Ivy
Inactive
If I were trying to cover up the fact that my son inadvertently killed my daughter, I would do exactly as the Ramseys did, except for throwing innocent people under the bus and filing lawsuits in his behalf.
imo
imo
I believe the Ramseys are innocent.
- Thread starter newtv
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #192
- Latest: Willow Knight
-
-
Ivy said:
If what Steve Thomas said was true. Then why not arrest the Ramseys after he went broke and lost his job along with all that clout, looks like blood in the water to me, he has no influence anymore. And according to the sleuths here Patsy is on the batty side, sounds like easy pickings to me. So what is the wait?? Murder is murder is it not??
____________________________________________________
”He who angers you, controls you!” (Unknown author)
IMO
Ivy said:
Are you saying that you believe that the son killed his sister, and can you say for certain that you would do what the Ramseys did except for the throwing the people under the bus. If that were true then I would say that you had a plan. Strange huh a plan, and it did not even happen yet, God forbid.
____________________________________________________
”He who angers you, controls you!” (Unknown author)
IMO
Britt
New Member
Huh?ICU said:
The problem is the Boulder DA's Office, then and now and probably forever.
Ivy, thanks for posting that.
Jayelles
New Member
ICU said:
I will say that although I was unable to remember my address when making a 999 call, I CAN remember every single detail about that event in glorious technicolour. I remember standing on the deck drinking a cup of tea and admiring the view of the loch on that glorious sunny day. I remember an annoying wasp hovering about and reflecting upon an article I'd read in a tv magazine when my son's screams broke into my thoughts. I knew immediately that something was horribly wrong and my heart jumped to my throat as I ran through the house and out the back door to meet my son and hear what he was shouting.
Also, twice when I have lost a loved one - suddenly and in tragic circumstances, every detail has stood out in my mind. What I was wearing, the expressions on other people's faces, remarks and conversations - even moments of unexpected laughter amid the tragedy. These two deaths took place 24 years ago and 18 years ago. I recall precisely every item of clothing that I wore as though it were yesterday. It is as though my senses were heightened and had captured it all. The memories have not faded at all over the years. I would make an excellent and reliable witness to the details surrounding them if I were called tomorrow. Yet at the time, I couldn't recall a phone number that I dialled every day of my life.
I find it odd that patsy ramsey sent for the black jeans she was wearing on the day of horror because they were comfortable and she wanted to wear them again. I know from my own experiences of tragedy that I forever more associated the clothes I was wearing with the tragedy and couldn't wear them again.
Britt
New Member
Perhaps... in which case I doubt very much I'd go on CNN the day after my child's funeral (or any other time for that matter), introduce myself to the world and call attention to myself in the same breath as Susan Smith and OJ Simpson... lol.ICU said:
As for protecting myself from the police, that's what my top-of-the-line attorneys are for. I'd trust them to earn the big bucks I pay them and protect my rights while I went to the police station and did everything I could to help with the investigation. If my attorneys couldn't handle that, I'd hire some who could.
I don't consider Haddon and Morgan to be "no protection" and with that caliber of representation I wouldn't consider myself to be a "sitting duck." If the Ramseys felt that way, perhaps they should've hired different counsel.
Barbara
New Member
ICU said:
It is convenient always to say that "nobody can say for sure what they would do in their situation", blah, blah, and in many ways that is true.
I don't speak for anyone but myself, but if it were MY child murdered, and I didn't do it, not only would I run to the media and police, but I would welcome the attention with open arms. That is a FACT! The more publicity, the better to solve any case. Yes, of course the police will suspect the parents first. That's the way it should be. Always work from the inside out.
While many would cite the cases of parents being falsely arrested when they were innocent, the ratio of those parents to the parents who are NOT arrested when a child is murdered is quite minute. There are many sitting ducks out there who were NOT arrested......AND without lawyers and TV appearances.
I can tell you as FACT that the vast majority of those on these forums WOULD NOT LEAVE THE STATE. Yes, they wanted to bury JonBenet in Atlanta and there is no problem. You can do that AND COME BACK to help find the murderer of your child. They chose instead to remain there and then complain that the police did not call THEM except for an interview that they would not grant unless they're conditions were met.
The VanDams are the perfect example of what parents do. They don't get lawyers within hours and they tell the truth, no matter what scorn and shame they will bring on themselves because the important thing to them was Danielle!
GOOD PARENTS WHO ARE NOT GUILTY AND HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, DON'T HIDE!
Britt
New Member
Right on, Barbara. :clap:Barbara said:
I was selected for Jury Duty last summer and it was a murder case, a guy sent a package to a woman he was stalking, and left it on her door steps, when she opened it, the package exploded, killing her. I said that he had to prove his innocence because the prosecutor was trying to prove him guilty. The judge told me that in a court of law the person was presumed innocent until proven guilty. I argued with him that if he were innocent until proven guilty, why was he already in jail if he were innocent, He simply replied that is the system. I know that it sounded rather simple but just telling the judge that you believe he had to prove his innocence, not that you believed he was guilty or not, will not get you on the jury. So I guess that the Ramseys according to the courts of the land are presumed innocent and they do not have to prove their innocents. And are presumed innocent until proven guilty. And to this day, they have not been proven guilty. No matter what anyone says. So if you are not proven guilty, and it takes a jury to decide, who are we to judge? All the information on this site seems to be a witch hunt all one sided, trying to prove guilt, and if you say that you believe that they are innocent. The hawks come to get ya.
____________________________________________________
”He who angers you, controls you!” (Unknown author)
IMO
____________________________________________________
”He who angers you, controls you!” (Unknown author)
IMO
Jayelles said:
I am sorry to hear of the tragedy in your life. You sound like a person whom is quiet and meticulous. You handle situations with logic and calmness. Are you saying that everyone should behave as you did, and remember what you did? Are all people carbon copies of each other? And if they don’t behave in the manor or remember details as you did. Should they be presumed guilty? I hope you are not suggesting that you are a template for all people. Patsy wanted those black jeans, it may have been comfortable, so what?
____________________________________________________
”He who angers you, controls you!” (Unknown author)
IMO
Barbara said:
Wow I was almost in tears Barbara that was beautiful. Do you suppose that the people behind bars because of a DNA screw ups, or some detective did not want to follow up on a piece of evidence. Or maybe the detective just did not believe their story and felt that they were guilty, believe what you just wrote? I hope you can sing that song if and when ever it should happen to you, and I hope that it never does, because I would miss you on this site.
____________________________________________________
”He who angers you, controls you!” (Unknown author)
IMO
Britt
New Member
Don't be silly. I didn't applaud for your posts, did I?ICU said:
And it's not because I don't appreciate the highminded rhetoric. I just don't see it as a substitute for facts, evidence, observation and common sense.Britt
New Member
That's very dramatic, but maybe it would help if Ramsey-defenders actually defended them. That is, defend them with something more than meaningless emotional generalizations. Calling an entire forum a "witch hunt" is simply an effort to silence people who are suspicious of the Ramseys. Instead of telling Ramsey-critics to shut up, why don't their defenders work with the evidence... facts... logic... theories... make a case for Ramsey innocence. Of course, this isn't a court and we don't have to presume anything about anyone nor make a case for anyone and no one need prove anything. It just seems to me it would be a lot more effective way to defend the Ramseys.ICU said:
See Vicktor's posts for an example. IMO he/she usually does a very good job of defending the Ramseys, discussing evidence, analyzing theories logically, without resorting to silly ridicule or pointless rhetoric. Hey, that's practically an applause for Vicktor, eh?
Ivy
Inactive
How profound, ICU. :crazy: I guess you haven't figured out that Websleuths is an opinion forum, not one of the "courts of the land" you refer to. Furthermore, WS is an opinion forum that is anything BUT one-sided, unlike Jameson's double B forum where only intruder theorists are welcome. I suggest that if you find being here at the real WS uncomfortable, you get your 50 bucks ready to hand over, and hop on over to Jameson's fake, double B forum, where you can join your IDI clones and us "hawks" can't come to get ya.
imo
newtv
New Member
I am with you ICU- as much as there is credible opinions about their guilt none of us has access to the actual evidence and not even a grand jury could endite (which is unusual), we are not privy to what they were told and they are the closest thing to a jury the case has seen..The pundits will all say that if the prosecution wants an inditement they will get it-or, they say a grand jury would endite a ham sandwich..and a lot of people have looked at the ramseys for a long time and they cannot find a case against them..the detective who's wife just died is a good man and he does not believe they did it-I listened to his whole theory on this case and it made sense to me..if i were the ramseys and innocent, I would be suing people too- there is only so much u can put up with as innocent people..and there is as much chance that they are as they are not..(and it appears to be more than that since no charges have ever been layed..)
So, I would want to be given the innocent until proven guilty route as well- and there is no reason for them to hide in obscurity-if John thinks he has something to offer the government so be it ..and there is just no reason they should be quiet wall flowers ashamed to come out of the house-
If they are not responsible for the death then they have been tormented
beyond the pale..now if they did do this, they will pay the ultimate price as there is a higher justice upon death..but I really dont think they are..
I read everything said here and I see some very challenging thoughts about their guilt..and I still come back to the fact that we all know how to spin things to create a theory-and the police do too..(doesnt mean there theories are inaccurrate either), but if we look at the facts long enough we can direct our attention to anything we want to- and I just wont go for their throats on this..and if I am wrong I will be the first to condemn them..though I have no idea how that will ever be known..
I will say that the comments here have challenged my thinking and sometimes its hard to really know- but I also have never seen the actual reports and so on-the one thing i find disturbing about the ransom note (if true)..is the so called common phrases used in it and a christmas card..but then, if the intruder knew them its possible he had a christmas card from them or saw one there..(again, I dont know this), but thats a curious thing and I think that kind of thing within a context could persuade a jury of their guilt..but the fact that she couldnt be eliminated completely as the writer of the note isnt enough by itself..because many of us would not be eliminated either- if we had any similar writing style..I know for a fact I could never alter mine enough to fool anyone- I dont think its that easy and its just not enough to say she wrote it and that she would kill her own child because she wet the bed- a cancer patient is incontinent themselves and they would not care about a wet bed when they have been staring deaths door down..It does not add up- so it must be this way to the grand jury too- it doesnt add up - so no prosecution..so NOT GUILTY till a jury of their peers find them so- based on facts.
However as we know- on the forum the hwole point is to give your opinion so its alright to have differing ones as Ivy says..thx
So, I would want to be given the innocent until proven guilty route as well- and there is no reason for them to hide in obscurity-if John thinks he has something to offer the government so be it ..and there is just no reason they should be quiet wall flowers ashamed to come out of the house-
If they are not responsible for the death then they have been tormented
beyond the pale..now if they did do this, they will pay the ultimate price as there is a higher justice upon death..but I really dont think they are..
I read everything said here and I see some very challenging thoughts about their guilt..and I still come back to the fact that we all know how to spin things to create a theory-and the police do too..(doesnt mean there theories are inaccurrate either), but if we look at the facts long enough we can direct our attention to anything we want to- and I just wont go for their throats on this..and if I am wrong I will be the first to condemn them..though I have no idea how that will ever be known..
I will say that the comments here have challenged my thinking and sometimes its hard to really know- but I also have never seen the actual reports and so on-the one thing i find disturbing about the ransom note (if true)..is the so called common phrases used in it and a christmas card..but then, if the intruder knew them its possible he had a christmas card from them or saw one there..(again, I dont know this), but thats a curious thing and I think that kind of thing within a context could persuade a jury of their guilt..but the fact that she couldnt be eliminated completely as the writer of the note isnt enough by itself..because many of us would not be eliminated either- if we had any similar writing style..I know for a fact I could never alter mine enough to fool anyone- I dont think its that easy and its just not enough to say she wrote it and that she would kill her own child because she wet the bed- a cancer patient is incontinent themselves and they would not care about a wet bed when they have been staring deaths door down..It does not add up- so it must be this way to the grand jury too- it doesnt add up - so no prosecution..so NOT GUILTY till a jury of their peers find them so- based on facts.
However as we know- on the forum the hwole point is to give your opinion so its alright to have differing ones as Ivy says..thx
newtv
New Member
What if they are innocent?? That's my concern??
Wouldn't you feel like you had participated in a really horrible thing..cuz a horrible thing happened to them- the loss of a child AND- they are forever blamed. (The Sam Sheppard case is similar really)..and we dont know if there
was NOT an intruder. I also think its preposterous to think Burke did it...The boulder LE or DA said he was not raised to the level of a suspect-many pick this a part - but I know that most legal papers are written exactly that way- ambiguous. They didnt invent that type of wording for Burke only- it could also be a way to say "We are wrong but do not want to say so. Because if we do, it might create undesirable consequences-so this is an ambiguous way to wiggle out of our responsibility"...It's just as likely that as anything.
Institutions, cover their butts too- it doesnt mean they are bad- it means that if something is erroneous and they cant admit it- they never quite go there..and this will be debated forever I am sure..
To consider them not guilty of the murder does not mean I do not care about the precious girl jon benet..its a horrible crime and as many it may go unsolved...that is tragic, but if her parents did not do it - she also weeps in heavan for the false accusations against parents she loved and who loved her..
Wouldn't you feel like you had participated in a really horrible thing..cuz a horrible thing happened to them- the loss of a child AND- they are forever blamed. (The Sam Sheppard case is similar really)..and we dont know if there
was NOT an intruder. I also think its preposterous to think Burke did it...The boulder LE or DA said he was not raised to the level of a suspect-many pick this a part - but I know that most legal papers are written exactly that way- ambiguous. They didnt invent that type of wording for Burke only- it could also be a way to say "We are wrong but do not want to say so. Because if we do, it might create undesirable consequences-so this is an ambiguous way to wiggle out of our responsibility"...It's just as likely that as anything.
Institutions, cover their butts too- it doesnt mean they are bad- it means that if something is erroneous and they cant admit it- they never quite go there..and this will be debated forever I am sure..
To consider them not guilty of the murder does not mean I do not care about the precious girl jon benet..its a horrible crime and as many it may go unsolved...that is tragic, but if her parents did not do it - she also weeps in heavan for the false accusations against parents she loved and who loved her..
vicktor
New Member
Excellent discussion of the case, Newtv. You bring a balanced and objective viewpoint to our discussion.
Britt
New Member
True, Newtv, and such institutional failings prevented justice in this case. Those who were supposed to bring about justice sabotaged it instead. In that Boulder venue of screwed-up justice, why would we believe that the outcome -- lack of prosecution of the Ramseys -- was the correct outcome?newtv said:
Ramsey defenders cite the non-indictment/prosecution as though it were evidence of innocence while at the same time denouncing Boulder law enforcement competence in this case. LE includes the DA's office, which controlled the grand jury.
So, which is it? Was the institution/LE competent or not? It is ludicrous and dishonest to claim selective competence for the benefit of the Ramseys.
Ivy
Inactive
Hi, newtv. There is more to indicate the Ramseys were involved in JonBenet's death than there is to indicate Scott Peterson killed Laci, so do you think the posters on the Laci forum, all of whom... well, except for a few... are convinced he killed her and clearly hate his guts and hope he's found guilty and sentenced to death, should back off and stop discussing him as the likely perp? Just thought I'd toss the question out there. No need to answer.
Have you read Lawrence Schiller's book about the JonBenet case, Perfect Murder, Perfect Town? If not, I highly recommend it. I also recommend the National Enquirer's Police Files. There are some real eye-openers in there.
The JonBenet case is complex, and there have always been fence-sitters here at WS who can't decide who they think killed JonBenet, along with posters from both sides of the fence. Because of all the different theories and points of view, this forum is a fascinating place, the best JonBenet forum on the web, I think. I hope you'll stick around.
imo
Have you read Lawrence Schiller's book about the JonBenet case, Perfect Murder, Perfect Town? If not, I highly recommend it. I also recommend the National Enquirer's Police Files. There are some real eye-openers in there.
The JonBenet case is complex, and there have always been fence-sitters here at WS who can't decide who they think killed JonBenet, along with posters from both sides of the fence. Because of all the different theories and points of view, this forum is a fascinating place, the best JonBenet forum on the web, I think. I hope you'll stick around.
imo