Forensic evidence

[Dru]

But the door wouldn't have actually been open or ajar or unlocked. Nobody could have proven otherwise if John had said he found a door unlocked or not completely latched.

They also don't have to worry about them checking for evidence at that door because there would be none. Just like there is no intruder evidence in JonBenet's room, the kitchen, the basement, or on her body. They never staged the evidence of an intruder, they staged the acts that they thought an intruder would do. Why would an intruder climb out a basement window when he could just walk out one of the doors. Why wasn't that staged?

...again, yes and no. If JR said, "I found this door unlocked," then it would have to be unlocked when the police examined it. What possible reason could he give for locking it again, once he'd found it unlocked?

And then we have forensic evidence: the police can tell if the door was unlocked using a key or not, for example. They would expect there to be some signs that someone had inserted a key from outside. If all the latent prints on the doors were R prints, and there was no sign that any of them had been disturbed, that's another bit of evidence.

Or to put it another way: the "intruder," even if he had a key, would have either a) left prints of his own, or b) smudged prints the R's had left during normal use of the door (say, if he were wearing gloves). There would possibly have been either prints or smudges around the lock, and there would definitely have been either prints or smudges around the doorknob, which the intruder would have to have turned in order to enter.

So you see, the very fact that there would be NO evidence of an intruder is, in fact, evidence: evidence that there wasn't one!

Same goes for the intruder's exit point: even wearing gloves, the intruder would have blurred the existing prints on the interior doorknob when he opened the door. Even if the police bought the idea that someone who had a key managed to enter without disturbing evidence on the door, I think there'd be some suspicion over the lack of evidence of either entry or exit.

I think JR was smart enough to know that when you start trying to stage 'evidence' of an intruder, you open the door (no pun intended) to lots of awkward questions. And the Routier case must have been 'out there' by then; I remember it distinctly myself, and yet I'd forgotten how close in time to the Ramsey case it happened.

 

[JMO8778]

The bowl, glass, tea bag play a very important role, IMO, in one nagging scenario I've had. I don't think PR would rage over a toilet issue, but, definitely would rage over a bratty child not doing what she was told, especially considering PR's physical state that night. What if she thought they were tucked in for the night, maybe after telling them NO to snacking before bed. She heads to pack, the kids sneak off to the kitchen anyway, maybe in the dark, and fix the tea, pineapple (maybe the bowl was already there and was used again). PR decides to wake JB to go potty before retiring herself, only to find she is not in bed. PR finds them in the kitchen, yells to get off to bed, Burke complies lickitysplit, but JB...no, she argues and stands defient. PR losses it, drags her child up the stairs to her room by her collar, maybe there is a struggle causing further tightening and dragging by the collar, at some point there is the hit over the head with the flashlight. If it was dark in the kitchen, PR could have forgotten all about the kitchen table, JR may not have known about it and may have done the sexual staging to hide his abuse which may not have been known by PR. Is this a valid possibility or am I missing something??

I think it's possible,I even think it's possible PR hit her on the head with the FL,in the kitchen,if she wasn't cooperating with going to bed on time.

 

[JMO8778]

Now that's nauseating! Thinking she could pass herself off as another Jackie Kennedy! Jackie was born into privelege, was brought up with impecable manners and grace. Jackie loved everything French and so did Patsy. I remember Patsy wanting to name JonBenet "Caroline". If JAR didn't already have Johns name, Burke would have been named "John". John-John and Caroline Ramsey...

This is what Patsy writes in DOI...

At that moment a picture of Jackie Kennedy abruptly flashed across my mind. I remembered seeing her wearing a black veil, walking hand in hand with her two children to JFK's grave site. Now I could see why people wore veils at such times: the filmy material surrounds you like a cocoon, overshadowing your face and closing out the world.

HUH??? Listen up Patsy....Jackie Kennedy wore that "black veil" because she was ummmm CATHOLIC!

great post,all of it !! I read that, but hadn't thought about the Caroline name..good point.How old would Patsy have been when Kennedy was killed?(it was bf I was born and I don't recall from history the yr rightoffhand).It must have influenced her at the time,the amount of attention Jackie got.And then she went on to get public attention thru the pageants,and then thru JB.
Remember she also wrote she knelt by the casket,just like JK did..but she was delirious and didn't recall it.UHH...I BET ! I think she planned it that way,just as she did w/ the Lazarus line when JB was 'found'.She was a wannabe actress and JK underneath it all.

 

[JMO8778]

But the door wouldn't have actually been open or ajar or unlocked. Nobody could have proven otherwise if John had said he found a door unlocked or not completely latched.

They also don't have to worry about them checking for evidence at that door because there would be none. Just like there is no intruder evidence in JonBenet's room, the kitchen, the basement, or on her body. They never staged the evidence of an intruder, they staged the acts that they thought an intruder would do. Why would an intruder climb out a basement window when he could just walk out one of the doors. Why wasn't that staged?

there was something about a butler door being found open,but I suspect was done by JR or Fernie bf police arrived.I suspect Fernie was already there,as FW said he was there bf they got there,and I think he's the one telling the truth.
But esp. since JR insists on the window intruder theory,I think he knows how that door got open and is afraid that might could be proven.

 

[JMO8778]

...again, yes and no. If JR said, "I found this door unlocked," then it would have to be unlocked when the police examined it. What possible reason could he give for locking it again, once he'd found it unlocked?

And then we have forensic evidence: the police can tell if the door was unlocked using a key or not, for example. They would expect there to be some signs that someone had inserted a key from outside. If all the latent prints on the doors were R prints, and there was no sign that any of them had been disturbed, that's another bit of evidence.

Or to put it another way: the "intruder," even if he had a key, would have either a) left prints of his own, or b) smudged prints the R's had left during normal use of the door (say, if he were wearing gloves). There would possibly have been either prints or smudges around the lock, and there would definitely have been either prints or smudges around the doorknob, which the intruder would have to have turned in order to enter.

So you see, the very fact that there would be NO evidence of an intruder is, in fact, evidence: evidence that there wasn't one!

Same goes for the intruder's exit point: even wearing gloves, the intruder would have blurred the existing prints on the interior doorknob when he opened the door. Even if the police bought the idea that someone who had a key managed to enter without disturbing evidence on the door, I think there'd be some suspicion over the lack of evidence of either entry or exit.

I think JR was smart enough to know that when you start trying to stage 'evidence' of an intruder, you open the door (no pun intended) to lots of awkward questions. And the Routier case must have been 'out there' by then; I remember it distinctly myself, and yet I'd forgotten how close in time to the Ramsey case it happened.

JR pushes the window theory,but he also talked about the butler door being found open,as well as there being many keys given out to others.I think he left the door 'open',so to speak,for many possible entrances and exits,the same way they did with the RN pointing to more than one person(PR saying the housekeeper,JR pointing out former AG employees).

 

[UKGuy]

The bowl, glass, tea bag play a very important role, IMO, in one nagging scenario I've had. I don't think PR would rage over a toilet issue, but, definitely would rage over a bratty child not doing what she was told, especially considering PR's physical state that night. What if she thought they were tucked in for the night, maybe after telling them NO to snacking before bed. She heads to pack, the kids sneak off to the kitchen anyway, maybe in the dark, and fix the tea, pineapple (maybe the bowl was already there and was used again). PR decides to wake JB to go potty before retiring herself, only to find she is not in bed. PR finds them in the kitchen, yells to get off to bed, Burke complies lickitysplit, but JB...no, she argues and stands defient. PR losses it, drags her child up the stairs to her room by her collar, maybe there is a struggle causing further tightening and dragging by the collar, at some point there is the hit over the head with the flashlight. If it was dark in the kitchen, PR could have forgotten all about the kitchen table, JR may not have known about it and may have done the sexual staging to hide his abuse which may not have been known by PR. Is this a valid possibility or am I missing something??

1SweetNov,
It is a valid possibility, so you should then compare it with the forensic evidence and witness statements.

If you are correct then Burke is fully aware why JonBenet was killed and who did it.

But if Patsy is unlikely to kill JonBenet over a toilet issue, with which I agree, since if you feed your daughter pineapple prior to bedtime, and you know she wets the bed, what is there to be angry about, so then why should any other domestic incident compel Patsy to kill JonBenet?

JR may not have known about it and may have done the sexual staging to hide his abuse which may not have been known by PR.

If nobody knows JR has been abusing JonBenet then he need not do anything, absolutely nothing, he need only allege JonBenet's killer molested her, and must be responsible for any chronic abuse?

In his book Steve Thomas speculates that JonBenet's vaginal injuries may have been caused by corporal punishment, as a theory he states it is inconclusive. This is because there is no evidence to support this view, and a mountain of evidence and expert opinion suggesting alternate theories, and in his book he neglects to expand fully upon an incest theory, even although Ramsey residences were searched under warrant for child *advertiser censored* with the results and reasons redacted. So his operational decisions tell you what was suspected, and he never gave an account of this in his book. So the Corporal Punishment theory imo is alike the Toilet Rage theory e.g. placed in the book to avoid giving any leads away?

The same logic applies to Patsy as John, if Patsy had been applying corporal punishment to JonBenet, and she is now dead who will speak for JonBenet, Patsy can just blame her vaginal injuries on her abductor?

We know JonBenet was alive and walking about when John and Patsy state she was lying in bed, Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints are on some of the utensils found along with the pineapple remnants, shortly after this point in time someone killed JonBenet.

So all three surviving residents are implicated since either their statements conflict with the forensic evidence or they are linked to the crime-scene by the evidence.

That is John did not make up some narrative of events to assist Patsy the following morning, having been ignorant of prior events, similarly Patsy and Burke.

It appears the primary cause of death was asphyxiation, that is both manual and ligature, with the head injury either to act as staging or to finish JonBenet off.

e.g.

CLINICOPATHLOGIC CORRELATION: Cause of death of this six year old
female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral
trauma.

The association of craniocerebral trauma imo refers to the lack of oxygen in her brain, caused by the head bash, which is a form of hypoxia, or oxygen depletion. But note Coroner Meyer's stress is on asphyxia by strangulation, not asphyxia by craniocerebral trauma , since its perfectly possible for a head injury alone to cause asphyxia.

So I reckon JonBenet was strangled first then whacked on the head for whatever reason.

JonBenet may have been strangled as an attempt to silence her during a sexual assault, which then led to her death and subsequent cover up?


.

 

[JMO8778]

UK,CK here says there was very good reason to suspect the corporal cleaning issue is correct,as it was a great concern among those close to PR,and I don't have any reason to doubt her.I think that's why ST thought it was correct as well..he talked to them and found out about it,obviously.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm Catholic, but I don't recall anything about wearing the veil at funerals. At that time, all women needed to cover their heads (with either a hat, scarf, or veil ) in church, but nowadays that isn't done.
I remember PR saying she was choosing among clothes that had been sent by a local shop (Hmmm- why did she need to do this when Pam supposedly went to the house for the purpose of getting them clothes for the funeral) and the picture of Jackie Kennedy popped into her mind. So glad she found it in her to be fashion concious at such a horrible time. I'd be so dazed I'd show up in my bathrobe if it was MY child's funeral...
PR fancied herself and her husband a future Jack and Jackie--right down to the pathetic run for public office.

 

[JMO8778]

I agree,and she even married someone named John !

As far as the run for office,I have to wonder if he's trying to set himself up for that again.

 

[Dru]

JR pushes the window theory,but he also talked about the butler door being found open,as well as there being many keys given out to others.I think he left the door 'open',so to speak,for many possible entrances and exits,the same way they did with the RN pointing to more than one person(PR saying the housekeeper,JR pointing out former AG employees).

JMO8778, exactly!

In other words, JR is too smart to come up with one point of entry for the intruder and try to 'stage' an entry. If he points to one specific door, then the lack of either prints or the blurring of the R's own prints will focus police attention on the family even more than it already is.

But if he's vague, if he says the window was open, but might have been open earlier, if he says the pantry door was unlocked, but gee, Officer, I never checked the doors and windows in my terribly expensive home to make sure they were locked before I went to bed, so any of them might have been open, and we never use our alarm, and we had lots of contractors and people who might have keys, etc. etc., then it becomes difficult to trap him in just one lie.

Say the police prove that the pantry door wasn't the point of entry. Well, then there's the window (and Smit obligingly creates a ridiculously farfetched theory based on that tiny window). Even if the window had been ruled out, what about all those keys floating around out there (and I'm sorry, I know I'm just plain folk, but how many people here let contractors make copies of their keys when they're hired to do remodeling???). In other words, JR knows that by creating all this confusion, all this misdirection, the likelihood of the police being able to determine conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was no intruder slips farther and farther away.

In fact, the police couldn't prove it. They couldn't track all those vague, phantom, miscellaneous keys; they couldn't rule out the unlocked door, they couldn't rule out the broken window. Which means that even though they may have been morally certain this was an inside job, they knew that even an average defense attorney would rip them to shreds using all of that to create reasonable doubt in the mind of a jury.

And the Ramsey defense team is far from average.

It strikes me as I write this that this is one of the main reasons why I think JR did it. Everything about this crime is misdirection. Everything says, look away, look over there, no, wait, look over there.

Look at my disgruntled employees. Look at the ransom note. Look at the staging of the body, the complex staging within staging. Look at the crime scene. Look at the door, the window, the missing keys. Look at this friend or this acquaintance.

Look, it's a kidnapping. No, wait, look, it's not.

Look away, look away, look away.

The psychology is all wrong for PR, who throughout her life always shouted, "Look at ME!"

In the end, I think, even JR said, "Look at her." How many times does he get "indignant" about all the things that are being said about PR? And doesn't his very indignation have as its result the fact that we look away from him yet again, and look at PR? And doesn't he know that it will?

So long as the end result is that we are looking away from him, I think it doesn't matter how much PR, or almost anyone else, is suspected!

Almost anyone else. He sues over the allegations made against BR.

Why?

What is there that, if people look too closely at BR, they will see about JR? Does he think BR, no matter how slight the possibility, knew or remembered something about that night or the next morning that under the right stimulus might come out into the open?

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778, exactly!

In other words, JR is too smart to come up with one point of entry for the intruder and try to 'stage' an entry. If he points to one specific door, then the lack of either prints or the blurring of the R's own prints will focus police attention on the family even more than it already is.

But if he's vague, if he says the window was open, but might have been open earlier, if he says the pantry door was unlocked, but gee, Officer, I never checked the doors and windows in my terribly expensive home to make sure they were locked before I went to bed, so any of them might have been open, and we never use our alarm, and we had lots of contractors and people who might have keys, etc. etc., then it becomes difficult to trap him in just one lie.

Say the police prove that the pantry door wasn't the point of entry. Well, then there's the window (and Smit obligingly creates a ridiculously farfetched theory based on that tiny window). Even if the window had been ruled out, what about all those keys floating around out there (and I'm sorry, I know I'm just plain folk, but how many people here let contractors make copies of their keys when they're hired to do remodeling???). In other words, JR knows that by creating all this confusion, all this misdirection, the likelihood of the police being able to determine conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was no intruder slips farther and farther away.

right on,and that Smit is a piece of work..he has to know something is amiss..no wonder he said he didn't want to be associated w the case anymore.
I don't know if he's that naive or what..maybe he is.
I recall something about Smit suggesting,throwing out the idea basically,about the WC being recently swept.I think his Ramsey talks always went something like this:

JR: well,Lou,what you got for me today?Any new intruder ideas??

Smit: I was thinking about the wine cellar..it had been swept recently,right,correct,yes???!!! And so any footprints there would be recent,right??I'm right,aren't I??Couldn't belong to anyone but the intruder himself.Correct??Right?

JR: ohhh,yeaaa...right Lou.It had been swept.Right.I swept it myself.I remember doing just that...I forgot about that until you mentioned it.I did sweep it.

..and so on and so forth...Smit guides him,I think.

In fact, the police couldn't prove it. They couldn't track all those vague, phantom, miscellaneous keys; they couldn't rule out the unlocked door, they couldn't rule out the broken window. Which means that even though they may have been morally certain this was an inside job, they knew that even an average defense attorney would rip them to shreds using all of that to create reasonable doubt in the mind of a jury.

And the Ramsey defense team is far from average.

It strikes me as I write this that this is one of the main reasons why I think JR did it. Everything about this crime is misdirection. Everything says, look away, look over there, no, wait, look over there.

Look at my disgruntled employees. Look at the ransom note. Look at the staging of the body, the complex staging within staging. Look at the crime scene. Look at the door, the window, the missing keys. Look at this friend or this acquaintance.

Look, it's a kidnapping. No, wait, look, it's not.

Look away, look away, look away.

it's enough to make your head spin worse than the Exorcist,and JR knows it !

The psychology is all wrong for PR, who throughout her life always shouted, "Look at ME!"

In the end, I think, even JR said, "Look at her." How many times does he get "indignant" about all the things that are being said about PR? And doesn't his very indignation have as its result the fact that we look away from him yet again, and look at PR? And doesn't he know that it will?

So long as the end result is that we are looking away from him, I think it doesn't matter how much PR, or almost anyone else, is suspected!

I think that's why Thomas gave JR such a pass..he thought PR was good for it,and by letting JR off the hook,that then gives him room to point the finger at her.I wouldn't be surprised if someday he does just that,if his reputation doesn't take a turn for the better.

Almost anyone else. He sues over the allegations made against BR.

Why?

What is there that, if people look too closely at BR, they will see about JR? Does he think BR, no matter how slight the possibility, knew or remembered something about that night or the next morning that under the right stimulus might come out into the open?

I think it's b/c,in DOI,JR talks about having a grandbaby,and wanting to clear his 'good name' bf the baby is born.(the Ramsey name,not just his,I beleive is what he meant).
SO I think Burke represents he himself for the future,and that's what he wants to pass on to the world in his memory...his spotless image son with the Ramsey name.IOW,I think he lives through his family as well,as least as far as what he would like to pass on.

 

[UKGuy]

UK,CK here says there was very good reason to suspect the corporal cleaning issue is correct,as it was a great concern among those close to PR,and I don't have any reason to doubt her.I think that's why ST thought it was correct as well..he talked to them and found out about it,obviously.

JMO8778,
What CK states is simply CK's personal opinion, and there is no purpose served by elevating this theory above all the other competing theories.

Steve Thomas himself tells you in his book that he has no supporting evidence, and that as a theory it is best described as inconclusive, incidentally I note you describe Steve Thomas' theory as the corporal cleaning issue as distinct from the phrase he used e.g corporal punishment, so not only is this corporal cleaning theory a corruption of his original phrase, it also rests on personal opinion with no further evidence offered!

Lou Smit once held the personal opinion that an intruder killed JonBenet, and he even offered forensic evidence, this theory was subsequently demonstrated to be false.

I think that's why ST thought it was correct as well..he talked to them and found out about it,obviously.

Its not obvious at all, its speculation on your part, you have a personal theory that you consider seems to fit the facts and points the finger at Patsy, it is simply a variation on the PDI, most of the PDI theories are based on other peoples opinions of Patsy and what constitutes a good mother.

So if it makes you feel good to draw the inference that bad mothering implies killer, so therefore Patsy killed JonBenet then carry right on, but ad hominem attacks on Patsy's maternal behaviour do not prove homicide.

Steve Thomas would have been wary of making his working theory public via a medium such as a book, never mind any legal considerations wrt his employers BPD.


.

 

[UKGuy]

What is there that, if people look too closely at BR, they will see about JR? Does he think BR, no matter how slight the possibility, knew or remembered something about that night or the next morning that under the right stimulus might come out into the open?

Dru,
imo Burke is a material witness and needs to be shielded from legal scrutiny, he colluded with his parents in their version of events that night, which the pineapple snack demonstrates to be inconsistent.

If John had got his way JonBenet would have been dumped outdoors, Patsy probably vetoed this, there is very little evidence pointing at John and for a good reason.

John was the millionaire who awoke from a xmas slumber to discover not only that his daughter was dead, but that someone, under his nose, had been chronically molesting JonBenet, naturally not wishing to have his name disgraced he hired a slew of attorneys to protect his reputation, or did he?

It may be that if Burke is looked at too closely then people may find something not entirely unexpected about John, why because its a simple consequence of Steve Thomas' original working theory.


.

 

[Albert18]

...And the Ramsey defense team is far from average.

It strikes me as I write this that this is one of the main reasons why I think JR did it. Everything about this crime is misdirection. Everything says, look away, look over there, no, wait, look over there.

Look at my disgruntled employees. Look at the ransom note. Look at the staging of the body, the complex staging within staging. Look at the crime scene. Look at the door, the window, the missing keys. Look at this friend or this acquaintance.

Look, it's a kidnapping. No, wait, look, it's not.

Look away, look away, look away.

The psychology is all wrong for PR, who throughout her life always shouted, "Look at ME!"

In the end, I think, even JR said, "Look at her." How many times does he get "indignant" about all the things that are being said about PR? And doesn't his very indignation have as its result the fact that we look away from him yet again, and look at PR? And doesn't he know that it will?...

Patsy already told us John didn't do it. Remember when Patsy agreed the person who wrote the ransom note killed JonBenet. And that person confided in somebody else. Doesn't that give us Patsy as the central figure and John being the person she confided in.

I agree with you 100% that John created confusion and misdirection. I have said before that what he did after the sun rose on the 26th was brilliant. The staging of the crime scene wasn't brilliant. I think you are talking about two separate people.

In the Vanity Fair article referenced in another thread there is this quote, "Even Barbara Fernie, according to friends, began to have doubts. For months, she and Patsy had been inseparable - shopping, lunching, chatting on the phone. By early spring, Fernie began telling people, "I am the one grieving. Something is wrong with Patsy.""

Patsy isn't a monster, if somebody else had removed JonBenet from her life wouldn't she be a typical grieving mother. But Patsy wasn't a typical grieving mother and the only way I think that happens is if she is the one who removed JonBenet.

 

[Veronica10]

Veronica, your posts hit home for me. I had a friend whose 8-year-old daughter was raped and strangled by the neighborhood "odd guy". He'd seemed harmless, just a little weird...helped the mom change a flat tire the day before. (while the little girl looked on) so that's how he "befriended" her.
After it was over (and he had been convicted) she still hadn't cleaned out her little girl's hamper. The clothes still smelled like her and she couldn't bear to part with them.
NO innocent parent leaves their dead child's body in the home alone.
And remember they sent Aunt P to retrieve (i.e.confiscate evidence) from the home. Any other mother would have done just as you said- combed the house for any clue, taken precious mementos, clothes, any little thing. Of course, daddy DID get his golf clubs. After all, they had been generously given access to an active crime scene. But then it really wasn't active at all, was it?
Torch the home? You bet! Get rid of every last trace of evidence. I often wish forensic investigators could get back into that house now. With today's methods, maybe a blood splatter or other evidence would emerge from the walls/floors...anything. I know that subsequent owners walled up that room, took out the door. But a 2 foot thick steel wall couldn't keep out the evil in that room.
I wonder sometimes if JBR looks down on her family now with pity, anger, or if she just laughs from heaven at the ridiculousness of it all.

Right on DeeDee!!!
You mentioned how JonBenet would look down on her family (with sadness, anger, etc). Through all this injustice, betrayal, the lies, the deception, I'm sure little JonBenet probably just missed her parents and her family. She probably just wanted to be taken care of and loved like all kids do.

 

[Ames]

JMO8778,
What CK states is simply CK's personal opinion, and there is no purpose served by elevating this theory above all the other competing theories.

Steve Thomas himself tells you in his book that he has no supporting evidence, and that as a theory it is best described as inconclusive, incidentally I note you describe Steve Thomas' theory as the corporal cleaning issue as distinct from the phrase he used e.g corporal punishment, so not only is this corporal cleaning theory a corruption of his original phrase, it also rests on personal opinion with no further evidence offered!

Lou Smit once held the personal opinion that an intruder killed JonBenet, and he even offered forensic evidence, this theory was subsequently demonstrated to be false.


Its not obvious at all, its speculation on your part, you have a personal theory that you consider seems to fit the facts and points the finger at Patsy, it is simply a variation on the PDI, most of the PDI theories are based on other peoples opinions of Patsy and what constitutes a good mother.

So if it makes you feel good to draw the inference that bad mothering implies killer, so therefore Patsy killed JonBenet then carry right on, but ad hominem attacks on Patsy's maternal behaviour do not prove homicide.

Steve Thomas would have been wary of making his working theory public via a medium such as a book, never mind any legal considerations wrt his employers BPD.


.

That's where you are wrong. CK lives in Boulder...and knows some of the same people that the Ramseys knew. CK pm'd me with the name of a woman that knew about the douching firsthand. She knows more than your average poster...because she lives there.

 

[coloradokares]

That's where you are wrong. CK lives in Boulder...and knows some of the same people that the Ramseys knew. CK pm'd me with the name of a woman that knew about the douching firsthand. She knows more than your average poster...because she lives there.

I know a investigative reporter and a few who in one way or other knew those who kwew the Ramseys in one way or another,admittedly including a neighbor who still believes they could not have done this. However in time even some who staunchly supported the Ramseys came to have doubts. Largely due to the way stories did not add up and also the way their support earned them being cast as suspects themseves. Mostly it was the overwhelming evidence came back to only the Ramsey door every time. Yes its only an an opinion. Same as many of the LE had. There is still total shock and disbelief they were not tried . Alex Hunter is to thank !! JMHO

 

[coloradokares]

I know a investigative reporter and a few who in one way or other knew those who kwew the Ramseys in one way or another,admittedly including a neighbor who still believes they could not have done this. However in time even some who staunchly supported the Ramseys came to have doubts. Largely due to the way stories did not add up and also the way their support earned them being cast as suspects themseves. Mostly it was the overwhelming evidence came back to only the Ramsey door every time. Yes its only an an opinion. Same as many of the LE had. There is still total shock and disbelief they were not tried . Alex Hunter is to thank !! JMHO

Which is all we wanted was a trial where all evidence could be seen by a jury of peers. Only then can Jon Benet have justice I apologize stroke makes it haed to be more commplete. Its most difficult to type.

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't want to get too esoteric here, but depending on religious beliefs (or lack thereof), there is danger of imagining a still-6-year-old JBR on "the other side", missing her family. She is not. She is the pure energy of a good soul, evolved as any adult would be. She is with like pure energies. And I would bet not sorry to leave this miserable plane of existance for a higher level. She knows what happened and sees the lessons she learned and the lessons those she left behind must still go through. And I would almost certainly be sure that her mother has gone to a very different place. I don't believe in hell per se, but there are lower levels of existance where souls who really screwed up down here need to stay awhile till they come to the realization, all on their own, why they are there and what they need to do should they choose to return here again. This world, for all it's beauty and wonder, is the real hell, and happy are the souls who live here with love and leave it a better place for their time here.

 

[UKGuy]

That's where you are wrong. CK lives in Boulder...and knows some of the same people that the Ramseys knew. CK pm'd me with the name of a woman that knew about the douching firsthand. She knows more than your average poster...because she lives there.

Ames,

So its hearsay evidence at best and street gossip at worst, not really a sound foundation for the basis of a theory to explain the death of a 6-year old child.