If you support the Ramseys or are on the fence, please read this...

[Toth]

>the speculation that is was at the point of manufacturer
Can you imagine any case wherein the most reliable forensic tool has been so downplayed that posters have imagined some sigh from an asian factory worker put dna into the panties and JonBenet's blood dripped ontop of it.
Can you imagine any other case where dna from under a rape victim's fingernails and panties is so ignored?

>I thought the CBI had her on the lower end of the scale as a match.
They did.

>I don't think that will be changed by a post from me or anyone else.
True. Most posters do not seem to be here for an honest, open factual discussion and have no intention of changing their minds about anything.

>If we know that we are not convincing anyone, then why do we (including me) post?

Because "No man stands as straight as when he stands alone" doesn't mean you say the spa waters are poisonous and then back away from that statement into silence.

 

[blueclouds]

>the speculation that is was at the point of manufacturer
Can you imagine any case wherein the most reliable forensic tool has been so downplayed that posters have imagined some sigh from an asian factory worker put dna into the panties and JonBenet's blood dripped ontop of it.
Can you imagine any other case where dna from under a rape victim's fingernails and panties is so ignored?

>I thought the CBI had her on the lower end of the scale as a match.
They did.

>I don't think that will be changed by a post from me or anyone else.
True. Most posters do not seem to be here for an honest, open factual discussion and have no intention of changing their minds about anything.

>If we know that we are not convincing anyone, then why do we (including me) post?

Because "No man stands as straight as when he stands alone" doesn't mean you say the spa waters are poisonous and then back away from that statement into silence.

Toth, your so thought provoking... even if you provoke people into certain emotions. Still don't know how to take you.. oh well.

You make some strong points. I am on the "Intruder" theory which I realize is not very popular among this group. But that should be ok. We need differences in this world. We see through our life experiences. I strongly believe that Lou Smit will be vindicated in believing that this is TRULY an intruder. His DNA will be matched someday. God willing

 

[Shylock]

Can you imagine any case wherein the most reliable forensic tool has been so downplayed that posters have imagined some sigh from an asian factory worker put dna into the panties and JonBenet's blood dripped ontop of it.
Can you imagine any other case where dna from under a rape victim's fingernails and panties is so ignored?

Toth, when the experts from the country's leading DNA lab tell you that this "mysterious DNA" might not even exist, that it might just be "stutter effect" created by the testing process itself, I think you should listen to them and stop playing games with yourself.
At least that way you won't be too disappointed and look too foolish when the DNA never matches anyone in your lifetime....

 

[Toth]

Toth, your so thought provoking... even if you provoke people into certain emotions. Still don't know how to take you.. oh well.

You make some strong points. I am on the "Intruder" theory which I realize is not very popular among this group. But that should be ok. We need differences in this world. We see through our life experiences. I strongly believe that Lou Smit will be vindicated in believing that this is TRULY an intruder. His DNA will be matched someday. God willing

You seem to have misinterpreted a great deal of my post.
I too am "on"(?) the intruder theory and admit that I have been a distinctly unpopular minority here. I am not convinced that Lou Smit will be vindicated because his theory is "pedophile intruder" and I am not at all convinced that the intruder was a pedophile.

 

[Toth]

Toth, when the experts from the country's leading DNA lab tell you that this "mysterious DNA" might not even exist, that it might just be "stutter effect" created by the testing process itself, I think you should listen to them and stop playing games with yourself.
At least that way you won't be too disappointed and look too foolish when the DNA never matches anyone in your lifetime....

Stt ..stt sttutter.

From two different stains taken years apart using two different labs and running each test twice ... and you get the exact SAME codis certified stutter?

 

[Jayelles]

From two different stains taken years apart using two different labs and running each test twice ... and you get the exact SAME codis certified stutter?

And you've seen those lab reports have you Toth?

 

[Honeybee]

is the only thing I see the Ramseys guilty of. There was a broken window that was never fixed, which appears to be at least the entry point to the home, with an unsecured window grate, and there was not a user-friendly good security system installed at the time the home was remodelled. There should have been more control as to who keys were given to. There was a lot of criminal activity going on in the University Hill area. Considering the wealth of the Ramseys and their high visibility, including the pageants and related activities, their house should have been made more secure against intruders. That is the only area in which I'm critical of the Ramseys, and something I'm sure has haunted them, since the murder.

I couldn't agree with you more, Maikai. Many of us, and I know I am guilty of this, fail to set their burglar alarm at night or when they leave the house and we don't always attend to repairs which might make our home vulnerable. I, too, am sure this haunts the Ramseys. As for not having their Atlanta home secured, they didn't have much left to lose, I think, as well as construction being done on the house which might have necessitated open doors, windows, etc. Anyhow, even though I know what happened to JBR that night, I still am not as careful about security as I should be and I doubt that many of us have changed our habits in this regard as a result of her murder.

Frankly, I doubt the Ramseys together or separately, murdered JonBenet and I can't imagine the pain they have experienced since her death.

 

[Barbara]

As for not having their Atlanta home secured, they didn't have much left to lose, I think, ...

I guess they don't think Burke is valuable???? I say this because the "theory" of those believers of Ramsey innocence (I will assume this includes the Ramseys) is that JBR's murder was done by someone who hated John, hated the Ramseys, was jealous of their life, etc. With that in mind, I should think they would have been even MORE careful in Atlanta. Remember "keep your babies close"? So no, I don't think they were haunted at all about securing their Boulder home/lack of securing their Boulder home.

They knew Burke was in no danger. Of course keeping the gun cabinet unlocked with a young male in the house is beyond irresponsible!

But for them, obviously it's just Burke, no need to fret

 

[Imon128]

Great post, Barbara! Not only that, but if money was so tight, why risk having to buy more things due to robbery when one could prevent it? They paint themselves as having been monetarily devastated, why would they not protect what they DID/DO have? Or were they hoping for a fat check from the insurance company to spend for more KMart jewelry? :boohoo:

 

[Kim Ii]

As some of you know, I used to feel one or more of the Ramseys had something to do with JonBenet's murder. I no longer feel this way. I feel there was most likely an intruder. I can't say exactly what it is that convinced me to leap over to the other side; it's a combination of things I've read and heard through the media and re-reading John and Patsy's book.

I feel there was a concerted and deliberate attempt to get Patsy and John Ramsey to "cave" through various leaks to the press and public regarding certain elements of the case. Although I truly admire Steve Thomas' passion regarding his involvement in the case, at this point, I honestly think he was going down the wrong path.

I used to post quite frequently about this case on this board several years ago; the words of La Contessa and others still ring in my ears. Some of what I've come to believe about this case has to do with my own life experiences; some has to do with recent findings and issues surrounding this case.

Do I agree with some of the Ramseys' actions in the initial stages of this case? No, I don't. But I have to admit my feelings about this case were definitely colored with what was put out there by the media. It seems as though everyone wanted their hand in the cookie jar with this one. Journalistic integrity, for the most part, didn't exist regarding this case. Facts weren't checked and there were too many leaks from too many sources, oft times sources that couldn't back up their facts. So-called facts weren't verified before they hit the press. Unfortunately, the public came to believe a lot of the nonsense that was put out there, and why shouldn't they have? A little girl was found murdered in her home and everyone wanted her murderer found and justice served.

The Boulder Police Department bungled mightily with this one. We live in the same sort of affluent, little town that Boulder is. I cringe to think what our own police department would have done under similar circumstances.

I hope you all don't flame me for posting this. I've done a complete 180 regarding my feelings on this case. I feel horrible for the Ramseys and what they've been put through because of a bungling, inept police department, cops leaking so-called facts to magazine editors and rags (Vanity Fair comes to mind), etc. I've learned a big lesson. Don't believe everything you read and hear; take the time to try to sort out the facts and give someone the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

I wish this country had the same legal standards as England has. Lips stay sealed, no leaks or information about a case UNTIL trial commences.

 

[Shylock]

From two different stains taken years apart using two different labs and running each test twice ... and you get the exact SAME codis certified stutter?

What makes you think the stutter is the same? Nobody ever said they were even related. In the first test they weren't even sure whether the DNA fragments were from a single source. Maybe the second source had even more fragments combined to make what appears to be a more complete profile.

None-the-less, the only thing certain is this DNA foolishness is NEVER going to match anyone and all the pro-Ramsey people will go to their graves with the same foolish optimism they have now--spouting the SAME excuses...

 

[Nancy Drew]

I never visit the Jonbenét forum because I can't stand to read all the evil things said about this family, but today I am curious about something. If you are open-minded and believe that there isn't evidence pointing to the Ramsey's guilt or even if you are on the fence, I would love to hear from you. I could probably figure it out by reading through some of the threads but I don't the time or the stomach for that. I don't have any ulterior motives here and since I am aware that the majority here are Ramsey bashers, you can send me an e-mail at my private address which is listed on my profile. I just want to know how many, like me, believe the intruder theory.
And for those of you who are just going to post evil remarks, know that you will be wasting your time because I will scroll right past them. Thanks in advance!
Misty

Hi,
I have been on both sides of this case. First I thought the Ramsey's were guilty and then not. I am not sure at this point. I just knwo that they didn't behave like I think most people would act if their beloved beautiful child was brutally murdered right under their noses.

We were once robbed while we were not at home. It was a simple breaking and entry and the robber took some food and other trinkets. But it left us feeling very uneasy and vunerable for a long time.

Here the Ramsey's had a child murdered, and they seemed to be more worried about their image than who did this terrible thing.

I only hope the police get ot the bottom of this case soon. It is terrible to accuse an innocent person, but it is also terrible for a child murdered to go unpunished.

 

[olive]

I have been following the JonBenet Ramsey case for a long time and read many books regarding the case. My theory is that the Santa Claus was involved somehow. He is the only one that fits the profile.
Patsy Ramsey met him at a mall when he was dressed as Santa and subsequently invited him to play Santa at many of their home and office parties. Santa was fascinated with JonBenet and once asked her to take him on a tour of their home. She showed him the downstairs where she gave him a bottle of fairy dust she had bought at Disney World. Santa keep a picture of JonBenet on his mantle and took the fairy dust she gave him to the hospital when he had surgery. John Ramsey's investigators uncovered the fact that he was into child *advertiser censored*. Not much of this info has been the focus of media attention. One year the Ramsey's were too busy to have a party and Santa called to request that they have one so he could invite Charles Kurault, saying that he was doing a media story about sidewalk Santas. The Ramsey's threw the party together at the last minute and Charles Kurault (the famous reporter) never showed up.
It has been said in the profile that the ransom note writer was a movie buff since many phrases from the letter are from movies like Ramsom and Speed. Santa's wife was an amateur movie writer and critic. In fact, she once wrote a play about a little girl who was tortured and killed in her basement. Santa (real name Bill McReynold's) said weird things like, "Jonbenet, you go off and do this fancy pagents and things and you always come back to Santa Claus" or you are "returned to Santa Claus" (something like that) The McReynold's also had a child who was once kidnapped along with a friend at one time. The friend was molested during the kidnapping.
The Santa is just plain weird. Investigators ruled him out saying he was too fragile and frail to do the job. If he didn't do it, perhaps he may have bragged to other *advertiser censored* internet buddies about Jonbenet, revealing intimate details about the home, the family, etc. He could have forwarded the beautiful pictures of Jonbenet in her pagent outfits which would be sure to excite sick child pornographers. Bill McReynolds may have also been jealous of the Ramsey's excessive wealth. He had very little. A car similar to his is believed to have been seen driving past or near the house shortly after she was found to be missing.
From everything I have read, John and Patsy Ramsey were wonderful loving parents. Neither has any history of psychological problems or any blemish in their history whatsoever. John Ramsey's ex-wife and older children have only good things to say about him and Patsy. IMO no loving intelligent parent could concoct such an elaborate story and write about beheading a child they dearly loved.
I believe this person was a movie buff, a child stalker, a hater of big business and wealth, a John Ramsey hater, and highly cleaver. Even the flashlight believed to have been brought in by the killer had batteries which were free of fingerprints.
I welcome your thoughts. I am amazed that a crime with so much evidence has been left unsolved for so long. Most of the info I found was in the book the Ramsey's wrote, "Death of Innocence" and JonBenet-The Police Files" .

 

[tipper]

I don't think it was child *advertiser censored*, just plain old *advertiser censored*. Also, like all of us, they have a few less than stellar moments in their background. I'm glad you think they are innocent but you do them no favors to paint them as better than they are.

 

[Britt]

Most of the info I found was in the book the Ramsey's wrote, "Death of Innocence" and JonBenet-The Police Files" .

Hi Olive and welcome

I suggest you read Perfect Murder Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller and JonBenet Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation by Steve Thomas. Then re-read the NE Police Files book.

Basing your case opinion on the Ramseys' book Death of Innocence is like basing your opinion of the OJ Simpson case on his book I Want To Tell You. The Ramseys' book is not without value for the purpose of comparing their many inconsistent statements and ever-changing stories, but you won't find credible case info there.

 

[sissi]

Olive,I can't imagine Santa being cleared by any real investigative team,and ,although Steve Thomas cleared EVERYONE except the Ramseys,I believe the investigation at this point has put him, along with many others, back under that umbrella.
Burke Ramsey HAS been cleared,however few accept that as fact!
Santa's son is a felon,we can not discount the possibility of a kidnapping gone wrong.
He had been arrested for armed robbery and kidnapping ,does the apple fall far from the tree?
Keep up the interest Olive,you may be right!
IMO JMO

 

[Shylock]

Burke Ramsey HAS been cleared,however few accept that as fact!

Sorry, Burke Ramsey was NEVER cleared by any competent authority. Additionally, you manage to overlook that there is now a completely new investigation going on that according to Mary Keenan was started from ground-zero. That means Burke Ramsey is once again one of the three prime suspects in the case simply because he was in the house at the time of the crime and had the ability to commit at least part of the crime.

 

[sissi]

Sorry, Burke Ramsey was NEVER cleared by any competent authority. Additionally, you manage to overlook that there is now a completely new investigation going on that according to Mary Keenan was started from ground-zero. That means Burke Ramsey is once again one of the three prime suspects in the case simply because he was in the house at the time of the crime and had the ability to commit at least part of the crime.

Please source this,when,where,by whom was Burke Ramsey EVER considered a suspect,other than on a few forums. No investigative team,including the BPD EVER considered him a suspect,Steve , the leader of the "leaks" stated in chat,that no,no one in law enforcement had ever considered Burke to be the killer of his sister.
IMO

 

[Barbara]

Please source this,when,where,by whom was Burke Ramsey EVER considered a suspect,other than on a few forums. No investigative team,including the BPD EVER considered him a suspect,Steve , the leader of the "leaks" stated in chat,that no,no one in law enforcement had ever considered Burke to be the killer of his sister.
IMO

There are NO official "suspects" in this case. There never was. The furthest LE was willing to go was to cite the infamous "umbrella". They are ALL considered "witnesses".

So no, Burke is not a suspect, Patsy and John are not suspects, even the intruder is not a suspect. So that places Burke in the same situation as his parents and everyone else in Boulder that night. No difference

 

[Shylock]

Please source this,when,where,by whom was Burke Ramsey EVER considered a suspect,other than on a few forums. No investigative team,including the BPD EVER considered him a suspect,Steve , the leader of the "leaks" stated in chat,that no,no one in law enforcement had ever considered Burke to be the killer of his sister.
IMO

Had you have read Steve's book, you would know that there were people, including Hunter, that were asking questions about Burke and his possible involvement.
More importantly, if you read the interview transcripts, Patsy was questioned whether the crime was actually an accidental death caused by Burke. That proves that the BPD had indeed considered the possibility that Burke caused her death. That makes him a "suspect" by definition of the word.

And Thomas never stated that nobody considered Burke a suspect. When asked about Burke, Thomas replied that "Burke didn't have the wherewithall to commit the entire crime, note and all". Thomas was too blinded by his own theory to consider that Burke could have caused her death and the parents did everything else (staging and coverup).

Burke was, is, and will always be, one of the three primary suspects in this case.

IMO/JMO