Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Maybe the indictments mean exactly what they say?

That they both just stood by as someone murdered Jonbenet and then covered it up? That is not at all what I believe. I believe they are innocent. But even if I had an inkling of guilt, to think they ALLOWED her to be killed and then covered it up together is too far fetched for me. OMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

IMO, it's possible to prove someone aided a crime without knowing who committed the crime.

Fictional example: 4 people live in a house as roommates. One of them is murdered. One of the roommates is proven to have helped clean and dispose of the murder weapon and get rid of the bloody clothing, but is cleared of the murder itself (has an alibi for the time of death but was home when the body was found). Just a made up example of how someone *could* be convicted of aiding and abetting without being able to prove who actually committed the murder itself.

I don't see how. No. they are saying they are culpable Part of the cover up and allowed it to happen. They have to know who did it to do that. This is not roommates. This is a family two adults and two children.

Neither one of them is charged with murder. There is not enough to charge them with that, but they decide they have to be complicit somehow.. Just without proof. To me they just made it up.

 

[Tawny]

I'm aware they aren't roommates.

 

[wengr]

That they both just stood by as someone murdered Jonbenet and then covered it up?

It does not say that they stood by. It does not say that they watched or had foreknowledge or anything other than what it actually says - That they unreasonably placed a child in a situation which posed a threat to life or health, and resulted in the death.

That is not at all what I believe. I believe they are innocent.

Ok. I prefer to let the new information help my opinions evolve, as opposed to only considering the GJ findings in the light of my opinions.

But even if I had an inkling of guilt, to think they ALLOWED her to be killed and then covered it up together is too far fetched for me. OMO

Again, it does not say that they knew she would be killed. Actually Scarlett, I personally agree with you that JR and/or PR likely did not kill JBR.

 

[Anyhoo]

I don't see how. No. they are saying they are culpable Part of the cover up and allowed it to happen. They have to know who did it to do that. This is not roommates. This is a family two adults and two children.

Neither one of them is charged with murder. There is not enough to charge them with that, but they decide they have to be complicit somehow.. Just without proof. To me they just made it up.

Well Scarlett, I cannot agree there is no evidence they were complicit somehow. I see plenty of evidence that they were complicit, but there is no rock solid evidence pointing to either one of them doing it. IMO the GJ was correct in coming back with the indictments they did. Now, I am not saying that either Ramsey murdered their daughter, although they may have. What I am saying is that I 100% believe they know what happened and who did it. They knew it on 12-26-1996. MOO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Well Scarlett, I cannot agree there is no evidence they were complicit somehow. I see plenty of evidence that they were complicit, but there is no rock solid evidence pointing to either one of them doing it. IMO the GJ was correct in coming back with the indictments they did. Now, I am not saying that either Ramsey murdered their daughter, although they may have. What I am saying is that I 100% believe they know what happened and who did it. They knew it on 12-26-1996. MOO.

I believe it was someone who broke in and was there when they got home. I don't not believe that John and Patsy ever knew for sure but I think they had suspicions here and there.

There is nothing that says that they did it with clear and convincing evidence.
This was a non verdict to me. I think that people were expecting it to be released and it would be an AHA!!! but it is not.. IT is a non issue. Not enough to prove anything, and not even enough to go to trial.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It does not say that they stood by. It does not say that they watched or had foreknowledge or anything other than what it actually says - That they unreasonably placed a child in a situation which posed a threat to life or health, and resulted in the death. Ok. I prefer to let the new information help my opinions evolve, as opposed to only considering the GJ findings in the light of my opinions. Again, it does not say that they knew she would be killed. Actually Scarlett, I personally agree with you that JR and/or PR likely did not kill JBR.

BBM, That means they were aware what was going on and let it happen, To me. That is how I read it. But I will go with you here..

I have never considered the GJ important at all to this case. I believe that if there had been any proof that either John or Patsy murdered Jonbenet either but deliberate act or negligence they would have been charged with that and then brought to trial.

And in light of all the new tests and DNA advancement nothing has come out as a smoking gun to anyone in her family. We know have DNA that points to other people.

I want justice for this little girl. I think she is at peace and with her mom now. But I want justice for her and peace for her brother and father so I want this solved.

What I wish more than anything is that it was handled better from the very very start. But we can not go back.

 

[Anyhoo]

I believe it was someone who broke in and was there when they got home. I don't not believe that John and Patsy ever knew for sure but I think they had suspicions here and there.

There is nothing that says that they did it with clear and convincing evidence.
This was a non verdict to me. I think that people were expecting it to be released and it would be an AHA!!! but it is not.. IT is a non issue. Not enough to prove anything, and not even enough to go to trial.

There was not enough to go to trial, I agree (although I would have loved to have seen a trial). The fact that JR and PR lied repeatedly to LE about various things is not proof that either of them killed their daughter. The fact that they lawyered up and did many things to obstruct the case is not proof they killed their daughter. I am sure you have read everything you could about this case and I just don't understand how you could think the parents are lily white innocent. My thoughts about the murder have been all over the board but I have never once looked upon the parents as innocent bystanders. I know you disagree with this, but I believe they both knew before the 911 call was made that their daughter was dead. There are many things to indicate this. I am not going to list them all here. The best scenario I can see for JR and PR is that they know what happened but did not kill their daughter themselves. I have always had a suspicion that there may have been other people in the house that night. But people who lie repeatedly to police and obstruct justice are not innocent. Far from it.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There was not enough to go to trial, I agree (although I would have loved to have seen a trial). The fact that JR and PR lied repeatedly to LE about various things is not proof that either of them killed their daughter. The fact that they lawyered up and did many things to obstruct the case is not proof they killed their daughter. I am sure you have read everything you could about this case and I just don't understand how you could think the parents are lily white innocent. My thoughts about the murder have been all over the board but I have never once looked upon the parents as innocent bystanders. I know you disagree with this, but I believe they both knew before the 911 call was made that their daughter was dead. There are many things to indicate this. I am not going to list them all here. The best scenario I can see for JR and PR is that they know what happened but did not kill their daughter themselves. I have always had a suspicion that there may have been other people in the house that night. But people who lie repeatedly to police and obstruct justice are not innocent. Far from it.

I don't think LE has any cleaner hands in this case. I don't believe they killed Jonbenet. I don't believe they had anything to do with her death or a cover up. I don't believe they are perfect people. I don't believe they never did anything wrong. But I see too much that points me away from them as being suspects. I see too much that is open to someone other than an R being responsible.

People lie because they forget, People lie because they are scared. I see no big lies in this case that give me pause.

I see DNA that matches no one in this family. I see a similar crime 8 months later, Not perfectly the same but a similar attempt.

I don't see any history that makes me believe they are guilty of anything.

 

[wengr]

BBM, That means they were aware what was going on and let it happen, To me. That is how I read it. But I will go with you here..

I suspect one or both suspected or knew that JBR was being molested. I believe that the indictment indicates that they could have and should have done more to intervene.

I have never considered the GJ important at all to this case.

??? A GJ hearing testimony and seeing evidence is not important?

I believe that if there had been any proof that either John or Patsy murdered Jonbenet either but deliberate act or negligence they would have been charged with that and then brought to trial.

Proof is not presented. Evidence is presented and jurors decide if it is to be considered proof. Imo the R's deserved their day in court to defend against charges stemming from these indictments. The problem was the case was a huge loser for AH. Each defendant would capitalize on the fact that the are not the sole possible perpetrator and it would be impossible to meet the reasonable doubt threshold.

And in light of all the new tests and DNA advancement nothing has come out as a smoking gun to anyone in her family.

People are convicted everyday without smoking gun dna evidence.

We know have DNA that points to other people.

This of course is false.

What I wish more than anything is that it was handled better from the very very start. But we can not go back.

Agreed

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM, That means they were aware what was going on and let it happen, To me. That is how I read it. But I will go with you here..

I suspect one or both suspected or knew that JBR was being molested. I believe that the indictment indicates that they could have and should have done more to intervene. ??? A GJ hearing testimony and seeing evidence is not important? Proof is not presented. Evidence is presented and jurors decide if it is to be considered proof. Imo the R's deserved their day in court to defend against charges stemming from these indictments. The problem was the case was a huge loser for AH. Each defendant would capitalize on the fact that the are not the sole possible perpetrator and it would be impossible to meet the reasonable doubt threshold.
People are convicted everyday without smoking gun evidence.This of course is false.

Agreed

BBM, Not that in general it is not important but since there was never an indictment and trial, I have always felt it was irrelevant. Now knowing what it said, I feel that way even more. Those Jurors saw it ALL. Everything. And yet they could not find real guilt of a murder.
I think the R's deserved their chance in court if there was enough to charge them, but there wasn't. I believe that AH knew this and that is why he left the indictment to rot.

I don't understand this "People are convicted everyday without smoking gun evidence.This of course is false. "

I believe people are convicted of crimes on crappy evidence and they are innocent. I believe that happens way more than it should.

 

[Tawny]

You left out a very significant piece of the post you quoted between "smoking gun evidence" and "this is of course false"

 

[wengr]

I don't understand this "People are convicted everyday without smoking gun evidence.

People are convicted all the time based on the totality of the evidence without smoking gun dna evidence.

This of course is false. "

I'm referring to your mention of touch dna.

I believe people are convicted of crimes on crappy evidence and they are innocent. I believe that happens way more than it should.

Maybe so. What would have been right, would have been to respect the findings of the GJ and the people of CO, and have the R's defend themselves against charges. That way - if it was a joke with no proof as you claim, they would easily prevail and you would now have some aquittals to bolster your arguement.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

People are convicted all the time based on the totality of the evidence without smoking gun dna evidence. I'm referring to your mention of touch dna. Maybe so. What would have been right, would have been to respect the findings of the GJ and the people of CO, and have the R's defend themselves against charges. That way - if it was a joke with no proof as you claim, they would easily prevail and you would now have some aquittals to bolster your arguement.

IT is not just touch DNA. And even if it was, There is still someone out there is matches.

I don't need people I believe are innocent to go to trial and have to defend themselves to bolster my feelings on their case.

For me, This case is something that has stuck with me all these years. I look at the evidence for myself. I consider sources and after all that, I believe they are not guilty of this crime. Not in any way.

I don't respect the Gj findings. I don't. I respect the people that gave their time and effort but in the end I think they got it wrong. That is just my personal opinion and one that I am sure does not matter to them..

We all form opinions on what we take as true or not, relevant or not.

That is just human nature.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You left out a very significant piece of the post you quoted between "smoking gun evidence" and "this is of course false"

Sorry, The quotes are all messed up so when I reply it is not clear what is mine or another posters.

 

[Tawny]

Scarlett, can you link me to where it was shown it was more than just touch DNA? My understanding was that it was only touch DNA, but I could be mistaken!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett, can you link me to where it was shown it was more than just touch DNA? My understanding was that it was only touch DNA, but I could be mistaken!

"A new technique of analysis, Ms. Lacy said in a letter to JonBenet’s father, John Ramsey, has found DNA traces, unobtainable by earlier methods, of an unidentified male on the long johns JonBenet wore the night she died."

"The DNA is not from a member of the Ramsey family and is almost definitely that of the killer, who would have presumably removed or otherwise handled the long johns, Ms. Lacy said.

The genetic material matches that from a drop of blood found on JonBenet’s underwear early in the investigation. The authorities determined then that the blood was not from a member of the Ramsey family but could not say whether it came from the killer, Ms. Lacy said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/us/10ramsey.html?pagewanted=print&_r=1&

So it is TDNA that matches the BLOOD that was in her underwear. That is two hits on the same DNA.

 

[Tawny]

Thank you

 

[bettybaby00]

I believe it was someone who broke in and was there when they got home. I don't not believe that John and Patsy ever knew for sure but I think they had suspicions here and there.

There is nothing that says that they did it with clear and convincing evidence.
This was a non verdict to me. I think that people were expecting it to be released and it would be an AHA!!! but it is not.. IT is a non issue. Not enough to prove anything, and not even enough to go to trial.

I think they may know the person who killed JBR but I don't think they knew WHO that may be then or even now although they may have suspects in their mind.

BBM and snipped...

Catching up on this thread. If I understand your comments correctly you believe JR/PR "know who did it," which I take to mean that the perpetrator(s) was someone they knew....not that they actually witnessed what happened that night.

But who could that possibly be? I get the idea a family could be horrified to learn that a neighbor, or a coach, or a pastor, or a friend, was revealed to be guilty of committing a heinous crime against someone within that family. Sadly that sort of scenario happens frequently. The flaw (IMO) in applying such a concept to this case is that the Rs pretty much named everyone they knew as a possible suspect--except other family members. And all of these people that were recklessly thrown under the bus were vetted by LE, which of course was supported by the DA (both). If any one of those people had shown any sort of "guilt" both Hunter and/or Lacy would have put it to a GJ. Given this, I can't believe it was someone the Rs knew, b/c they named way too many people, all of who were found to have no connection to the crime, and by doing so the Rs were the only ones left standing.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM and snipped...

Catching up on this thread. If I understand your comments correctly you believe JR/PR "know who did it," which I take to mean that the perpetrator(s) was someone they knew....not that they actually witnessed what happened that night.

But who could that possibly be? I get the idea a family could be horrified to learn that a neighbor, or a coach, or a pastor, or a friend, was revealed to be guilty of committing a heinous crime against someone within that family. Sadly that sort of scenario happens frequently. The flaw (IMO) in applying such a concept to this case is that the Rs pretty much named everyone they knew as a possible suspect--except other family members. And all of these people that were recklessly thrown under the bus were vetted by LE, which of course was supported by the DA (both). If any one of those people had shown any sort of "guilt" both Hunter and/or Lacy would have put it to a GJ. Given this, I can't believe it was someone the Rs knew, b/c they named way too many people, all of who were found to have no connection to the crime, and by doing so the Rs were the only ones left standing.

I don't believe they know who did it, I think they may have known the person who did it, If you know what I mean. I don't believe they know the identity of the person who killed Jonbenet, But I think they may have met that person, Know that person in some distant capacity that they would have been far enough out to not be on their radar or the police's radar, Although they were focused on the R's immediately.

I believe this was more of a fringe person. Someone who may have known the R's but the R's may not have known them, Someone they passed in the store but had no knowledge of them intimately.

I hope that is more clear about what I am thinking on the Suspect.