Boulder Grand Jury Voted To Indict-Boulder Dailey Camera

[Anyhoo]

No. Finding the body in the house, with or without a ransom note, makes the Ramsey's appear damningly suspicious. This should be more than obvious to you considering the fanatical devotion the RDI bandwagon has toward believing the Ramseys guilty.

What should also be obvious is the fact that putting JonBenet's body in the trunk of the car, driving to a wooded area, and dumping the body, would have been the most obvious way of avoiding accusation, with or without a ransom note, compared to leaving the body in the house.

While you are correct that it would be the most logical, don't forget that the Ramsey's lived in a neighborhood full of neighbors. The Ramseys, if they were involved in the death of their daughter and were now wanting to remove the body from the house to decrease suspicion to themselves would have calculated the risk of one or both of them being seen leaving the house very late at night or in the early morning hours. To be seen by one or more neighbors leaving the house and that being reported to the police would instantly point to the Ramseys. I think that they wanted to remove her body but they thought the risk of being seen was too great. In hindsight, based upon the information provided by their neighbors, that would appear correct. Had they left the house that almost certaintly would have been seen and reported to police. What other reason would they have for leaving so late at night? What excuse/lie could they possibly give for doing so?

A devious mind trying to deflect guilt would have dumped the body miles away from the home, not in the wine cellar.

People in a panic very late at night faced with a very unusual situation do not always behave logically. Afraid to move the body and risk being seen, they resorted to "Plan B", which is that an intruder broke into the house. The broken window in the basement and the suitcase were staging to support that.

Whoever killed JonBenet did so with extreme prejudice. The evidence of methodical overkill is undeniable and glaringly obvious. Therefore, the suggestion that the murderer was too "frightened and in panic" to think clearly enough to consider dumping the body miles away from the home strains credulity to say the very least.

Here I agree with you, and this is one of the things that separates me from the RDI crowd. I simply cannot see the parents as being so callous and cold and calculating that they would garrot the daughter that I believe they loved.

It is the obviously brutal way that she was murdered that makes me seriously doubt the parents because I cannot see a parent doing that. While it could happen, most parents would be unable to bring themselves to do such a thing. But I will add this one caveat: IF a Ramsey did the garrot, it was certainly JR and not PR, even if PR was the one who caused the original head injury accidently. JR, a navy veteran who had seen many things all over the world and may have learned this somewhere, may have believed that doing this would be the icing on the cake to point suspicion away from the parents. He may have thought that most people would believe it unthinkable (like me) that a parent could do that. But, if JR is/was a very shrewd calculating person who was willing to do anything to save other members of his family from going to prison, he may have done it as pure staging. If his daughter was already dead and he knew nothing could bring her back now, then garroting her after she was dead to point to a brutal intruder would be a logical thing to do. Horrible but logical. JR may have been that type person.

 

[SunnieRN]

how many legal representatives does he have?



Umm...why wouldn't an interviewer ask this question?

Maybe they did and he said 'no comment'?

A day late and a dollar short, catching up after listening to tricia's podcast and wow!

Must admit to enjoying the troll logic. The reality is whomever wrote that unkidnapping letter (cough*patsy*cough) had a purpose. If it was to gather ransom money as stated it failed. If it was to deflect blame for what would be discovered, well here we are, 16 years later with no official fingers pointed. I loved the analysis further back in the thread regarding the amount of the note dedicated to the kidnapping versus the never going to happen exchange. To me the note is a slam dunk that Patsy at a minimum was involved. John finding her body pushes his involvement/knowledge up past the 50/50 mark for me.

Does anyone else think that perhaps the Ramsey influence is running out? People get old, retire, John is 70 this year. How deep do loyalties run? He was at his peak 16 years ago. If he dragged peers into this, they are now at a similar life point. Their subordinates are taking the reigns.

Right on time and right on the money imho!!

 

[Whaleshark]

I simply cannot see the parents as being so callous and cold and calculating that they would garrot the daughter that I believe they loved.

It is the obviously brutal way that she was murdered that makes me seriously doubt the parents because I cannot see a parent doing that.

Anyhoo, the sad reality is different than what you want to believe.

I tried to show you the reality a couple weeks ago. Here it is again; perhaps you should read it this time:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8682476&postcount=72"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8682476&postcount=72[/ame]

"This is where you and Anyhoo may have to adjust your acceptance of reality a little bit.

Many parents brutally injure, abuse, and murder their children every day. I have posted numerous specific cases about this fact over and over again.

You cannot eliminate the parents based on the level of brutality of her injuries and killing.

Julie Scheneker shot her two teenaged children - her daughter in the face, and her son after soccer practice.

Little Zahra Baker was murdered and dismembered by her stepmother.

I don't need to repost the rest...they are easy to find.

In fact, here's the actual truth, which is opposite of what you, and most, tend to believe - naturally:

Parents most likely perpetrators in child killings
http://washingtonexaminer.com/parent...article/400346
March 24, 2012

"To many parents, there's nothing more frightening than the thought of their child being taken, hurt or even killed by a stranger.

But a string of D.C.-area child death cases in the news this month highlights an uncomfortable reality: Children are more likely to die at the hands of their parents or other caregivers than anyone else.

Just this month, a Bristow woman pleaded guilty to child neglect charges for leaving her 2-year-old son alone in a hot van, killing the boy; a Sterling woman was arrested for allegedly killing her 20-month-old daughter in 2005; and a Manassas woman was charged with murder for allegedly causing the death of her 3-month-old son by neglecting him.

More cases
Other child slayings at the hands of parents have gripped the Washington area in recent years. A few more instances:

- Banita Jacks: In one of the region's most high-profile cases, the Southeast D.C. woman was convicted of murder and other offenses in the deaths of her four daughters, whose decomposed bodies were found in their rowhouse in January 2008. Prosecutors alleged that she intentionally starved and tortured the girls and isolated them from neighbors.

- Margaret Jensvold: The Kensington psychiatrist fatally shot her 11-year-old son, then turned the gun on herself, at their home in August. She was apparently upset over her son's education.

- Curtis Lopez: Lopez is scheduled to stand trial in October in the Germantown slayings of his estranged wife and stepson.

Between 1976 and 2005, 60 percent of all homicide victims in the United States under the age 5 were killed by one of their parents, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Nearly all others were slain by another relative or acquaintance; just 3 percent died at the hands of a stranger.

But parents focus on the stranger killings because they're more likely to get news coverage, and that "stays in people's heads," said Michele Booth Cole, executive director of Safe Shores, a District nonprofit that coordinates child abuse investigations.

"People feel like it doesn't happen in their neighborhood, with their group of friends, to their kids," she said.

The truth is hard for parents to face, experts say.

"It is much more acceptable for us to believe that children are more likely to be killed by strangers than acknowledging the reality," said Dr. Paul Appelbaum, a psychiatry professor at Columbia University.

To some degree, parents are the most likely perpetrators in child deaths simply because few others have reason or opportunity to harm children.

"Parents have the motive," said Dr. Phillip Resnick, a psychiatry professor at Case Western Reserve University. For strangers, he said, "there's not a good reason to kill a child."

Stress, a history of abuse, and mental illness are often seen in parents who kill their children.

The majority of child abuse cases are linked to stressors that may be temporary but cause a parent to snap, said Thomas Hafemeister, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. Mothers who kill often suffer from postpartum psychiatric disorders, according to Appelbaum, and parents who were abused themselves are more likely to become abusers, Cole said.

"They weren't parented," she said. "They can't even see the damage that they are doing or are capable of doing."

Experts say the youngest children are the most vulnerable. Homicide is the third-leading cause of death for children age 4 and younger, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"If you hit a newborn, you're going to do a lot more damage than if you hit a teenager," Hafemeister said.

With young children, even innocuous objects can prove deadly. Vanesa Patricio-Cruz, the Sterling woman charged in her daughter's 2005 death, admitted to investigators that she struck the child's head with a remote control, court documents say.

Cole said increasing awareness about child abuse and providing support for parents is crucial in preventing deaths.

"How do families get to the point where the child could be crying out for help or the parents sending signals that they're totally unbalanced and nobody knows?" she said."...
___

We need to get over the misconception that a parent (or family member) most likely didn't do it if it was so brutal -- in fact the opposite is true, as noted above.

You may not want to believe it, but it is what it is".

 

[midwest mama]

... I challenge you to answer the first question which the Ramseys defense team would have asked at trial:

"Why in the world would either or both of the Ramseys have written a bogus ransom note then left the body in the basement?"

Before I can answer your hypothetical question (since we have NO way of really knowing what questions might be asked), please indicate whether you are asking this of me as a juror, or a witness.

If you are asking me as a juror, your question would be asked during either your opening or closing statement. I would not be expected to give you a verbal response, so in keeping with our hypothetical trial, I will remain silent.

If you are asking me the question as a witness, we first of all need to complete our hypothetical scene and you will need to designate whether I am a witness for the prosecution or a witness for the defense, since I can tell you I would respond differently for each position.

Fair enough?

 

[Nom de plume]

While you are correct that it would be the most logical, don't forget that the Ramsey's lived in a neighborhood full of neighbors. The Ramseys, if they were involved in the death of their daughter and were now wanting to remove the body from the house to decrease suspicion to themselves would have calculated the risk of one or both of them being seen leaving the house very late at night or in the early morning hours. To be seen by one or more neighbors leaving the house and that being reported to the police would instantly point to the Ramseys. I think that they wanted to remove her body but they thought the risk of being seen was too great. In hindsight, based upon the information provided by their neighbors, that would appear correct. Had they left the house that almost certaintly would have been seen and reported to police. What other reason would they have for leaving so late at night? What excuse/lie could they possibly give for doing so?



People in a panic very late at night faced with a very unusual situation do not always behave logically. Afraid to move the body and risk being seen, they resorted to "Plan B", which is that an intruder broke into the house. The broken window in the basement and the suitcase were staging to support that.



Here I agree with you, and this is one of the things that separates me from the RDI crowd. I simply cannot see the parents as being so callous and cold and calculating that they would garrot the daughter that I believe they loved.

It is the obviously brutal way that she was murdered that makes me seriously doubt the parents because I cannot see a parent doing that. While it could happen, most parents would be unable to bring themselves to do such a thing. But I will add this one caveat: IF a Ramsey did the garrot, it was certainly JR and not PR, even if PR was the one who caused the original head injury accidently. JR, a navy veteran who had seen many things all over the world and may have learned this somewhere, may have believed that doing this would be the icing on the cake to point suspicion away from the parents. He may have thought that most people would believe it unthinkable (like me) that a parent could do that. But, if JR is/was a very shrewd calculating person who was willing to do anything to save other members of his family from going to prison, he may have done it as pure staging. If his daughter was already dead and he knew nothing could bring her back now, then garroting her after she was dead to point to a brutal intruder would be a logical thing to do. Horrible but logical. JR may have been that type person.

Another reason they probably didn't want to move her from the house that night was because there was a light snow. I'm sure they were smart enough to realize that footprints and/or tire tracks in the snow would be noticed by LE the next morning. The snow is another thing that proves there was no intruder. How did he/she/they get in and out without leaving any tracks? Did Scotty beam them in and out? :ufo:

Anyhoo there are a couple of facts that you don't seem to be clear about. She was not strangled after death. The strangulation caused her death. You are also disregarding the fact that Patsy's jacket fibers were found woven into the knot on the garotte. Also, the garotte is the type of combination rope and paintbrush that is commonly used by artists to carry a rolled up canvas. So with those facts taken into account, the strangulation with the garotte points to Patsy far more than John. It's possible that Patsy made the garotte and John was the one that actually used it to strangle JB, but there's no question that Patsy made the garotte.

 

[Tadpole12]

Here I agree with you, and this is one of the things that separates me from the RDI crowd. I simply cannot see the parents as being so callous and cold and calculating that they would garrot the daughter that I believe they loved.

Heyya Anyhoo,

I would have shared that sentiment, years ago,
but after my time here at WS, readng the most gruesome details of all the hideous crimes discussed on the site,
I now stand at the periphery of RDI, with atleast one surety, that the Ramsey's are no different than any human on this planet, capable of the most depraved acts.

 

[dodie20]

Heyya Anyhoo,

I would have shared that sentiment, years ago,
but after my time here at WS, readng the most gruesome details of all the hideous crimes discussed on the site,
I now stand at the periphery of RDI, with atleast one surety, that the Ramsey's are no different than any human on this planet, capable of the most depraved acts.

I agree. About the garotte...I understand why some people can't imagine parents doing this, because it is so weird, but this is what I've been thinking. IMO, PR was responsible for this and IMO again, she had her back against the wall, and she was willing to do whatever was necessary to save her own hide. Whereas some people see the garotte as vicious and sexual, I see it a little differently. IMO, it looks like somebody wanted to finish JB off, but didn't want to look at her or use her bare hands. So, in an attempt to 'distance' herself from the actual strangulation, it's moo, that PR built the garotte. all moo

 

[midwest mama]

-snipped-
Anyhoo there are a couple of facts that you don't seem to be clear about. She was not strangled after death. The strangulation caused her death. You are also disregarding the fact that Patsy's jacket fibers were found woven into the knot on the garotte. Also, the garotte is the type of combination rope and paintbrush that is commonly used by artists to carry a rolled up canvas. So with those facts taken into account, the strangulation with the garotte points to Patsy far more than John. It's possible that Patsy made the garotte and John was the one that actually used it to strangle JB, but there's no question that Patsy made the garotte.

I must respectfully disagree with you here. If this case goes to trial of JR, I would expect a prosecutor might consider trying to establish that while the fibers were "consistent with" Patsy's jacket, they could have gotten onto the cord or JB's hair as a result of transference - if Patsy had hugged and kissed her child at any time prior to the crime that evening, they could be on JB anywhere, thus easily on her hair, skin, or the white shirt. With Patsy gone, there is no need to prove she tied the garrote, and even more reason to show she might not have, if the prosecutor wants to hammer a conviction against JR, even on Felony Murder, and not Murder 1 or 2.

A prosecutor trying to bring in a conviction against JR based on Felony Murder might want to cast as much question on who tied the garrote as possible, though there might be every attempt to establish Patsy did it. The argument by the prosecutor should establish that the fibers were identified as being "consistent with" Patsy's jacket see:http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682473/Fiber Evidence), and if I was a juror, these comments would create reasonable doubt for me and neutralize the fact that the fibers positively came from that jacket. Though, personally, even if I would suspect they probably did, I would have to allow they could have gotten there by transference. Therefore, I would then be open to another person not only tightening the garrote, but having created it.

Again, in Felony Murder, it would not matter who tied the cord, or tied in the brush handle, or even tightened the ligature. If a jury can be led to believe that JR was at the scene during her death (especially that he possibly had a hand in the process of ligature strangulation himself), he would be found guilty of Felony Murder.

 

[SyraKelly]

You know-I went back and read John's 98 interview with Smit & Kane--I had forgot about some of the lies he told and all of them let him get away with it-just wow!!
Like he did not know JB had a bed wetting problem- but then changed it to,it was no big deal!..REALLLLLY JOHN!!!

 

[Nom de plume]

I must respectfully disagree with you here. If this case goes to trial of JR, I would expect a prosecutor might consider trying to establish that while the fibers were "consistent with" Patsy's jacket, they could have gotten onto the cord or JB's hair as a result of transference - if Patsy had hugged and kissed her child at any time prior to the crime that evening, they could be on JB anywhere, thus easily on her hair, skin, or the white shirt. With Patsy gone, there is no need to prove she tied the garrote, and even more reason to show she might not have, if the prosecutor wants to hammer a conviction against JR, even on Felony Murder, and not Murder 1 or 2.

A prosecutor trying to bring in a conviction against JR based on Felony Murder might want to cast as much question on who tied the garrote as possible, though there might be every attempt to establish Patsy did it. The argument by the prosecutor should establish that the fibers were identified as being "consistent with" Patsy's jacket see:http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682473/Fiber Evidence), and if I was a juror, these comments would create reasonable doubt for me and neutralize the fact that the fibers positively came from that jacket. Though, personally, even if I would suspect they probably did, I would have to allow they could have gotten there by transference. Therefore, I would then be open to another person not only tightening the garrote, but having created it.

Again, in Felony Murder, it would not matter who tied the cord, or tied in the brush handle, or even tightened the ligature. If a jury can be led to believe that JR was at the scene during her death (especially that he possibly had a hand in the process of ligature strangulation himself), he would be found guilty of Felony Murder.

I completely agree with you 100% about how this would work at trial. My statement was not regarding trial. Personally, I would hope that Garnett would NOT try to say PR made the garotte! Anything the DA could do to prosecute JR, outside of fabricating evidence, I would be all for!

I probably would not be one that a defense attorney would want on a jury, as I am more one to believe if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.... I find it impossible to ignore what I perceive to be just good old common sense.

It's just my belief, based on common sense, about the person I believe to be responsible for making the garotte. I think it's entirely possible that she made it but JR used it. I commented earlier on another thread that this combination of cord and paintbrush, in this fashion, is consistant with a device used by artists to carry rolled up canvases. Patsy's paintbrush, fibers "consistent with Patsy's jacket", the "likelihood" that she purchased the cord, and the fact that she fancied herself an artist, all lead me to believe that she is the one that fashioned the garotte, in a panic falling back on something she probably did many times in the past.

BBM lease: :great: :woohoo:

Always happy to hear your thoughts and comments!

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

While you are correct that it would be the most logical, don't forget that the Ramsey's lived in a neighborhood full of neighbors. The Ramseys, if they were involved in the death of their daughter and were now wanting to remove the body from the house to decrease suspicion to themselves would have calculated the risk of one or both of them being seen leaving the house very late at night or in the early morning hours. To be seen by one or more neighbors leaving the house and that being reported to the police would instantly point to the Ramseys. I think that they wanted to remove her body but they thought the risk of being seen was too great. In hindsight, based upon the information provided by their neighbors, that would appear correct. Had they left the house that almost certaintly would have been seen and reported to police. What other reason would they have for leaving so late at night? What excuse/lie could they possibly give for doing so?

You do realize that what you are saying is that it could have been thought less risky to leave the body in the house rather than dump it at a remote location, and you are saying this in full cognizance of the fanatical zealotry expressed by the RDI bandwagon, on this and many other JBR forums, in the aftermath of the body being found in the house?

People in a panic very late at night faced with a very unusual situation do not always behave logically. Afraid to move the body and risk being seen, they resorted to "Plan B", which is that an intruder broke into the house. The broken window in the basement and the suitcase were staging to support that.

Once again, you are guilty of special pleading. The obvious move, indeed, the reflexively obvious move, the sort of move one would expect of people panicked by the sheer horror of the event and their own intimate culpability, would be to get the body out of the house! If either of the Ramseys were in the throes of acute schizophrenic psychosis, you might have a point; but such was not the case.

Here I agree with you, and this is one of the things that separates me from the RDI crowd. I simply cannot see the parents as being so callous and cold and calculating that they would garrot the daughter that I believe they loved.

It is the obviously brutal way that she was murdered that makes me seriously doubt the parents because I cannot see a parent doing that. While it could happen, most parents would be unable to bring themselves to do such a thing.

Horribly brutal filicide of this caliber does happen. However, it is the rare exception. In most instances when a child is brutally murdered to the degree presented in this case, the murderer is not a natural parent to the victim. Therefore, the protocol for common human decency in such a case as this necessarily demands highly convincing evidence of culpability before a formal accusation of filicide be made.

But I will add this one caveat: IF a Ramsey did the garrot, it was certainly JR and not PR, even if PR was the one who caused the original head injury accidently. JR, a navy veteran who had seen many things all over the world and may have learned this somewhere, may have believed that doing this would be the icing on the cake to point suspicion away from the parents. He may have thought that most people would believe it unthinkable (like me) that a parent could do that. But, if JR is/was a very shrewd calculating person who was willing to do anything to save other members of his family from going to prison, he may have done it as pure staging. If his daughter was already dead and he knew nothing could bring her back now, then garroting her after she was dead to point to a brutal intruder would be a logical thing to do. Horrible but logical. JR may have been that type person.

Wild speculation does not nearly suffice. Concrete evidence that JR is this person you describe is ethically (if not legally) required before you accuse him of such, or even make the slightest insinuations of his culpability based upon such a character description. However, I have seen no such evidence. In fact, the available evidence attesting to his character strongly suggests that he is most definitely NOT this person.

 

[SyraKelly]

How about if you just answer the question and stop being so weirdly evasive?

You have hijacked this thread-its a thread about the GJ indicting BOTH Ramseys & why AH did not do his job!

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121568"]The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter. - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

here is the RN thread!

 

[SyraKelly]

I wonder if Dateline or 48 hrs is going to do a show this weekend about this news... has anyone heard anything?

 

[OpenMind4U]

This post is for people who does't know this case or/and pretend to ignore the most important FACTS.

1. JonBenet's body wasn't LEFT in the basement. The body was HIDDEN in one of the room in the basement which was known to 'inside' people only, like: housekeeper, family members and some friends. LE and friend have searched the basement. Neither of them have found the body! It was hidden very well. So, the notion of 'getting rid of the body' was executed in this case almost at the same manner as if it would be hidden outside. The most important fact is that JB father - John Ramsey - conviniently 'find' her when police left the house;

2. The reasons why search of Ramsey's house wasn't done properly are:
- based on Ramsey's emergency 'kidnapping' call and existance of 'ransom note', BPD initiates the standard KIDNAPPING procedure, including FBI involvement and setting-up the wire-tab. Identification of ENTRY/EXIT point of kidnappers to/from house was the main task for LE. Search for BODY INSIDE the house wasn't in this procedure!;
- the political, social, financial status of Ramsey family wasn't raised any red flags. Apposite, the 'gold glove' treatment has been applied for Ramsey immidietly! The Victims Advocate was send to Ramsey house right away.

3. Yes, JBR was brutally murdered! However, the elements of the 'brutallity' could be divided by 3 categories:
- hidden (blunt trauma on head and acute sexual injury);
- actual (strangulation by rope);
- grotesque (non-workable garrote; non-workable hand bindings).

4. The presence of the 'grotesque' elements in addition to other 'staging' activities (like cleaning and redressing the body) points to one and only one conclusion: no INTRUDER! no OUTSIDE murderer! JBR murder was 'inside' job done by person(s) who cares enough to wrap her body in her favorite blanket with her favorite nightgown, placing the doll next to her = her PARENTS!!!!!

JBR murder 101.

jmo

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I wonder if Dateline or 48 hrs is going to do a show this weekend about this news... has anyone heard anything?

Nope, I haven't heard anything. I'm not sure if they decided to do an episode, how long it would take to make, and how long until it actually aired. There's no way there will be an episode this weekend though. 48 Hours has aired many pro-Ramsey specials in the past, so if they do anything about the case, I bet everything that John is behind it Ugh, I hope he isn't in ~talks~ with anyone.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

You have hijacked this thread-its a thread about the GJ indicting BOTH Ramseys & why AH did not do his job!

The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter. - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

here is the RN thread!

Oh, I see!... Well then, perhaps we should start over.

Why did AH not do his job?

Because he knew if he took the case to trial he would have been massacred by the Ramsey defense team.

Why?

Because he had no real case.

Oh, and why is that?

Because the weight of the evidence, then and now, leans heavily on the side of either/both of the Ramseys not being guilty.

Gee, this all sounds so familiar...

That is because it is a repeat of what was said earlier in the thread. You see, any discussion about this case will invariably gravitate to the question over John and/or Patsy Ramsey's culpability in the death of JonBenet, and that is exactly how the thread developed to this point in the discussion. So you see, the thread was not "hijacked" by me or anyone else, and your use of the term "hijacked" seems like nothing more than a pathetic euphemism for:

"I am an insecure RDI zealot who cannot bear the dogma of "Absolute Ramsey Culpability" being upended by such an overpowering argument. Therefore, I want to terminate the discussion, and if at all possible, have you permanently banned from Websleuths since you are obviously a heretic."


No one is forcing you to subscribe to this thread. There are hundreds of threads in this forum. If this discussion does not suit you, I suggest you find one that does.

 

[DeeDee249]

I completely discount anything at ALL that Judge Carnes said. It is WELL known that she never even saw most of the evidence and got ALL of her information from R sources.

 

[wengr]

EDIII, you claim to know the bash was done with a tire iron. I would be interested to know how you know this. Where is the tire iron? What is the physical evidence that supports this claim? What style of tire iron is it?

 

[dodie20]

Oh, I see!... Well then, perhaps we should start over.

Why did AH not do his job?

Because he knew if he took the case to trial he would have been massacred by the Ramsey defense team.

Why?

Because he had no real case.

Oh, and why is that?

Because the weight of the evidence, then and now, leans heavily on the side of either/both of the Ramseys not being guilty.

Gee, this all sounds so familiar...

That is because it is a repeat of what was said earlier in the thread. You see, any discussion about this case will invariably gravitate to the question over John and/or Patsy Ramsey's culpability in the death of JonBenet, and that is exactly how the thread developed to this point in the discussion. So you see, the thread was not "hijacked" by me or anyone else, and your use of the term "hijacked" seems like nothing more than a pathetic euphemism for:

"I am an insecure RDI zealot who cannot bear the dogma of "Absolute Ramsey Culpability" being upended by such an overpowering argument. Therefore, I want to terminate the discussion, and if at all possible, have you permanently banned from Websleuths since you are obviously a heretic."


No one is forcing you to subscribe to this thread. There are hundreds of threads in this forum. If this discussion does not suit you, I suggest you find one that does.

I don't think so. AH was not and is not an expert on the JonBenet Ramsey case. The grand jurors, on the other hand, spent over a year of their lives poring through the evidence, (and not even all of it), so it's safe to say, they were knowledgeable on the subject of JonBenet's murder. To say the weight of the evidence leans toward the Rs being not guilty, is a misinformed statement. The grand jury sure didn't think so. That's why they voted to indict both of the Rs for child abuse resulting in death. This isn't gossip, this isn't speculation, and regardless of what JR says, this isn't 'just drama'. This is fact. No amount of wild theories, spin, or anger will change it. Accepting this news may be hard for some, but it is what it is. A GRAND JURY, (one of the most serious and awe inspiring duties in the US), voted to indict the Rs.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

EDIII, you claim to know the bash was done with a tire iron. I would be interested to know how you know this. Where is the tire iron? What is the physical evidence that supports this claim? What style of tire iron is it?

Actually, I am using the term "tire iron" as a general reference to any solid metal prying device such as a tire iron or crowbar with an elbow. Judging by the autopsy photo of the skull and the rectangular displacement in the posterior parietal area, she was most likely struck with the elbow of something like this: