LI_Mom
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 3,268
- Reaction score
- 3
I couldn't understand the choice "friend/Ramesey's covered for" either. Who/why would the Ramseys "cover for?"
:waitasec:
They'd cover for Burke.
I couldn't understand the choice "friend/Ramesey's covered for" either. Who/why would the Ramseys "cover for?"
:waitasec:
OK, but Burke's DNA wasn't on the clothing!They'd cover for Burke.
OK, but Burke's DNA wasn't on the clothing!
I don't have to assume Burke had to be part of the WHOLE scene... only that if he could have been the catalyst that started the whole tragic episode.... parents WOULD have good reason to rally & protect their own son. Parents have been known to protect children against all sorts of HORRIBLE acts even when another child is the victim.
I always found it VERY, VERY odd that a parent would discover an intruder entered their house & left a ransom note.... their daughter seems to be missing & they have no way of knowing for SURE that they're in the house alone... and yet, they leave their young son upstairs alone?
They're more worried that he might get upset & cry than they are in keeping him close to them until police arrive???
This is just idle speculation. They probably checked on him the moment they saw the note. We simply don't know. With all the confusion going on at that time I don't think it is fair to indict someone because that is not exactly what YOU would have done in that situation. Since none of us have been inside that home, it is impossible to say absolutely what was reasonable actions at that time. Personally if I saw that he was safe and sleeping in his bed, I probably would have left him there too. Why add another layer of distraction to an already chaotic situation?
Too bad there wasn't "None of the above" on that poll. I've always believed that it was an intruder but that it was someone the Ramseys knew or were acquaintenances. However I don't believe the Ramseys covered for anyone.
I'm amazed that there are so many people who WANT the Ramseys to be guilty, even if it is finally proven they aren't!
....... I entertained both theories equally; intruder v. parents. I felt like it was unknowable from all the countering I read. I felt I had no choice but to accept that I couldn't know......
I also believe that it was someone they knew but they were not covering up. I didn't vote because what I think was not an option. I think DNA should be done on adult male friends that knew Jon Benet.Too bad there wasn't "None of the above" on that poll. I've always believed that it was an intruder but that it was someone the Ramseys knew or were acquaintenances. However I don't believe the Ramseys covered for anyone.
I'm amazed that there are so many people who WANT the Ramseys to be guilty, even if it is finally proven they aren't!
I've studied this case extensively,and the large majority of my 3900+ posts have been on the JB forum.I see no reason to change course.This is just ML's parting gift to John Ramsey.Some have said she may be writing a book in the future.I think that may be a possibility.I certainly hope she has a q and a section in it so she can tell us why she fought hard for 10 wk old Jason Midyette,who had 28 broken bones from beaten (and finally to his death) by his father.THAT is the kind of person Lacy is.You're proof people do think with independent minds. Just because all may not share your opinion doesn't mean you shouldn't allot them the same permission you give yourself.
Poll Question: Has the DNA evidence changed your theory on who killed Jon Benet?
No. I voted "intruder" - just like last time.
Pepper's comments above mirror my own feelings.
I would only add the word "probably".
"I've always believed that it was an intruder - but, that it was probably someone the Ramseys knew or were acquaintenances."
I have always felt incredibly sad for the Ramsey family - especially, that the real perpetrator was never uncovered, arrested, tried & convicted of that precious child's molestation & hideous murder.
I do hope this new DNA revelation & the DA's exonerating remarks will afford John & Burke some measure of comfort.
:cat: Rum Tum :wave:
I've studied this case extensively,and the large majority of my 3900+ posts have been on the JB forum.I see no reason to change course.This is just ML's parting gift to John Ramsey.Some have said she may be writing a book in the future.I think that may be a possibility.I certainly hope she has a q and a section in it so she can tell us why she fought hard for 10 wk old Jason Midyette,who had 28 broken bones from beaten (and finally to his death) by his father.THAT is the kind of person Lacy is.
oh yes,and please see how (in)competent she is: www.forstevethomas.com
I concluded that it was probably an intruder from the start. I thought the parents were very forth coming and honest. There was never any credible evidence that indicated they were responsible but I never ruled out the possibility. The evidence with the mystery DNA has now convinced me that my assessment was accurate. I also think the lynch mob that continue to accuse an innocent family are uneducated, narrow minded, or just plain evil, and no better than the person who did this. JMHO.
don't be fooled.that's exactly what the R's and Lacy want everyone to think.this case has always been a fine example of one of the largest cover-ups in US history.
I couldn't understand the choice "friend/Ramesey's covered for" either. Who/why would the Ramseys "cover for?"
:waitasec:
I concluded that it was probably an intruder from the start. I thought the parents were very forth coming and honest. There was never any credible evidence that indicated they were responsible but I never ruled out the possibility. The evidence with the mystery DNA has now convinced me that my assessment was accurate. I also think the lynch mob that continue to accuse an innocent family are uneducated, narrow minded, or just plain evil, and no better than the person who did this. JMHO.