The Ramseys are Cleared

[angelwngs]

Make that two. :clap:

Thanks to You, # two, too! (lol)

 

[Rino]

Why would they search the house when they saw she was not in her room and had just read a ransom note stating she was kidnapped for ransom? When did Patsy call 911?

Wouldn't anyone???

Why did they not follow the instructions in the ransom note?

 

[Rino]

See that's the thing...

If they had gone into pure panic mode at the ransom note, called police and then waited by phone in a panic, done nothing other than go get Burke..then maybe that is believable, that they didn't search the house, they assumed the ransom note was real, JonBenet was gone and acted accordingly. They didnt'.

They started making calls right away. I can't remember if they were inviting people over before her body was found or not,maybe not.

Before, the house was full of friends when he "discovered" the body

 

[Medea]

Before, the house was full of friends when he "discovered" the body

Well, there it is then. If you believed your child was really kidnapped you would do NOTHING until police arrived and then do whatever they told you.

You would absolutely not be blatantly disobeying the orders of the kidnappers, tying up the phone and inviting people into the house.

 

[Karole28]

I truly don't think you even understand that "low probability" -- 4.5 out of 5 with 1 being a match -- does not support probable cause. In other words, it does not support going to trial much less represent inculpatory evidence. Oh, and the Grand Jury agreed.

I've noticed that you're condescending and insulting in your posts on other threads, so this doesn't surprise me one bit.

You can go research Cherokee's analysis now, unless you need the information filtered through an "expert" so you'll understand it.

You can report back here when you're through.

 

[Rino]

See that's the thing...

If they had gone into pure panic mode at the ransom note, called police and then waited by phone in a panic, done nothing other than go get Burke..then maybe that is believable, that they didn't search the house, they assumed the ransom note was real, JonBenet was gone and acted accordingly. They didnt'.

They started making calls right away. I can't remember if they were inviting people over before her body was found or not,maybe not.

Oddly enough they claim they didn't get Burke. They let him sleep through the ordeal. RRiigghhtt...

 

[MrsMush99]

Would just one IDI here please answer one question for me?

If unknown male touch DNA is present on both sides of JBR's longjohns, along with DNA intermingled w/ JBR's blood in her undies, do you consider it a "possibility", that these samples could have come from anyone other than the killer?

I just want to know if each and every post here from differing opinions is falling absolutely onto deaf ears or not.

Yes I think it is a POSSIBILITY, but not likely. What are the chances that a fresh pair of panties is going to just have anyone's DNA on them??? And that the long johns DNA is going to have the same exact DNA as the panties???? Listen if the DNA pointed to the Ramsey's I wouldn't say it didn't matter and make all sorts of reasons why it couldn't be them. I would say "wow, I was wrong, the buggers did it". But DNA does not lie. And I'll say that until I'm blue in the face because that is a FACT.

 

[Pepper]

Would just one IDI here please answer one question for me?

If unknown male touch DNA is present on both sides of JBR's longjohns, along with DNA intermingled w/ JBR's blood in her undies, do you consider it a "possibility", that these samples could have come from anyone other than the killer?

I just want to know if each and every post here from differing opinions is falling absolutely onto deaf ears or not.

Since no one here has identified him/herself as a DNA expert or scientist, I think it is foolish of us amateurs here to speculate in areas in which we have no expertise. I'm sure bonafide experts will go on TV in the days to come to explain why or why not touch DNA evidence is transferable.

 

[Seeker]

Before, the house was full of friends when he "discovered" the body

Don't forget those "victim advocates" that were there as well, CLEANING THE KITCHEN AND WIPING EVERYTHING DOWN!!!!

Yeah, no cross contamination there either with all the friends, the paster, police who had been in and out of the house all morning. Yeah, sure they believed the ransom letter was real...

Don't call anyone, don't talk to anyone not even a stray dog....so what do they do? The exact opposite...

 

[Karole28]

Why would they search the house when they saw she was not in her room and had just read a ransom note stating she was kidnapped for ransom?

I'd be rounding up neighbors to block all incoming and outgoing traffic to my street (maybe they left a nanosecond before you awoke, how would you know otherwise?)
While I searched EVERY INCH OF MY HOME! At the very least, to make sure the "kidnappers" weren't after my other child and hiding in (of all things..) MY BASEMENT.

The Ramsey's knew the "kidnappers" were still in the house, and they weren't afraid of them one bit.

 

[Medea]

Oddly enough they claim they didn't get Burke. They let him sleep through the ordeal. RRiigghhtt...

I guess I could theoretically see looking in on your child and not waking him up, not wanting to freak him out with all the commotion. BUt I can't see making phone calls or inviting anyone over if you truly belived your daughter had been kidnapped for ransom, might be alive, and did not know her body was in the basement.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

ocean, yours are the exact same things I posted here a long while back, in my theory of an IDI, so we were at least on the same page at one moment in time.

Could you please answer a few questions for me?

Do you think the killer studied PR's handwriting prior to the murder?

Do you totally discount that the multitude of 'things' which almost all RDI's note in their reasoning as to why they think PR, and/or possibly JR and BR were somehow involved in a 'cover-up'?

If so, would you please explain your reasoning for discounting just a couple of those well known actions and items?

I am sincerely trying to understand your position.

I do understand the other side of the issue, Angel and respect them but cases are brought on actual evidence to prove that someone did the crime. Even a GJ, who will indict a ham sandwich, refused to bite and imo it was because there was no evidence then or now that the Ramseys were involved. I do think that many people do not like the Ramseys but that does not make them murderers .............just easier to accuse imo.

I do not give any weight to the handwriting analysis. I am sorry, I just don't.

Out of a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being the most likely to have written the note and Patsy only having a 4.5 rating which is at the top range and means possibly but not nearly as likely as someone who got assessed at a 1, 2,3,or even a 4. I think they included her into the last 1/2 of a percent range simply to keep her hanging thinking they could put pressure on her to cave.

imoo

 

[Medea]

Yes I think it is a POSSIBILITY, but not likely. What are the chances that a fresh pair of panties is going to just have anyone's DNA on them??? And that the long johns DNA is going to have the same exact DNA as the panties???? Listen if the DNA pointed to the Ramsey's I wouldn't say it didn't matter and make all sorts of reasons why it couldn't be them. I would say "wow, I was wrong, the buggers did it". But DNA does not lie. And I'll say that until I'm blue in the face because that is a FACT.

How could her parents skin cells on her clothing possibly be evidence of their guilt?

If their DNA was found on the paint brush/tape/restraints, etc. then I would agree. But mom or dad's skin cells found on a child's clothing? It would mean nothing. If was saliva or semen...that's a different thing. But skin cells?

 

[Wudge]

I've noticed that you're condescending and insulting in your posts on other threads, so this doesn't surprise me one bit.

You can go research Cherokee's analysis now, unless you need the information filtered through an "expert" so you'll understand it.

You can report back here when you're through.

I recall that Patsy's handwriting sample grade of a 4.5 out of 5 (low probability) was the consensus from six handwritings experts whom LE had asked to assess and grade her sample. Do you also think the D.A. is allowed to ignore "best" evidence when they go before a Grand Jury?

 

[Seeker]

I do understand the other side of the issue, Angel and respect them but cases are brought on actual evidence to prove that someone did the crime. Even a GJ, who will indict a ham sandwich, refused to bite and imo it was because there was no evidence then or now that the Ramseys were involved. I do think that many people do not like the Ramseys but that does not make them murderers .............just easier to accuse imo.

I do not give any weight to the handwriting analysis. I am sorry, I just don't.

Out of a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being the most likely to have written the note and Patsy only having a 4.5 rating which is at the top range and means possibly but not nearly as likely as someone who got assessed at a 1, 2,3,or even a 4. I think they included her into the last 1/2 of a percent range simply to keep her hanging thinking they could put pressure on her to cave.

imoo

Ocean, I think you missed the fact that Hunter was the reason they did not indict...
The actual findings of the GJ have never been made public.

 

[packerdog]

Anyone who would leave a peanut butter mess on the kitchen counter for the housekeeper to clean up, wouldn't dry clean her clothes. She was to lazy.

 

[jill]

How could her parents skin cells on her clothing possibly be evidence of their guilt?

If their DNA was found on the paint brush/tape/restraints, etc. then I would agree. But mom or dad's skin cells found on a child's clothing? It would mean nothing. If was saliva or semen...that's a different thing. But skin cells?

an article I read this morning stated that same DNA was found under Jon Benet's fingernails.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Ocean, I think you missed the fact that Hunter was the reason they did not indict...
The actual findings of the GJ have never been made public.

Then how do we know that they wanted to indict or not. Maybe they didn't.

Strange that Hunter would take it to a GJ then not indict. I think it is logical they didn't go for it and he was trying to save face.

JMO tho

 

[Rino]

Do you also think the D.A. is allowed to ignore "best" evidence when they go before a Grand Jury?

He can do anything he wishes, in this case he did just that.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

an article I read this morning stated that same DNA was found under Jon Benet's fingernails.

OMG, really?

Do you know where you read that jill?

tia