IDI'S answer me this.

[julianne]

How does some innocent fiber transfer occur from the shirt JR wore that night into the crotch of panties that the Ramsey's claim JBR took out of a sealed plastic package herself and put on herself?
The prior sexual abuse was noted by many experts.

Did the Ramsey's actually claim that JBR took the panties out of the package and put them on herself?? OR, did they state that they themselves didn't put them on her??

The prior sexual abuse was also refuted by many experts, was it not?

 

[tumble]

JB wandered downstairs for a snack of pineapple? So the intruder just sat in the kitchen on the off-chance that JB would wander downstairs in the middle of the night?

, it's these kind of questions I like. Shows clearly the sillyness of the whole intruder idea.

 

[leighl]

A lot of people on this post keep on saying over and over that there was no evidence of intruder DNA left on JonBenet or at the scene, but isn't it true that there was DNA found in the panties in the form of a droplet of blood, as well as degraded/untestable DNA on the inside of JonBenet's legs (and wasn't there the assumption by CSI's that it was semen)?

I understand this DNA was not identified or linked to anyone, but this does not discount the fact that foreign DNA not matching the Ramseys was found on JonBenet. Also, isn't it true that there was evidence that JonBenet was cleaned up afterwards, washed with a towel or something that left fuzz balls and fibers behind on her genitalia and inside her legs? It has been suggested that this cleaning came from the perpetrator in an attempt to wash away any evidence, or by someone who found the body afterwards, before the "discovery" by John with Fleet, in an attempt to give some dignity to JonBenet and get rid of any suggestion that she had been sexually violated.

I don't purport to know for certain whether an IDI or RDI, and I certainly don't know everything or even a fraction of all the information about this case. Just by reading through the various posts on this website I am humbled and in awe of the various members who have obviously devoted much time and attention to an in-depth study of this case in the search to find justice for JonBenet. However, no amount of study, attention, or "knowing all the facts" implies any sense of logic or proof in the practice of discounting/ignoring certain details just to support one's pet theory.

Yes, there is a lot to be said about the anecdotal evidence against the Ramseys, i.e., the way they reacted to JB's death, wanting to leave town, hiring a PR agent, not being cooperative with police interviews, etc. But different people react to tradgedy in different ways, this does not imply they are guilty of murder.

I think the place where IDI theorists come from and cannot see other possiblities is the point of view that if the Ramseys did it, then why haven't they been arrested, why haven't charges been layed? Yes, the Ramseys were in a better postion socially and financially than others, but so have a lot of other people throughout history and this has not prevented them from at least going to trial, e.g., OJ Simpson. Also a point dear to many IDIs is related to the idea that past behaviour is the best predictor of present/future behavior. That said, there is no history of physical/sexual abuse or violence by the Ramseys, not toward JonBenet, Burke, or any of the other Ramsey children. Yes, perhaps there are certain idiosyncracies that people do not agree with in their parenting and choices made regarding participation in pagentry, etc., but again there has never been any evidence that points to a history of violence or abuse by the Ramseys. On the otherhand, just because there was no history of abuse, this doesn't mean there could not have been a one time lashing out that resulted in JonBenet's death. I can understand why so much uncertaintly/controversy exists over whether RDI or IDI.

What we do know, whether we believe an IDI or RDI theory or we sit on the fence in between, is that a small town police office, with little experience in cases such as this, and with people on staff who probably didn't want to be involved the day after Christmas, handled the collection of evidence in a seriously contaminated crime scene with people repeatedly moving the body, draping clothing and a blanket over it, crying, hugging, rearranging and hanging over it, etc. Even at the "kidnapping stage" there were so many people coming and going, fixing snacks and trying to help by cleaning up, that we don't know for certain what evidence was contaminated, thrown out, or washed away. Take this together with reports of mishandling of evidence and rivalry within the police department/DA offices afterwards, its enough for anyone to at least consider that an IDI.

I keep hoping maybe something somewhere will eventually be discovered/linked to the murderer through the diligence of someone on websites such as this or through a special appointment for new investigation. There has to be something out there that will point the way to the truth.

 

[tumble]

A lot of people on this post keep on saying over and over that there was no evidence of intruder DNA left on JonBenet or at the scene, but isn't it true that there was DNA found in the panties in the form of a droplet of blood, as well as degraded/untestable DNA on the inside of JonBenet's legs (and wasn't there the assumption by CSI's that it was semen)?
.

In both cases no. The foreign DNA was found in a stain of blod from JBR. Much more degraded than the blod DNA it was found in.

No DNA was collected from her legs.

 

[BBB167893]

"I disagree. They had evidence on the Ramseys. And I truly believe if they were ordinary common people without so much clout, they would be in jail and thats where Patsy would have died."

Damn right!

"It may not prove guilt but it certainly implies your guilty. And the fiber were a big deal considering Patsy said she was never in the basement in those clothes. And her fibers intertwined in the garrote knot. Come on thats not something that just appears there."

No kidding.

"IMO, the problem was NOT that they didn't have enough to charge A Ramsey with the murder of JBR, but that they didn't know WHICH Ramsey did what. You cannot charge John Ramsey for murder if you aren't sure if it was him or Patsy that actualy killed JBR. And the same for Patsy."

You got it.

"To me, it's the opposite. That us RDIers look at the evidence and see where it points, whereas IDIers only look at the evidence as to how it can be explained away to point to anyone other than the Ramseys first, then an intruder second. "Yes, but..."

Yeah, I've noticed that myself.

"So you think the Ramsey's were so stupid to stage a crime scene which involved Patsy writing her own ransom note?"

Just how much criminal knowledge do you think the layperson has?

"You think the Ramsey's have been able to push some dark dirty secret under the rug for the past 10 YEARS?"

That's what the lawyers are for.

"The prior sexual abuse was also refuted by many experts, was it not?"

No, it wasn't.

"I think the place where IDI theorists come from and cannot see other possiblities is the point of view that if the Ramseys did it, then why haven't they been arrested, why haven't charges been layed?"

Glad to answer!

1) The DA's office. When this one got dropped on Hunter, he had things pretty good. Status quo for almost thirty years. No one rocks the boat. He spent his time plea-bargaining minor cases. He didn't want this. He was cruising toward an easy retirement. He set up a definition of beyond a reasonable doubt that NO ONE could meet! He gave the Ramseys SO MUCH evidence that the FBI was aghast and said he was a fool. He was BUSINESS partners with them! And he was weak. The police wanted to arrest the Ramseys, let them stew in jail for a while, and see which one cracked first. That is a STANDARD ploy in cases like this. He wouldn't do it. Too bad. He surrounded himself with people who were more like defense attorneys than prosecutors. Trip DeMuth, before ANY evidence was in, decided that the Ramseys couldn't do it. Why? Because he couldn't do it. That kind of thinking has NO PLACE in LE offices. I can forgive the average person for that kind of naivete, but he should KNOW better! One week before Karr's arrest, he said that just because a ten-month-old was dead with 28 fractures, it doesn't mean murder. I KID YOU NOT! This man openly mocked the police presentation of evidence at the FBI meeting. Trip has a thing about "witch hunts." He said the cops were on a witch hunt agianst the Ramseys, a witch hunt against the mother who beat that 10-month-old to death, and now he's afraid of a witch hunt against the DA. That sounds like a DEFENSE attorney talking, like he just stepped out of a Perry Mason episode. None of them had any real expertise with Grand Juries.

Have you read V's Fosterama? It shows that Hunter was undercutting his own WITNESSES! How much worse can you get?

When Keenan (now Lacy took over), it was worse. She had wanted to go after Santa Bill McReynolds from day one. She was biased in the favor of the Ramseys because of their status. She has so much as said so. Lacy is known as a radical feminist who lets her belief in women's innocence cloud her reason. She demonstrated that in the U of CO case. Duke before Duke! She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Number one, Haney was using standard techniques. Two, if you look at the tape, he's being perfectly calm! No threats, no intimidation. He's very calmly giving her a chance to explain the evidence. SHE'S the one cursing and jumping around and acting like she's got a scorpion in her panties! What was LACY watching?!
2) Money. Yeah, I know, "Oh, Dave, that's so cheap," but it's true. if this were a regular, blue-collar family like mine, they would be in prison this very day, right or wrong. This was a weak Da's office. No one really disputes that. They were used to handling indigent non-whites with public defenders, not a former Miss West Virginia whose husband is loaded and whose lawyer owns half the state! Who can hire their own experts! How many of us could do that?

COME ON, HOW MANY!?

That was a big part of it: John was able to hire an army of lawyers and PR people and PIs to keep him out of prison. You don't have to take my word for it. Robert Ressler, profiler extraordinaire, said the same. Heck, John Ramsey admitted that he hired them to keep him out of jail! When I was a kid, I was taught the Pledge of Allegiance. That part about justice for all should MEAN something. But there's one set of rules for the rich, one for the rest of us.
3) Specifics. When you have a case where there is evidence that points to both people, you as a prosecutor have to decide who did what. You HAVE to. You can't say "one did it, the other helped, you decide." Can't do that. They never could. One of them (Hofstrom I think) said "So what if she wrote the note? Doesn't mean she killed her daughter." Sad as it is to admit, he's RIGHT! It only proves she wrote the note.
4) The idea that a parent could do this rocks the comfort zone for too many people. Who wants to think that the Girl Scout Den Mother is a murderer? That's what did in the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury looked at the autopsy photos, and despite everything we know about murdering parents and despite all the evidence, they decided, based on NOTHING but emotion and naivete, that no parent could do this. You don't have to take my word for that. I can prove they did that.
Quote:
The pictures were so horrible that the jurors felt it was absolutely inconceivable that any mother on Earth could have been capable of doing such a thing to their own child.


But wait! Here is FBI agent Ron Walker, who was there that morning:
Quote:
Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children.


Is that good enough for anyone?

An arrest was never a question in this case.

Chief Beckner: "Arrest them."

FBI: "Arrest them."

Dream Team Lawyers: "Arrest them."

And on and on. But the DA wouldn't go for it. Do you like the show "Law & Order?" It my favorite. Those DAs work WITH the cops. "Find out this," or "find out that," or "bring me some evidence of this." None of that here.

Whew!

 

[PagingDrDetect]

Originally Posted by julianne
Did the Ramsey's actually claim that JBR took the panties out of the package and put them on herself?? OR, did they state that they themselves didn't put them on her??

Read the August, 2000 transcript of the interview with Patsy...

21 Q. Okay. What we are trying to
22 understand is whether -- we are trying to
23 understand why she is wearing such a large
24 pair of underpants. We are hoping you can
25 help us if you have a recollection of it.
0084
1 A. I am sure that I put the package
2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened
3 them and put them on.

Originally Posted by julianne
The prior sexual abuse was also refuted by many experts, was it not?

Not refuted, no. Two experts were not certain or unclear which is hardly the same thing as refuted...

ST - pg 253*

"In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation.
We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries

'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse'
'There was chronic abuse'. . .
'Past violation of the vagina'. . .
'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.'

In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."

Experts' Opinions of Prior Abuse Was Present

PMPT - pg 437

- Dr. Cyril Wecht*

- Dr. David Jones
Professor of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics
University of CO Health Sciences Center

- Dr. James Monteleone
Professor of Pediatrics
St. Louis University School of Medicine
Director of Child Protection
Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital

- Dr. John McCann**
Clincial Professor of Medicine
Dept of Pediatrics
Univeristy of California at Davis

- Dr. Richard Krugman
Dean of Colorado University Health Sciences Center

- Dr. Werner Spitz

- Dr. Ronald Wright
Former Medical Examiner
Cook County Illinois
~Stated flatly that it was clear the girl's vagina had been penetrated. ... He too took issue with Krugman's interpretation: "Somebody's injured her vagina. And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?" Wright asked.~


*Cyril Wecht was indignant with and openly critical of Dr. Krugman's statements:
"How can anybody say, with the blood and the abrasions, that this was not suxual assault? What is he [Krugman] talking about?"
PMPT pg 361

**http://news.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mccann.html
Among his achievements in the field of child abuse, McCann established the standards for what is considered normal and abnormal in child and adolescent examinations. He also developed the "multi-method" examination approach that is now used throughout the western world. His research in the healing of anal and genital injuries in children also is used by examiners to determine evidence of child abuse. His study on postmortem perianal findings in children and adolescents is standard reference in the field, and he has jointly published a cd-rom atlas, called "The Anatomy of Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse," that is used as a reference among examiners everywhere. Moreover, based on his research and reputation, McCann is invited to speak throughout the world, from India to Sweden to England before the British Royal Society of Medicine about the field of child abuse.

Abuse or Not Summary​

Precise summary of physicians' opinions on if there was prior abuse.

Seven physicians on whether or not there was prior sexual abuse of JonBenet.
All seven experts agreed there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse, although one appeared to be undecided.

Five of the medical doctors believed that prior sexual abuse had occurred:​

• Cyril Wecht
• David Jones
• James Monteleone
• John McCann
• Ronald Wright

Two of the medical doctors were unclear in their responses:

• Richard Krugman
• Werner Spitz

KRUGMAN
PMPT pb pg 467
"JonBenet was not a sexually abused child. I don't believe it's possible to tell whether any child is sexually abused on physical findings alone."
Krugman added that the presence of semen, evidence of a STD, or the child's medical history combined with the child's own testimony were the only ways to confirm sexual abuse.

What Krugman has described are general guidelines to identify sexual abuse in a child. Krugman has not denied physical evidence of past sexual abuse, and goes on to describe how to generally identify chronic sexual abuse in a child.

This statement caused Cyril Wecht to publicly criticize Krugman's report. Wecht said "What is Krugman talking about?"

SPITZ
PMPT pb pg 557 & 560
"The injury to JonBenet's vagina had happened either at or immediately prior to her death -- not earlier."

Spitz was referring to the acute injury to the vagina; that which had occurred that night, not the chronic injury. He made that acute injury conclusion based on Meyer's description of the vaginal mucosa,

"Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen"​

which means there were no white blood cells present at the site of injury, which means she died before the white blood cells could arrive at the site of the injury.

PMPT pb pg 560
Spitz commented on the chronic injuries to the vagina by stating

"There is no clear indication of prior penetration."​

Notice that Spitz did not say there was no prior penetration. He said there was no clear indication of prior penetration; he was cautious and undecided.

JTPF pg 17
Internationally known forensic psychiatrist Dr. Judianne Densen-Gerber studied the autopsy report and came to the conclusion that JBR's vaginal injuries, - new and healed - raised the chilling possibility that she had been the victim of sexual abuse in the past - in the weeks or even months prior to the murder.​

 

[Brutal Truth]

leighl,


You keep saying that people act in different ways during a tragedy. Do you honestly believe most families act like the ramseys did when they lose someone dear to the family? Would you actually try and run off when your daughter was found dead in your own home? And then contiunally try to keep LE at arms length? Because it seems to me that you and most other IDI's try and condone the ramsey behaviour by saying people act in different ways. Its rediculous to try and use such logic. Every mom or dad I have ever met would defend their kid no matter what. And would spend the rest of their lives helping LE find this killer, not hiding behind the coattails of some big mouth lawyer. And Not act like well shes dead time run off to Atlanta now. I believe you and the other IDI's give the parents the benefit of the doubt that they couldnt commit this crime on a daughter they loved because of there past shows no signs of abuse or anything foul. Its also sickening to think that instead of giving the parents the benefit of the doubt that you wouldnt be furious as to why the ramseys have never taken the approiate action to bring JBR justice. IF this was your loved one, do you not owe it to them to stop at nothing to find the real killer? Instead of threatening with lawsuits and pointing the finger everywhelse but where the blame belongs.

Because quite frankly if there was really and intruder in the house that night, then you can thank the ramseys for this case going unsolved. They have no one to blame but themselves. Oh sure you can try and blame LE, but the reality of this situation is no investigation is perfect. Hind sight is always 20/20. They had more than plenty of things to go on. The ramseys simply never put forth the effort to find the real truth of this supposed killer. And going everything from the comfort of your own home or going to some news channel for an interview is not owrth mentioning.

And as far as OJ there was cut and dry evidence against him. He got off because of the race card and his team of high priced lawyers. Money absolutely buys freedom. Dont kid yourself that it does not. And the evidence against the ramseys was not so cut and dry and there were plenty of implications pointing to them. And those implications against a poor family would most certainly land them in jail.

If your looking for something in the way of truth, then your only reading what you want to, instead of the facts. I suggest you go research all you can about why the ramseys were involved.

 

[BBB167893]

Not only that, but Krugman was very sure the injuries to her vagina were caused for physical reasons, not sexual ones. Other than that, he was clear she'd been abused.

 

[southcitymom]

I'll tell you what - If I woke up tomorrow morning and my 6-year-old son was missing and I found a ransom note indicating that he would be beheaded if I so much as talked to a stray dog, I'd be TERRIFIED to call the police. Eventually, I probably would, because I wouldn't know what else to do, but the first thing I would tell them is "My son is missing and there is a ransom note threatening to kill him if I call anybody - I don't know if whoever has him is watching me."

I'd probably call the police, but I damn sure wouldn't then call four of my closest friends and tell them to come over. I would think that would sentence my son to certain death.

Then, if the police got to my house and eventually found my son dead in the basement and I knew his welfare no longer depended on me keeping things a secret, I would literally camp out at the police station until I got answers about what the hell had happened. I would answer every question they had. I would take any test they wished. Everything about me would be an open book to them. I would do whatever they wanted so that they could get closer to finding the person that killed my child.

And maybe I'm totally out of touch, but I think my reaction to this situation would be the reaction of just about every other innocent parent in the world.

 

[Bronte Nut]

I'll tell you what - If I woke up tomorrow morning and my 6-year-old son was missing and I found a ransom note indicating that he would be beheaded if I so much as talked to a stray dog, I'd be TERRIFIED to call the police. Eventually, I probably would, because I wouldn't know what else to do, but the first thing I would tell them is "My son is missing and there is a ransom note threatening to kill him if I call anybody - I don't know if whoever has him is watching me."

I'd probably call the police, but I damn sure wouldn't then call four of my closest friends and tell them to come over. I would think that would sentence my son to certain death.

Then, if the police got to my house and eventually found my son dead in the basement and I knew his welfare no longer depended on me keeping things a secret, I would literally camp out at the police station until I got answers about what the hell had happened. I would answer every question they had. I would take any test they wished. Everything about me would be an open book to them. I would do whatever they wanted so that they could get closer to finding the person that killed my child.

And maybe I'm totally out of touch, but I think my reaction to this situation would be the reaction of just about every other innocent parent in the world.

Well said. Innocent parent is the operative term.

The Ramseys did everything but the very things you suggested.

Gee, I wonder why?

 

[Ivy2]

Coming out of lurk mode just to say....

Hell would hath no fury like Patsy Ramsey if she were innocent. She would have made all of us look nonchalant and look how long we have been seeking justice for JBR.

I work with a woman who reminds me so much of good ol' Patsy and believe me, if she is right about something or has something to prove you cannot shut her up! Even if you agree with her, she still keeps driving her point boasting about how right she is. If her son is wronged in school in any little trivial way...YOU BETTER RUN AND HIDE!!! She calls the school demanding to talk to the principal, she e-mails the teacher, she talks to the other parents, she writes an editorial to the paper. We all bet at work that the people at his school cringe when they hear her voice. You guys would all get a kick out of how much she is like Patsy. She even sort of looks like her.

By the way, she thinks that Patsy is the culprit in this crime!

 

[southcitymom]

Coming out of lurk mode just to say....

Hell would hath no fury like Patsy Ramsey if she were innocent. She would have made all of us look nonchalant and look how long we have been seeking justice for JBR.

I work with a woman who reminds me so much of good ol' Patsy and believe me, if she is right about something or has something to prove you cannot shut her up! Even if you agree with her, she still keeps driving her point boasting about how right she is. If her son is wronged in school in any little trivial way...YOU BETTER RUN AND HIDE!!! She calls the school demanding to talk to the principal, she e-mails the teacher, she talks to the other parents, she writes an editorial to the paper. We all bet at work that the people at his school cringe when they hear her voice. You guys would all get a kick out of how much she is like Patsy. She even sort of looks like her.

By the way, she thinks that Patsy is the culprit in this crime!

Excellent point - everything we know about Patsy's spitfire personality begs the question: "Why didn't she respond that way when her daughter was murdered?"

 

[aspidistra]

I'd like to try to answer these from the perspective of an IDI.

I have seen alot of people saying over the last week that an intruder murdered JBR. And that the ramseys loved their daughter or couldnt have brutally murdered her and then staged the scene.

Ok fine. Now put yourself in the ramseys shoes. If you knew beyond the shadows of doubt you were innocent and loved JBR with all your heart.

Then why in the hell would you stand in the way of LE doing their job to bring this intruder to justice?
Answer: they weren't standing in the way - they gave all samples when requested. They hired the lawyers only after friends told them the police were looking only at them and they needed help defending themselves. I agree it looks bad if they were only interviewed 4 months after the crime. I've seen the Apr 1997 police interview on line and by then some of the details of that night would be forgotten. I think there surely were other interrogations that are not available on line and that was just one of them which was stolen or leaked and published.

Why would you phone your pilot to get the plane ready shortly after you found your beloved daughter in the basement dead? Answer: I have no idea but this is not proof of guilt all by itself.

What loving parent would want to deal with a flight to Atlanta after the stress of your daughters death? Would you not want to stay and help? Answer: subjective. I would probably want to get away because it was unbearable to be there.

Would you not feel compelled to tell LE that you would help in any way you could? Rather than run with your tail tucked between your legs. Answer: I saw no tail tucked between their legs. This is argumentative and insulting.

Why would you feel insulted about a lie detector test by LE, when you want justice for your daughter and their the ones conducting the investigation? Answer: they were not insulted. They were advised to be careful since people were trying to prove their guilt with any means they could. They explained that they had been told those tests were unreliable unless professionals did them under proper conditions. Of course they wouldn't want to be railroaded by a fake lie detector test. This was a real possibility. When they did the tests they were both cleared. They were not shown to be lying.

Why would the only action you would take in your daughters death is legal action? Answer: not the only action they took. They went to the media and internet offering their own reward for information and they also hired their own investigator when the police made it clear they were only looking at the Ramseys and not investigating all the possible friends, neighbours and acquaintances who should have been investigated immediately.

Why would you spill the beans on national TV, yet you wouldnt give LE the time of day? Answer: argumentative and belligerant assumptions. They were interviewed by the police and gave tests. I see no evidence they would not give them the time of day.

Why would you have so many holes in your story each time you told them? Answer: because the mind forgets fine details sometimes. I do the same thing so I can relate. I have forgotten details of even what I did earlier in the week let alone months ago. When trauma and stress are involved, you can even block out memories.

Would common sense not dictate, that if they clear us they can move on with the investigation? Answer: that's your statement. What matters is how it went with the police handling them and their responses. Common sense has nothing to do with stressful situations.

Why would you try and play the victim? Answer: I'd play the victim if I was the victim. I would not play the victim if I wasn't a victim. They were victims two times over if their daughter was killed and they were falsely charged.

When there was only one victim and that was JBR. LE was just doing their job. Answer: I agree they did their job interviewing the parents since in many cases the parents are guilty and are lying. But they should have investigated all the other people in the Ramsey's life and not focused on the Ramseys, leaking sensational stories to the press that were often based on errors i.e. "no footprints", "cold look in JR's eyes" and other irrelevant or erroneous statements.

I ask you these question because these are the actions taken by the wonderful, loving parents John and Patsy Ramsey. And these questions dont even scratch the surface of the love these parent showed to bring justice for JBR.

Forget any minute evidence of an intruder. Would these actions by loving
parents not spell out guilty? Answer: "minute evidence of an intruder" indicates you are already making up your mind rather than looking at the evidence. Your statement about the parent's actions is subjective. You cannot know how you'd feel in that situation.

And please dont give me this crap that they only focused on the ramseys. That has been proven false. It just so happened out of everyone questioned things always seem to come ful circle and point to the ramseys.Answer: again that is your statement. Iin all the tabloids and tv shows I used to see back then, it was always the police saying the Ramseys were under an umbrella of suspicion. It was always trying to discredit their stories. It was not seriously and methodically reporting how and why everyone else in the area had been interviewed and cleared. It was constantly talking about a made up theory about bedwetting, rage, staging, all of it totally made up to explain the evidence that was found.

By the way I too believed Patsy did it over rage from bedwetting. That was so plastered in every article that I found it quite believable simply because the evidence of the intruder was never publicized until Lou Smit brought it out later. The initial reports of the urine soaked sheets in a suitcase looking like they were trying to hide them - I believed that made the Ramseys look guilty. Yet no such thing existed. The initial report of the red shirt in the sink, that she had worn to the party. However it turned out she did not wear the red shirt to the aprty. She wore the white shirt, slept in it, and was found dead in it. A lot of the initial stories that made me think the Ramseys did it were made up.

Here is why I believe the Ramseys did not do it.
No scenario so far could explain how these parents could have been capable of doing it, either common sense, or psychologically. No evidence in their lives before or after showing that kind of deceit, violence, evil and hatred, or that type of knowledge of depravity. Just as you say they "would not have done this" if they were innocent, so do I. They would not have handed over the note pad to the police. They would not have left the body in the cellar and called 911. They would not have written a rambling note. The main thing that common sense would dictate is they would not leave the body and call 911.

Here are some items that have not been adequately explained.
1. The suitcase under the window.
2. The fact that the alarm system was not on, admitted by the Ramseys - it was never on because they could not stand the false alarms and the piercing noise of it.
3. The missing piece of the paintbrush, the cords and duct tape not linked to anything in the house.
4. The young man Joe Barnhill saw walking toward the house around 5pm that night, whom he assumed was John Andrew Ramsey.
5. The cars seen around the neighbourhood at both parties, that were unaccounted for.
6. I have not seen every teacher, every attendant at a pageant, publicly cleared, or even their names. Yet I've seen the Ramseys publicly called murderers, including Burke.
7. The MO of the crime fits a sexual predator and a sophisticated sexual deviant. No one has shown any evidence at all that the Ramseys or their friends had that kind of knowledge or tendency.
8. A mother would not put size 12 panties on her child. Or write a ransom note in her own hand. Or stab her daughter's vagina with a broken paintbrush. A mother like this would have quite a different psychological makeup than Patsy Ramsey. She'd be a slob, a deviant and mentally ill. There was no sign of that in Patsy.

A very sick pedophile who is also very clever and devious, who is also desperate to escape before having time to clean it all up, fits the crime scene. The crime was not staged, it was a ritual. The Ramseys have been investigated inside and out for years; not one shred linking them to pedophile rings, *advertiser censored* or deviant sex practices were ever found. Ever. Thus it was an intruder.

 

[Ivy2]

As to why they were brave enough to do things like write a ransom note themselves (besides being panicked) is that they had no idea the magnitude this case was going to take on. They didn't know handwriting experts from around the country were going to be examining it. They thought they were dealing with a small town police force and frankly felt like they could outsmart them. The CNN interview (you know the one, complete with Miss America pin on her lapel just to remind America that yes, America is hurt by this tragedy and by the way she is a former Miss America contestant) (No, you cannot see the crown pin in the YouTube video clip - too close up) Anyway, that was supposed to be their "exit" interview thanking everyone and hoping they all move on to something else. But noooo...

 

[aspidistra]

As to why they were brave enough to do things like write a ransom note themselves (besides being panicked) is that they had no idea the magnitude this case was going to take on. They didn't know handwriting experts from around the country were going to be examining it. They thought they were dealing with a small town police force and frankly felt like they could outsmart them. The CNN interview (you know the one, complete with Miss America pin on her lapel just to remind America that yes, America is hurt by this tragedy and by the way she is a former Miss America contestant) (No, you cannot see the crown pin in the YouTube video clip - too close up) Anyway, that was supposed to be their "exit" interview thanking everyone and hoping they all move on to something else. But noooo...

I didn't sense any desire on their part to "move on." I saw sedated parents still grieving and wanting their killer to be found. I saw concern that the killer was out there.

What if Karr had been matched to the dna? Then all these convoluted theories would just dissolve, wouldn't they? Yet the dna not matching only proves Karr is a liar about things he claimed to do. It doesn't prove someone else didn't do them, and my current theory if Karr didn't do it is that the real killer is known to Karr and he is taking the blame and confessing for him. There are hours of confession from this man and a lot of it answers mysteries in the crime scene. Experts argued on whether the head blow came before or after the garrotting. He explained how and why the head blow came after. Even if he is only a clever student of internet forums and theories, these theories cover the known evidence better than trying to make the parents into brutal sadistic lying killers. The evidence was always confused. The killer tried to leave red herrings; that is obvious from the stupid ransom note. The mysteries that remain always point to a killer trying to flee before he finished cleaning up, and being unable, realizing he was unable to remove the body. The body plus ransom note never made sense no matter who did it. That points to haste and panic not to remove at least one of them. The parents always would have time and chance to remove the body before calling 911. Only a total moron would leave the body and call police. That's my opinion, it's as valid as all the other opinions expressed such as the Ramseys planned to wait til the cops left and then spirit the body away. No, they would have done that BEFORE they called cops. Why is this always brushed aside?

 

[Zelda]

Lehigh Makes good points in her post on page two. An excerpt:

"What we do know, whether we believe an IDI or RDI theory or we sit on the fence in between, is that a small town police office, with little experience in cases such as this, and with people on staff who probably didn't want to be involved the day after Christmas, handled the collection of evidence in a seriously contaminated crime scene with people repeatedly moving the body, draping clothing and a blanket over it, crying, hugging, rearranging and hanging over it, etc. Even at the "kidnapping stage" there were so many people coming and going, fixing snacks and trying to help by cleaning up, that we don't know for certain what evidence was contaminated, thrown out, or washed away. Take this together with reports of mishandling of evidence and rivalry within the police department/DA offices afterwards, its enough for anyone to at least consider that an IDI.

I keep hoping maybe something somewhere will eventually be discovered/linked to the murderer through the diligence of someone on websites such as this or through a special appointment for new investigation. There has to be something out there that will point the way to the truth."

What I find most puzzling is that both the IDI and RDI scenarios require a huge suspension of belief for the people favoring one over another.

The RDI scenario is possible, but not probable. I'm always stumped at the beginning when, according to the scenario, Patsy or John caused the head wound while one of them was disciplining JB. And the cover up story is bizarre. Why write a ransom note and leave the body in the basement?

Did John lead FWhite to the basement room? Or did FW lead JR?
Maybe the Ramseys were planning on disposing the body later in the day. And Patsy's 911 call sounds true -- a panicked mother reporting her child missing. But then we have the ransom note...

The IDI interpretation is equally bizarre. How did he get in? When did he get in? And how did he find his way around the house in the dark? So many questions we'll probably never hear answers.

The dish of pineapple is really perplexing. It had to be served to JB before she was struck on the head. Why would a Ramsey, take a child who had just wet her bed, down to the kitchen for a snack? And then take her upstairs to clean her -- and go into a terrific rage. The pineapple and the head wound really puzzle me.

 

[Jolynna]

"She'd be a slob, a deviant and mentally ill."

That is the kind of thinking that had Boston's PD out hassling known bad black men. And finally even arresting one. Because a clean cut white man from the right part of town identified that black man as the person who had shot him and killed his pregnant wife.

Remember Charles Stuart?

 

[kayebee]

"She'd be a slob, a deviant and mentally ill."

That is the kind of thinking that had Boston's PD out hassling known bad black men. And finally even arresting one. Because a clean cut white man from the right part of town identified that black man as the person who had shot him and killed his pregnant wife.

Remember Charles Stuart?

Ouch! That's going to leave a mark.

I agree with you that a lot of the reluctance to accept the Ramseys as the culprits stems from an unwillingness to believe that this kind of crime could occur among the white and the wealthy. For what it's worth, I believe the death was actually an accident, not murder, and the crime the Ramseys were concerned about covering up was the sexual abuse.

Karen

 

[aspidistra]

"She'd be a slob, a deviant and mentally ill."

That is the kind of thinking that had Boston's PD out hassling known bad black men. And finally even arresting one. Because a clean cut white man from the right part of town identified that black man as the person who had shot him and killed his pregnant wife.

Remember Charles Stuart?

I don't see the connection here between the two crimes. I was talking about "if the mother had done the things people accused her of". That doesn't mean the killer of JBR was a slob, deviant or mentally ill, necessarily. Had a mother done it, I would characterize her as that.It's just my opinion. It's not characterizing the actual killer. It's saying a mother would be a deviant mother if she behaved that way.

 

[aspidistra]

Ouch! That's going to leave a mark.

I agree with you that a lot of the reluctance to accept the Ramseys as the culprits stems from an unwillingness to believe that this kind of crime could occur among the white and the wealthy. For what it's worth, I believe the death was actually an accident, not murder, and the crime the Ramseys were concerned about covering up was the sexual abuse.

Karen

I have no trouble believing white wealthy parents could murder their child. It's been done, I'm sure. I do have trouble believing these particular parents showed any capability of committing such a crime, whether it included an accident, rage, a coverup, or anything else. None of those things fit with their known personalities.

I also have trouble with evidence of an intruder being brushed off, while evidence implicating the parents such as fibres in the house is touted so highly. I have trouble with twisting of news stories and repeating of ancient speculations or statements such as "they looked guilty." This is nothing to do with evidence.