In light of recent events...

[kazzbar]

I was thinking I heard they had 2 children that Christmas but I'm not sure?

Yes, I think there were 2.

 

[angelmom]

I need a choice that looks like this... ...because I still have no clue. No gut feeling, both sides convincing, but not enough to overcome the other side. I have felt like this since day 1, and JMK only added to the mix.

I don't look at him and feel, "He did it!" (like most did with SP) but I'm also not ruling him out. IMHO, if they can't prove by now that he was there at Christmas, they are probably looking at photo albums or Christmas cards and saying, "Oh, yeah! That was the year that..."

I also think it's possible that he didn't do it, but has come in contact with whomever did.

So color me clueless! I didn't vote, but wanted to respond so you'd have some accurate data - I am not a RDI...at least, I don't think I am!

 

[christine2448]

My reasoning behind taking this poll was to see whether WS truly consists primarily of those who believe the Ramseys are guilty. From my readings over the past several days, it appears (on the surface) that it is. But I thought the best way to get a true reading of the forum was to take an anonymous poll.

I was surprised to sign in this morning and find the poll leaning towards the intruder. I thought also that most of the Wsers thought it was the Ramseys. I have always been on the fence, but always leaning more on the side of the intruder. I am more convinced of the intruder theory, not because of John Karr, but because of recent events, the rehashing of the case on TV, learning how incredibly messed up the initial investigation was, after watching Patsy and John on LKL (repeat last night of older interview), yada yada. I hope it was John Karr and I hope they have strong evidence...if not him, I am happy this happened because it has brought the spotlight to this case again. If it was the Ramseys, I honestly will be shocked. Whoever, I hope someday there will be justice for JonBenet.

 

[Old Broad]

I lean towards an intruder.
IMO Patsy is found guilty because of her having JonBenet in the pagents and people want to see her punished for how she dressed her up and parade around.

OB

 

[cwiz24]

I was surprised to sign in this morning and find the poll leaning towards the intruder. I thought also that most of the Wsers thought it was the Ramseys. I have always been on the fence, but always leaning more on the side of the intruder. I am more convinced of the intruder theory, not because of John Karr, but because of recent events, the rehashing of the case on TV, learning how incredibly messed up the initial investigation was, after watching Patsy and John on LKL (repeat last night of older interview), yada yada. I hope it was John Karr and I hope they have strong evidence...if not him, I am happy this happened because it has brought the spotlight to this case again. If it was the Ramseys, I honestly will be shocked. Whoever, I hope someday there will be justice for JonBenet.

I too have been surprised by the results of my poll so far, although only about 120 people have voted so I'll reserve judgment yet. But I wonder if one explanation for why the poll results appear to be tilted in the opposite direction of how forum posters appear to tilt is that the RDIs are more vocal....

I know I could have added in other choices (e.g., Burke and 'I don't know'), but I wanted to target the people who did have a strong feeling one way or another and, as I said previously, I think the two choices currently in the poll cover the three most likely suspects.

Thanks to everyone who has voted so far--it has begun to sate my curiousity, although it has opened my eyes to the substantial number of BDIs around here. Interesting--always good to have a diversity of opinions!!

 

[Maybe So]

I lean towards an intruder.
IMO Patsy is found guilty because of her having JonBenet in the pagents and people want to see her punished for how she dressed her up and parade around.

OB

Agreed, people did not like Patsy and want her to be guilty. People have no idea how being falsley accused of murderering your own child would make you act. I think I would have been very angry and very bitter.

I truly don't think she could have done to JBR what was done to JBR that night nor covered for anyone who had.

The pageants might not be the kind of thing I would ever have my kid do but there are lots of people who do that sort of thing with their daughters....it's not exactly unheard of. I never entered my child in pageants but I loved to dress her up sometimes and do her hair and stuff like that....took hundreds of pictures of her and it was because I loved her and enjoyed seeing her happy about a new outfit or a new hair style.

When you are the type of parent who spends a lot of time with a child like that it is usually because you and the child ENJOY the activity and enjoy doing things together. I think Patsy and JonBenet were probably very close and that she loved JonBenet very much.

 

[Woodsman]

Killed accidentally or intentionally by a Ramsey family member and then covered up through crime scene staging and the ridiculous ransom note.
​

 

[Old Broad]

Agreed, people did not like Patsy and want her to be guilty. People have no idea how being falsley accused of murderering your own child would make you act. I think I would have been very angry and very bitter.

I truly don't think she could have done to JBR what was done to JBR that night nor covered for anyone who had.

The pageants might not be the kind of thing I would ever have my kid do but there are lots of people who do that sort of thing with their daughters....it's not exactly unheard of. I never entered my child in pageants but I loved to dress her up sometimes and do her hair and stuff like that....took hundreds of pictures of her and it was because I loved her and enjoyed seeing her happy about a new outfit or a new hair style.

When you are the type of parent who spends a lot of time with a child like that it is usually because you and the child ENJOY the activity and enjoy doing things together. I think Patsy and JonBenet were probably very close and that she loved JonBenet very much.

I agree with you 100%
Here in Missouri pagents are everywhere, starting with little babies and some parents will spend tons of money on the dresses etc. To Patsy this was very normal, it was the way she was brought up. I just can not see Patsy ever being about to do the damage that was done to that little girl.

OB

 

[blonde1]

Intruder. Not only in consideration of "facts" but also in their interviews. PR and JR have always struck me as 100% honest through their facial expressions, their intonations, their body language ... when I see their faces in the old interviews, I just can't see deceit. To this day, I get choked up watching certain interviews in which they seemed so genuine.

I watched the A & E special last night that featured the walk through of the house and showed a close up of the garrot with that professional looking knot -- now I'm more confused.
A parent's coverup? Better to try burying the body (I hate to say) and claim she disappeared rather than stage all that horrible stuff and keep up the bluff with investigators.

It's hard to believe that a total stranger to that house could navigate all the stairs, look around for a notebook to write on, blab on in a ransom note, find the basement -- all of that seems like someone who KNEW the house.

So I have to go back and read the old threads from here, because I'm leaning toward INTRUDER who had already been in the house, maybe often.

 

[cwiz24]

I watched the A & E special last night that featured the walk through of the house and showed a close up of the garrot with that professional looking knot -- now I'm more confused.
A parent's coverup? Better to try burying the body (I hate to say) and claim she disappeared rather than stage all that horrible stuff and keep up the bluff with investigators.

It's hard to believe that a total stranger to that house could navigate all the stairs, look around for a notebook to write on, blab on in a ransom note, find the basement -- all of that seems like someone who KNEW the house.

So I have to go back and read the old threads from here, because I'm leaning toward INTRUDER who had already been in the house, maybe often.

Watch the interview posted here (just as a way to make you even more confused)
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42189&highlight=confession

 

[Bev]

the people who think Patsy Ramsey did this, think that because that is where the evidence leads. It doesn't mean she didn't love her child, in fact, I'm sure she did love her child with her whole heart and soul. However, that doesn't mean that she's perfect, or incapable of anger, or never unhappy, or her children don't have aggravating behaviors or do stupid, kid things.

Now maybe some people think they can look at someone and tell if he/she is innocent or guilty, but in my opinion, that is absolute nonsense. People we think of as "good" do bad things all the time. They do bad things because they're humans and humans make mistakes, have lapses in judgement, get angry/jealous/greedy and they do all sorts of things that may be out of their "ordinary" behavior - because that's what makes us human.

It's so easy to say some "monster" did this, because then we don't have to admit that as humans, we're capable of anything.

 

[christine2448]

the people who think Patsy Ramsey did this, think that because that is where the evidence leads.

If you really believe this, please answer my questions, that no one has yet, in today's Q&A. Thanks

 

[cwiz24]

the people who think Patsy Ramsey did this, think that because that is where the evidence leads.

That is your opinion. There is evidence both ways, but it's the evidence that one chooses to discount or to explain away that betrays our biases. Whole point of the poll.

 

[BirdieBoo]

I am really holding off on this one, I truly cannot make a decision, which is unusual for me, but then again, I haven't been "all over" this case as I have been with some others.

Also the fact that it was botched so badly in the beginning, and so much of what is portrayed in the media...I just cannot honestly decide one way or the other.

 

[englishleigh]

I cant decide one way or the other, either. :hand:

 

[Bev]

Burke had a pair of HiTec boots. The print was molded over as you can see from looking at the photo. The second print is a new one for me.
The partial palm print was Melinda Ramsey's.
The rope was a prop in one of the photo shoots - The National Enquirer printed photos of her sitting on a pile of rope just like it, while wearing some country/cowgirl outfit. It was in that closet because that's where many of her costumes were kept.
Both the first two officers to arrive on the scene said there were no footprints outside - the walkways might have been cleared of snow, but there was certainly a light layer of frost on the walks and grass.
The hair that was found was said to be consistent with JAR's hair although I also read later that it might have been Melinda Ramsey's.

Where is the evidence for an intruder? The only thing I can think of is the missing roll of duct tape. Even the string used around her neck looks very much like the kind of string used in sweatpants or shorts. It was frayed on both ends, it wasn't cut on both ends. I remember at the time it happened, that my boys had shorts with the exact kind of string tie. I had shorts and sweatpants with that kind of string. Contrary to Smit's claim, it wasn't a "rope around her neck". Also, if he had brought rope, why didn't he use it? Why was it in a bag in the closet?

 

[PaperDoll]

the people who think Patsy Ramsey did this, think that because that is where the evidence leads. It doesn't mean she didn't love her child, in fact, I'm sure she did love her child with her whole heart and soul. However, that doesn't mean that she's perfect, or incapable of anger, or never unhappy, or her children don't have aggravating behaviors or do stupid, kid things.

Now maybe some people think they can look at someone and tell if he/she is innocent or guilty, but in my opinion, that is absolute nonsense. People we think of as "good" do bad things all the time. They do bad things because they're humans and humans make mistakes, have lapses in judgement, get angry/jealous/greedy and they do all sorts of things that may be out of their "ordinary" behavior - because that's what makes us human.

It's so easy to say some "monster" did this, because then we don't have to admit that as humans, we're capable of anything.

I agree... Look at Scott Peterson, who would think this guy was capble of killing his wife just by his appearance alone and yet he did.. Even Sharon didn't suspect him..

I can't honestly say who did this crime but I personally don't believe there was any intruder .. I will eat crow because I like chicken..

 

[BBB167893]

It's equally divided now.

Those questions were answered well.

 

[aspidistra]

Very interesting that the poll is split almost 50-50 between the parents and the intruder. It shows it is too early and we have not had a chance to see all the evidence against this man.

I personally came to the conclusion 8 years ago that Patsy Ramsey killed her in a fit of rage. For me there was too little evidence of an intruder. But now I am leaning toward the guilt or at least involvement of this suspect Karr.

 

[Dr. Doogie]

I believe that it was Col. Mustard in the Dining Room with a candlestick.