olive
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2006
- Messages
- 818
- Reaction score
- 7
Same thing Lacey lost with Karr. NO DNA LINK.SuperDave said:I'm with LinasK. What have you got to lose?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Same thing Lacey lost with Karr. NO DNA LINK.SuperDave said:I'm with LinasK. What have you got to lose?
No DNA link, but stonger circumstantial evidence- the black shirt made in Israel that he was wearing that night- fibers from it were found in JB's genital area- that didn't come from a bath or the laundry- that came from John having incestuous relations with JB or wiping her down after, IMO!!!olive said:Same thing Lacey lost with Karr. NO DNA LINK.
I believe it is a crime to bash in someone's head, manually strangle them, molest them, obstruct justice, and tamper with evidence. Even if Burke bashed, strangled and molested all because he was only 9 and didn't know what he was doing (which is WAY OUT THERE---9 year olds know that bashing, stangling and molesting lead to no good and are wrong unless they're psychopathic) and accidentally killed his sister (eye rolling emoticon here please) then it is still a crime. And his parents obstructed justice and tampered with evidence through staging, which is also a crime.i_dont_chat said:To everybody on this forum:
My opinion: JonBenet's death was not a crime. It was an accident. The person responsible for the accident was a 9-year child. In Colorado, 9-year children cannot be charged with a crime -- and in fact -- are protected from even BEING NAMED as being responsible.
I believe that every level of the justice system, including the last Grand Jury, came to understand this. Thus, the Grand Jury refused to charge anyone.
The only loose end -- and it is considerable -- the TRUTH was never told to the public because the State of Colorado has laws which protect the identity of underage children.
Can we accept on faith that our justice system worked? There is no "intruder/murderer" on the loose. Nobody got away with murder. The Ramsey's made an extreme sacrifice to take it on themselves to destroy evidence and cover-up that their son was responsible. But I truly believe that they realized he did not intend to harm his sister. They forgave him and did everything they could (legal or otherwise) to protect him. Because of that, they heaped much rage onto themselves. It is possible they did the best they knew to do at the time. Who knows what anyone would do in that situation?
To their credit, if this is what happened, they were successful. Burke was never publicly accused or labeled as a murderer. They were able to continue within their family unit (what was left of it), without being separated from each other.
It is difficult to imagine the pain they experienced in losing their daughter (as beloved and dotted on, as she was), coupled with the pain of knowing what could be facing their son, whom obviously they loved very much.
There are lots of people who don't like the Ramseys, out of jealousy or intolerance. Maybe it is human nature for us to "want our pound of flesh."
When you sort it out, maybe what the public is angry about is the simple fact that we, concerned citizens, didn't get the satisfaction of learning what happened. We think it is our right because a crime was committed. Isn't that the problem?
Well, I am starting to accept the fact that there really wasn't a crime. It was an accident, and the family chose to take whatever drastic means they could to keep the details private. Was it their right to keep it private? I don't know, but it is my opinion that is why the public is still upset about it.
This is my opinion of what happened, and I am nearing the point where I am willing to let this go. Are you?
s_finch said:I believe it is a crime to bash in someone's head, manually strangle them, molest them, obstruct justice, and tamper with evidence. Even if Burke bashed, strangled and molested all because he was only 9 and didn't know what he was doing (which is WAY OUT THERE---9 year olds know that bashing, stangling and molesting lead to no good and are wrong unless they're psychopathic) and accidentally killed his sister (eye rolling emoticon here please) then it is still a crime. And his parents obstructed justice and tampered with evidence through staging, which is also a crime.
Will somebody (anybody) please show me where in the record of evidence this can be found. All I can find is where LE "asked" John about fibers from his shirt, and John answered "I don't believe it. Prove it." And they never mentioned it again.LinasK said:No DNA link, but stonger circumstantial evidence- the black shirt made in Israel that he was wearing that night- fibers from it were found in JB's genital area- that didn't come from a bath or the laundry- that came from John having incestuous relations with JB or wiping her down after, IMO!!!
Guy_in_Georgia said:The Ramsey home has not been proven to have been where JonBenet was killed. Perhaps the child was killed elsewhere, then brought back home, placed in the wine cellar, then moved to the final location, where staging occurred.
It seems that it takes far less than fibers, or the rumor of same, for some to fabricate it as gospel, and so the story continues to grow, strangely, almost eerily, synomonous with the amount of alleged evidence against the Ramseys. Therefore we have to continually forewarn the RDI's, that the only evidence that can be used in a court of law, is factual evidence, and not fabricated evidence, or allegations.i_dont_chat said:Will somebody (anybody) please show me where in the record of evidence this can be found. All I can find is where LE "asked" John about fibers from his shirt, and John answered "I don't believe it. Prove it." And they never mentioned it again.
Is this one of these tricks LE tried on John to get him to talk -- and now it has become Urban Legend, or is this really in the evidence?
Please, someone help me with this.
Thanks so much.
Guy_in_Georgia said:Actually, it was probably 15 bullets. In any case, Det Arndt may actually have had an epiphany, a flash of realization that the killer may be right next to her. The subconcious is a powerful tool, especially for those who work on complex problems in their line of work, like policeman, muical masters, scientists, etc.. Some call it a sixth sense, a gut instinct, or intuition.
The same thing probably happened to Fleet White when he and John found the body of JonBenet.
Fleet had searched the home earlier that day, and I'm sure that he had looked in the same place that JonBenet was now found.
Perhaps the reason John was so distressed after returning from his mysterious absence was because he found JonBenet where his wife had hidden her (the wine cellar), this being the FIRST TIME he saw her dead.
It's very likely that Patsy had hidden JonBenet in the wine cellar in the early hours of Dec 26th, John discovered the body, may have noticed evidence that would point to a family member, decided to move the body to the final location, staged the scene.??? When he returned, Det Arndt noticed a marked difference in his demeanor.
The problem:
JOHN DID NOT KNOW THAT FLEET WHITE HAD ALREADY SEARCHED THE HOUSE EARLIER THAT DAY.
That's probably why Fleet became almost hysterical after they discovered JonBenet. Not necessarily because JonBenet was dead, but that her father may have had something to do with it.
JonBenet may not have been hidden in the wine-cellar originally, Fleet White never saw her when he looked!Perhaps the reason John was so distressed after returning from his mysterious absence was because he found JonBenet where his wife had hidden her (the wine cellar), this being the FIRST TIME he saw her dead.
Fleet White recognized the crime-scene was faked, so much so he went back and took another look, spending minutes staring at the duct-tape, which he knew had been reused!That's probably why Fleet became almost hysterical after they discovered JonBenet. Not necessarily because JonBenet was dead, but that her father may have had something to do with it.
What I believe is that there was a crime. Whether the age of the first perp (assuming BDI, which I don't much subscribe to, was involved) allows for prosecution does not mean that a crime(s) wasn't committed. An accidental blow to the head? That I can put in the category of "accident". Should a 9 yo be punished for an accidental blow that kills someone? No. However, in this case you have: a smashed skull, manual strangle, ligature strangle, molestation of either a body or corpse, staging............there's way more there than "accident". Somehow, somewhere, someone committed some crimes and no way a 9 yo did all of that.Camper said:---->>>>Awww s_finch, you donut really believe that do you?
Insert me with a puzzled look about it 'being' an accident, I am actually rolling on the floor figuratively.
You my dear poster deserve an A for describing to us on WHAT a crime is, an dmost particularly a MURDER!!
Wonder IF IF our murderer is being an active psychopathic person somewhere in Geogia or in Boulder even as we speak?
.
.
How do you know/figure this about the tape? Not being contrary, just curious. TIAFleet White recognized the crime-scene was faked, so much so he went back and took another look, spending minutes staring at the duct-tape, which he knew had been reused!
It's very likely that Patsy had hidden JonBenet in the wine cellar in the early hours of Dec 26th, John discovered the body, may have noticed evidence that would point to a family member, decided to move the body to the final location, staged the scene. When he returned, Det Arndt noticed a marked difference in his demeanor.
The problem:
JOHN DID NOT KNOW THAT FLEET WHITE HAD ALREADY SEARCHED THE HOUSE EARLIER THAT DAY.
That's probably why Fleet became almost hysterical after they discovered JonBenet. Not necessarily because JonBenet was dead, but that her father may have had something to do with it.
s_finch said:How do you know/figure this about the tape? Not being contrary, just curious. TIA
After Arndt's 911 call, John Ramsey told the detective that no one knew about the wine-cellar in the basement and therefore his daughter's murder has to be an inside job.
Meanwhile, Fleet White decided to go back downstairs to the wine-cellar where her body had been found. He had looked into the same room early that morning when he made a quick search of the house. Now that there was a light on, he saw clearly for the first time a white blanket in the center of the cement floor. A piece of black duct-tape was lying on it. He picked up the tape, which felt sticky, and then placed it back on the blanket for the police.
Arndt ordered Ramsey to put the body down on the floor near the front door and told Fleet White to guard the basement door. Instead, White ran back down to the little cellar room, picked up the black tape, and stared at it.
Playing devil's advocate here (gee, DA could also stand for devil's advocate), maybe she had pineapple somewhere else and the bowl of pineapple on the table is another red herring????????? PR and JR said they stopped a two homes after leaving the White's and then went home. It's their word we have to go on. I wonder what Burke answered about the events between the Whites and arriving home.UKGuy said:Guy_in_Georgia,
The pineapple residue in JonBenet's stomach suggests she was still alive after returning home from the whites.
.