do get away with murder. There are many unsolved murder cases every year. Sometimes the police have a pretty good idea who did it (and sometimes the police only think they know and are way way off base) but can't make a charge stick.

I go back to what I said before, Chrishope: I think some of it is due to juries watching too much CSI-style TV. I know quite a few people who agree with me. Bernie Goldberg, I know, does.

It does seem to me that if JR was a drywall finisher making 32K a year and living in a large ramshackle farm house, but with all other details of the case essentially the same, he'd be sitting in a prison cell right now. Justice is different for the wealthy. It's not simply about power, money, and corruption, though those things might come into play in this case. It gets down to how people perceive others. Like it or not there is a perception that these things don't happen in "good" families. If JR was a dyrwall man and Patsy clerked at the 7-11 the evidence against them would have been far more convincing. The exact same evidence.

You just nailed it, my friend. 100%.

 

[BBB167893]

I also cannot believe that Lacey & co have been able to preside over one of the biggest miscarriages of justice I have ever seen, and not be somehow held accountable. How can she look at herself in the mirror every day?

Agreed, 100%! Except sometimes, I wonder if it was less of a "miscarriage" and more of an "abortion."

JBR is sadly, a perfect example of how NOT to handle an investigation. She has been abused in life, and death, and I for one will never forget about her until some justice had been done.

Yeah!

I believe that PR received some karmic justice, at least. JR's is on it's way.

Thoughts like that keep me warm at night.

 

[BBB167893]

Too true. But in the circles Lacey and friends move, JonBenet is simply collateral damage, fodder for their career moves. They are not interested in the Justice thing just the career advancement thing, only the politics and money matter to them.

Lets hope SD's book exposes them for what they are?

That will be a pleasure!

 

[BBB167893]

So if I may ask Is it the general consensus on this thread that JBR had been sexually abused by by John,Burke,or Patsy?...or all of them?

I don't know if there's any consensus on it, R.U.Kidding!. I believe it. (John's my suspect, for a couple of reasons.)

If this is why they were afraid of this being found out, then why invent the 3 page ransom note about some Foreign Faction who only needed a very small but precise amount of money from John Ramsey, but on their out the door they decided to sexually assault JonBenet, and strangle her, and leave her there. I mean if this was the case why would they not just take her with them and wait for the ransom money to be paid.

If the Ramseys fabricated this cover-up, wouldn't it make more sense to have us believe some pervert saw JonBenet, stalked her, and took her that night. No ransom note just took her and disposed of her body. Surely finding her in their own basement was the perfect reason to implicate a family member, right?

If this is what happened, the Ramsey's should of been arrested for sheer stupidity.

I have to balk a bit on that. No one I know of has ever claimed that the Ramseys were stupid. But even smart people can make mistakes. See, there's a difference between being intelligent and knowing what you're doing. Or, as I like to say it, the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Let me use this illustration: you wouldn't hire an accountant to fix your toilet, would you? Well, same deal here: how are two genteel people like the Rs supposed to know what an actual child killing really looks like? They know the FORM, but not the SUBSTANCE.

As for leaving her in the house, I think Patsy herself gave us the answer when she bragged about how pretty JB looked in her coffin at the funeral.

 

[BBB167893]

What's staged and what's part of the original crime?

Head bash--original

Everything else--staged

We know the strangulation came reasonably close in time to the head bash, so it wasn't something that they had to sit down and think about for a couple hours.

If you consider 20-60 minutes "close" in time.

That suggests to me that strangulation (which may have been separate from the garrotte) wasn't staging.

I don't know. An almost perfectly circular mark around the neck. No signs of struggling, etc...

I don't think the blow to the head was an accident because how do they jump to strangulation so soon after the head blow?

When we say "accident," it would be more accurate to say that death was not intended, anymore than an earthquake intends to destroy a certain house.

If the strangulation was staging it was thought up pretty quickly.

maybe.

We know from the petechial hemorrhaging that she was alive when strangled.

Alive, in a technical sense, yes. But as has been pointed out, very likely unconscious and close to death when it was applied. Legally, alive or not, it's staging as long as the killer THOUGHT she was dead.

Was the flashlight used to crack her skull?

Maybe. I'm not 100%

Why was it wiped down inside and out?

An "intruder" might wipe down the outside, but he'd know his prints are not on the batteries. OTOH, there is really no reason for the Rs to wipe the batteries either - we'd expect their prints on the batteries, even if the intruder used it and wiped it down.

Which suggests a person not experienced with criminal procedure.

Why is there a body and a RN?

It makes no sense to have a body and a RN in the same house. If the plan was originally to dump the body, but the plan had to be abandoned, that might explain why we have both a body and a RN, though it doesn't really explain why they didn't just destroy the RN. IMO the RN just adds another layer of unbelievability to the whole scenario. It could not have taken long to destroy the RN.

Except that the RN gives them the whole WORLD as a suspect pool AND a chance to play victim, body or not. Like I told our departed friend HOTYH, the Rs don't have to fool the cops or the feds or the DA. They have to fool ONE person out of twelve. And as Casey Anthony proved, that's not too hard.

 

[BBB167893]

If she was going to talk -presumably about chronic abuse- then what had she done to indicate a likelihood of talking in the near future? She might have talked weeks or months prior, or she might have gone on for years w/o talking, as victims sometimes do.

Maybe she already DID talk--to exactly the WRONG person.

 

[BBB167893]

UGH! Dee,Dee you sure Know your facts.

You bet she does. (She beat me to it, too.)

I must say i was not prepared for that information.

Is there ever a way you CAN be prepared for it?

Since it was not penile penetration would that mean the abuse may have been from her mother??

Um, yes. Cyril Wecht said that it could have been. Moreover, digital penetration is often used to "groom" a molestation victim.

For the outside world they looked like the perfect loving family. You just never know the MONSTER hiding in the closet.

That, imo, is the ultimate moral of this case!

 

[BBB167893]

It does my heart good to see that despite all the lies, the cover-ups, the political bs that has been generated around this case, and the public "exoneration", three quarters of us still believe RDI.

The general population at large has been treated like they are idiots in this case by Colorado politicians. Thank God we can see through the lies and mistruths, and still see the shape of what really happened that night.

Now all we need is for public pressure to force an inquest.

NOW YOU'RE TALKIN'! That's precisely what we need (and, to be a bit conceited, what I hope my book will accomplish). Put 'em all through the wringer and see what squeezes out!

 

[BBB167893]

There was a documentary called "who killed the pageant queen" shown in the Uk a few years ago. It showed how people other than the parents could have been involved. was this ever shown in the US, was it believed or discounted?

One of Michael Tracey's cinematic abortions. It was discounted, brit1981, and for good reason. Ask Tricia sometime!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...et-feels-putting-daughter-public-display.html

the above is an article from march talking to John Ramsey.

Awfully convenient that he only expresses his misgivings about the pageants NOW that Patsy's dead and he's trying to wash his hands of her.

I did wonder about the £118K ransom. It is so exact it makes me wonder if the ramseys would be that stupid, but it makes me think if they were not involved it must have been either someone they knew or someone who was stalking them or someone who had been in the house before.

Either that, or they wanted it to LOOK like someone they knew.

One disturbing thing about this article is that the pageants look even worse. At least Jonbenet looked like a little girl, but some of these five year olds have been so made up they look middle aged. and WTF is the toddler dressed as a prostitue for? I would have thought after Jonbenet these pageants would have ended, but instead they became more popular.

Your confusion is shared by many of us.

 

[Roy23]

Not that it really matters in terms of outcome, Chrishope, but you might get some argument over that assertion. As I've often mentioned, case insiders on BOTH sides of the issue agree that the GJ WAS persuaded and that the DA pulled the plug preemptively.


I go back to what I said before, Chrishope: I think some of it is due to juries watching too much CSI-style TV. I know quite a few people who agree with me. Bernie Goldberg, I know, does.



You just nailed it, my friend. 100%.

Chrishope has it right. Just like every other case, a GJ doesn't need much to indict. The bottom line is their wasn't enough evidence in their minds.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope has it right. Just like every other case, a GJ doesn't need much to indict. The bottom line is their wasn't enough evidence in their minds.

I didn't mean to imply that the evidence was insufficient for an indictment. I think there was no indictment because people tend to think these things don't happen in "good" families.

If the Rs were low income people living in a trailer, the GJ might well have handed down indictments. For some reason people don't put it past low income people to do these things. But it doesn't happen in "good" (e.g. wealthy successful) families.

Let me put it another way - almost every IDI who comes along starts with the premise that "I just can't believe parents would do this". Of course if they were lower income people with dirty jeans and t-shirts, living in a trailer, with a car out front sitting on cement blocks, then no one would have much trouble believing they'd done this.

All I meant to imply was that IMO there isn't much more that can come out. (I might be wrong, but we'll see). The GJ had substantially all the info back in the day that they'd have
now if a new GJ were formed.

The major difference now is that there is the "touch dna" and though most of us know this doesn't exonerate the Rs, as SD put it -they only have to fool one person in 12. Even if an indictment could be had (which I doubt) a conviction would be very very difficult.

 

[Chrishope]

If you consider 20-60 minutes "close" in time.

How do we know it was at least 20 minutes and maybe as long as an hour? I know Dr. Wright and a couple others say 20 - 60 minutes, but then Wecht and Doberson say the blow to the head came after asphyxiation. So why do you settle on the bash to the head first, and the 20-60 minutes?

When we say "accident," it would be more accurate to say that death was not intended, anymore than an earthquake intends to destroy a certain house.

No argument about "accident" but it plays out differently under various RDI theories.

If BDI, then we have to assume that the parents apply the garrote (in your view 20-60 minutes later) while the victim in unconscious and near death. Even if one parent has something to cover up -and therefore needs to stage the intruder murder/kidnapping, why would the other parent go along? If you needed to stage the murder of your daughter and your spouse had no reason to do this, would you be able to persuade the spouse to go along in less than an hour?

IF JDI, then we are at about the same point as BDI. PR, who presumably has no reason to want to do this has to be persuaded to go along.

If PDI, then we have to assume JR had a reason to stage a murder/kidnapping. A reason PR didn't know of. Possible.

Unless both parents have a motive for staging, I don't see persuading the "innocent" parent in 20 minutes, or even an hour. That's why it seems to me that the garroting -whether staging or not- was probably part of the plan from the get-go.

Alive, in a technical sense, yes. But as has been pointed out, very likely unconscious and close to death when it was applied. Legally, alive or not, it's staging as long as the killer THOUGHT she was dead.

Yes, if they thought she was dead, it would still be staging. My point is that if they thought she was dead, then they went to staging pretty quick. (Though I suppose we don't really know how long she could have lived with the head injury)

Except that the RN gives them the whole WORLD as a suspect pool AND a chance to play victim, body or not. Like I told our departed friend HOTYH, the Rs don't have to fool the cops or the feds or the DA. They have to fool ONE person out of twelve. And as Casey Anthony proved, that's not too hard.

True. Only one of 12 has to be fooled. I personally don't know how anyone can not look squarely at the Rs when the body and the RN were both in the house. Real kidnappers remove the body. It's essential to getting the ransom.

 

[Chrishope]

I go back to what I said before, Chrishope: I think some of it is due to juries watching too much CSI-style TV. I know quite a few people who agree with me. Bernie Goldberg, I know, does.

We talked about this before. IMO, some sort of reasonably scientific study of juries has to be done before I'm going to accept the CSI excuse. It's human nature -and even prosecutors are human- to make excuses. CSI is as handy as any.

In the '60s it was the Perry Mason excuse. Defendants didn't break down on the stand and confess, so prosecutors used the excuse that juries expected that from watching PM. But there was never any hard evidence to support the theory. It was a handy excuse.

My own theory is that people tend to veiw the wealthy differently than they view the "common man". But I have to admit, I really don't have any evidence to back that up.

 

[BBB167893]

Chrishope has it right. Just like every other case, a GJ doesn't need much to indict. The bottom line is their wasn't enough evidence in their minds.

Well, pilgrim, your assertion in the face of the case insiders who agree with me is disappointing, but not surprising.

And on that note, it's true: a GJ does not need that much. But--and this seems to be the point you're overlooking--that's only if the GJ is INTENDED to secure an indictment. As I and others have said, THIS GJ's only intent was to get the Governor off Hunter's back.

 

[BBB167893]

How do we know it was at least 20 minutes and maybe as long as an hour? I know Dr. Wright and a couple others say 20 - 60 minutes, but then Wecht and Doberson say the blow to the head came after asphyxiation. So why do you settle on the bash to the head first, and the 20-60 minutes?

It's the best argument I've heard yet. And I fail to see what could be gained by Doberson's statements.

If PDI, then we have to assume JR had a reason to stage a murder/kidnapping. A reason PR didn't know of. Possible.

Unless both parents have a motive for staging, I don't see persuading the "innocent" parent in 20 minutes, or even an hour. That's why it seems to me that the garroting -whether staging or not- was probably part of the plan from the get-go.

Supposing they did not each have their own motives, you seem to be suggesting premeditation. Is that it, or am I not understanding you?

Yes, if they thought she was dead, it would still be staging. My point is that if they thought she was dead, then they went to staging pretty quick. (Though I suppose we don't really know how long she could have lived with the head injury)

"Pretty quick" is sort of a relative term in an instance like this, wouldn't you say?

True. Only one of 12 has to be fooled. I personally don't know how anyone can not look squarely at the Rs when the body and the RN were both in the house. Real kidnappers remove the body. It's essential to getting the ransom.

There you go.

 

[BBB167893]

We talked about this before.

I remember.

IMO, some sort of reasonably scientific study of juries has to be done before I'm going to accept the CSI excuse. It's human nature -and even prosecutors are human- to make excuses. CSI is as handy as any.

What sort of study do you have in mind? All I know is what I've seen and heard from people who know.

My own theory is that people tend to view the wealthy differently than they view the "common man". But I have to admit, I really don't have any evidence to back that up.

By "evidence," you seem to mean empirical evidence. There's PLENTY of anecdotal evidence in support of your theory. To the point where, far as I go, it's not a theory anymore.

 

[oksooner]

For me, its very simple. Not the little things, but the overall picture.

1) Patsy wrote the RN. If you have researched the case and looked at the samples yourself, you would have to be a moron to not agree.

2) The Ramsey's did everything they could do to hinder the investigation. If they were innocent, they would have realized they needed to be cleared to catch the real killer. They didn't care about an 'investigation' because they knew what happened.

3) IMO, they failed lie detectors. The PR machine can spin it any way they want, but they hand picked and PAID for a polygraph and didn't pass. Go ahead with your 'Inconclusive' crap--anyone with half a brain can figure it out.

For some of you on here, common sense is being overlooked. For example--take the Ramsey's actions and evidence that we DO know and apply it to any other case on this board. Rid your mind of the Ramsey dream team propaganda and use your brain

 

[Chrishope]

What sort of study do you have in mind? All I know is what I've seen and heard from people who know.

Any actual study, as opposed to opinion. The people you mention may think they know, but they don't know. It's an opinion. Can't be backed up by anything other than more opinion.


I was on a jury late last summer. A child molestation case. There wasn't any fancy CSI evidence. There was only testimony by the victims, the police, an expert witness, and the defendant. We didn't have any trouble figuring out what happened.

 

[Chrishope]

For me, its very simple. Not the little things, but the overall picture.

1) Patsy wrote the RN. If you have researched the case and looked at the samples yourself, you would have to be a moron to not agree.

2) The Ramsey's did everything they could do to hinder the investigation. If they were innocent, they would have realized they needed to be cleared to catch the real killer. They didn't care about an 'investigation' because they knew what happened.

3) IMO, they failed lie detectors. The PR machine can spin it any way they want, but they hand picked and PAID for a polygraph and didn't pass. Go ahead with your 'Inconclusive' crap--anyone with half a brain can figure it out.

For some of you on here, common sense is being overlooked. For example--take the Ramsey's actions and evidence that we DO know and apply it to any other case on this board. Rid your mind of the Ramsey dream team propaganda and use your brain

Gotta agree.