this is my opinion of course

[Blazeboy3]

I know that the case of the Ramsey child is old and has been hashed to death, there are a lot of people who have already formed the opinion that the parents did it. Partner ship in a crime always has a weak point in it, there has to be someone in charge, to keep the weak one from breaking down and confessing. If it was a joint venture there has to be a lot of hard thinking after the crime or accident, imagine one of the parents after the shock of the death, it is hard to do if it is the first time, to sit down and write a lengthily ransom note, there has to be a lot of emotions running through the parent to keep a clear head and concentrate on making deliberate errors in spelling, quoting lines from different movies that seems kind of odd for the Ramsey’s to be watching those kind of films. The zodiac killer quoted from his favorite movie in his lengthy coded script. But he was a serious killer, no emotions ran through him, in a sadist situation were the male keeps his wife and companion in crime, isolated from family and friends to create a zombie like partner for his pleasure that was completely reliant on him. Does John sound like that kind of person? His wife was outgoing and involved in pageants with her daughter, she does not sound like a person whom was being controlled by her husband. How weak was she not to turn her husband in for murder or molestation of their daughter. Looks like a strong team to me, I know the lawyer thing turned everybody off about them, but look at it this way, you and I know that when a crime like this is in the news, family and relatives are always the first suspects, no matter how much grief that I’m in, you can bet that I need protection from media and over zealous cops and detectives. I’m not writing this to make the Ramsey’s look innocent but to have a serious conversation with someone on this site that will and can think this out step by step, someone that had done reading on psychopaths, sociopath, there has to be a lot of soul searching into the working of a killer, serious questions it is not a contest to see whom is the smartest or how much you can joke about what color was the shoes the detective was wearing, but a serious slow and meticulous thought process, is there anyone interested in this enough to spend the time and energy? I do not believe that because it has not been solved that it cannot be solved.



_______________
IMO

http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/desborough.html
Interesting; I'm replying before I read further...it reminds me David Icke's video tapes (two) titled "Revelations of a Mother Goddess" wherein on tape 2 it is stated that JonBenet was the price the R's had to pay--the child who put the last xmas ball on the tree...that her family knew...and how it related to the devil John Bay(sp?). Have you any info on this?

FYI...a piece of David Icke's writing
The adage "what you don't know can hurt you" is very true when it comes to Illuminati intent. Thanks to David Icke, the Illuminati's biggest secret has been publicly revealed for the first time, despite the best efforts of the Illuminati-controlled media to suppress it. As the author states in the book, the Illuminati foments wars and mayhem in order to create terror, the vibrations of which become encoded onto the earth's ley lines, thus inhibiting the spiritual growth of humanity.

 

[Shawna]

There is an interesting website that connects Jonbenet's murder to Laci Peterson's.

"The Ramsey girl was murdered on Christmas, and Laci Peterson disappeared on Christmas Eve".

" It is quite possible that a Satanic cult was responsible for the Ramsey murder. Note the 6 year gap (as in 666, the Satanic number) between these two cases. The Satanic Cult may be looking at Astronomy events in the timing of ritual murders: in December 1996. Also, the Ramsey case asked for a $118000 ransom, and this may relate to Revelation 1:18"


http://revelation13.net/Laci.html

 

[Blazeboy3]

There is an interesting website that connects Jonbenet's murder to Laci Peterson's.

"The Ramsey girl was murdered on Christmas, and Laci Peterson disappeared on Christmas Eve".

" It is quite possible that a Satanic cult was responsible for the Ramsey murder. Note the 6 year gap (as in 666, the Satanic number) between these two cases. The Satanic Cult may be looking at Astronomy events in the timing of ritual murders: in December 1996. Also, the Ramsey case asked for a $118000 ransom, and this may relate to Revelation 1:18"


http://revelation13.net/Laci.html

IMHO...it's a XMAS "thing/sacrifice?" Thank you very much for the URL/informational site...I'm off and reading LOL!

FWIW IMHO...it's just TOO SIMPLE A SOLUTION...MOST(MAJORITY) CAN'T BELIEVE(COMPREHEND) THAT THE R'S COULD MURDER JONBENET...!?:waitasec: :banghead: :silenced:
http://www.howtobesaved.com/page15.html
23. WHO MURDERED JONBENET RAMSEY? Did John and Patsy Ramsey murder their daughter? Go to www..com click on the reversals page and listen to audio clips and you decide. Patsy's famous statement is "There are at least two people on the face of the earth that KNOW who did this----that is the killer and some other person that killer may have confided in."
The ten thousand dollar question is this. How does Patsy Ramsey know that there are at least two people that know who commited the murder? The answer is obvious! There really are two people that know who murdered JonBenet Ramsey. They are John and Patsy Ramsey!

NOTE:THE ABOVE URL DOESN'T APPEAR TO WORK(N/A); HERE'S ANOTHER
FYI:
http://hometown.aol.com/reverse247/ramsey/ramsey3.html

On April 15, 2000 Fox News Channel aired Carol McKinley's interview with John and Patsy Ramsey in a one hour presentation billed as "The Ramseys: On The Record." The parents are still plugging their book, "The Death of Innocence," and Carol McKinley asked the expected pointed questions in a polite way. The parents' reversals are revealing in that we now know more about who was present, including a name for the rapist and more details about someone named David who interrupted the rapist.
- The forward speech is quoted below. Brackets show where the reversals occur. The reverse speech is shown in bold. Click on each .ra extension to hear the forward and reverse speech. The forward speech is heard first and then followed by each reversal being played three times at progressively slower speeds. Finally, the bracketed segment of forward speech is played and immediately follwed by the reversal, all at normal speed. If you minimize Real Player at the bottom of your screen, you can follow the text to verify each reversal as you hear it.
- Comments and opinions are those of this author and may or may not accurately represent the true thoughts of the speakers.
- Excerpts include:
- John Ramsey is offended by the Boulder Police Department hiding a video camera at JonBenet's grave in hopes of taping some incriminating admission by the parents.
- Patsy Ramsey explains why there are no shower curtains in their new home.
- While the Ramseys discuss how a killer could familiarize himself with their house, their reversals supply another name and confirm that John Ramsey was not in the room while his daughter was raped.
- John Ramsey explains why the parents are speaking out now while his reversal blames himself for being distracted with his girlfriend while his daughter was being raped.
- Patsy Ramsey complains about what she has had to endure.
- Patsy Ramsey states that their book was written from personal knowledge.
- Carol McKinley's reversal when reciting the name of the parents' book is quite revealing. Did the parents unconsciously choose this title for their book because of the reversal?
- Patsy Ramsey appears to concoct a story about JonBenet to gain audience empathy.
- John Ramsey describes putting JonBenet to bed while his reversal indicates who interrupted the rape of his daughter.
- Patsy Ramsey describes finding the ransom note.
- Carol McKinley and John Ramsey talk over each other at the same time while they are both reversing. See if you can hear both sets of reversals at the same time!
- John Ramsey talks about cooperating with police while one of his reversals indicates the giving of hair and blood samples was done to fake out their pastor.
- Patsy Ramsey recites the profile of the rapist, according to the experts hired by the Ramseys, while her reversal indicates he was someone who had offered them a deal, possibly for drugs.
- John Ramsey denies the story about his son Burke's voice being heard in the background on the 911 call while his reversal indicates John is protecting the identity of whoever he spoke to in the background while the call was taking place.
- John Ramsey asks that the killing of a young child be made a federal offense while his reversal indicates that it was he himself who panicked and faked the crime scene.
- Patsy Ramsey rambles on about the need to protect children while her reversals talk about evil and describe herself as a fiend with money ready.
- Patsy Ramsey talks about the common bonds she shares with her husband.
- Patsy Ramsey talks about finding the killer while her reversals indicate they may be able to locate him through an assistant.
- Patsy Ramsey talks about the kind statements of strangers being little angels sent from God while her reversal speaks about lust and living forever after having made up the crime.

:crazy: ???

 

[little1]

Actually Blaze, I think a vast majority of American DO think the Ramsey's are guilty. I will try to find some stats, but most had already decided they were guilty before most of the evidence had even been released.

 

[Shylock]

Actually Blaze, I think a vast majority of American DO think the Ramsey's are guilty. I will try to find some stats, but most had already decided they were guilty before most of the evidence had even been released.

I think most Americans are smart enough to realize that a ransom note found in the same house as a young dead girl is way too fishy. Then when they heard the parents lawyered-up and were refusing to cooperate with the police their minds were made up.

 

[little1]

I think most Americans are smart enough to realize that a ransom note found in the same house as a young dead girl is way too fishy. Then when they heard the parents lawyered-up and were refusing to cooperate with the police their minds were made up.

Very good, now what was your point? I was responding to Blazeboys post that most cannot fathom the fact that the Ramsey's are guilty. I pointed out that isn't necessarily true. I think the last few years the R's have gained a little bit more sympathy, especially after some of the evidence was released showing the media had distorted and misreported some facts.

 

[Shylock]

Very good, now what was your point? I was responding to Blazeboys post that most cannot fathom the fact that the Ramsey's are guilty. I pointed out that isn't necessarily true. I think the last few years the R's have gained a little bit more sympathy, especially after some of the evidence was released showing the media had distorted and misreported some facts.

My point is that I think you're wrong. The Ramseys have not gained "more sympathy" over the last few years - most people still think they did it because of the reasons I mentioned.

BTW, most people think OJ and Darlee did it too.

 

[Blazeboy3]

Actually Blaze, I think a vast majority of American DO think the Ramsey's are guilty. I will try to find some stats, but most had already decided they were guilty before most of the evidence had even been released.

Oh little1...are you educated or knowledgible(sp?)..."EVERYTHING (ALL:everything&everyone) IS ENERGY, that is a fact! ... ENERGY follows THOUGHT, that is a fact! ... ENERGY cannot be destored but can change form, that is a fact! ...

so you little1 with all your courage must ask yourself ... "Why is it that most of the people think the R's are guilty ??? ... remember the "energy thing!" :banghead: :waitasec: :crazy:

w/luv :snooty:

 

[Blazeboy3]

Very good, now what was your point? I was responding to Blazeboys post that most cannot fathom the fact that the Ramsey's are guilty. I pointed out that isn't necessarily true. I think the last few years the R's have gained a little bit more sympathy, especially after some of the evidence was released showing the media had distorted and misreported some facts.

Is this a "game"; I think not! ... IMHO IT'S ABOUT "JUSTICE/JONBENET." IMHO it appears to be a "go fish game to you." ... set me straight/prove me wrong/right/whatever??? :crazy:

P.S. IMHO "MOST BELIEVE THE RAMSEYS ARE GUILTY" FWIW...???!!!

 

[BlueCrab]

Actually Blaze, I think a vast majority of American DO think the Ramsey's are guilty. I will try to find some stats, but most had already decided they were guilty before most of the evidence had even been released.

Here's the results of a web poll (Bill Bickel, Crime/Punishment) as of April 15, 2002 after 1,512 votes:

WHO KILLED JONBENET RAMSEY?

Patsy Ramsey 50%

Burke Ramsey 18%

Intruder 18%

John Ramsey 10%

Fleet White 2%

Misc. 2%

So it appears that 78% of the public (almost four out of five) believe a Ramsey family member killed JonBenet.

JMO

 

[eliza]

My point is that I think you're wrong. The Ramseys have not gained "more sympathy" over the last few years - most people still think they did it because of the reasons I mentioned.

BTW, most people think OJ and Darlee did it too.

I agree with Shylock, I believe the vast majority of the population are not fooled by the Ramseys. The Ramseys and their Lawyer in my opinion have distorted many of the facts and used the media to do it. The only sympathy I see are the people that don't want to get tangled up in one of their many lawsuits.

 

[little1]

My point is that I think you're wrong. The Ramseys have not gained "more sympathy" over the last few years - most people still think they did it because of the reasons I mentioned.

BTW, most people think OJ and Darlee did it too.

Yup, I agree on the OJ thing, he is definietely guilty. Darlie Routier? I think her husband may have had a hand in it more than she did, but I think she knew or covered up that crime. The Ramseys? The only thing that truly bugs me is the way they refused to talk to police. Could they not understand that in order for the investigation to go ANY further they must submit to interviews and such to clear them as suspects? (I use the term loosley here, but y'all know what I mean) I just don't understand that. If they had submitted to interviews and an investigation to clear them, then I don't think we would be discussing the case right now. Vincent Bugliosi said it best when he stated that the strongest evidence against the Ramseys is the fact that no one else could have committed the crime. But that in itself is the weakest evidence as well. No one can prove which one did it, withput a reasonable doubt, and which one covered up.

 

[Shylock]

The only thing that truly bugs me is the way they refused to talk to police. Could they not understand that in order for the investigation to go ANY further they must submit to interviews and such to clear them as suspects?

You hit the nail right on the head. The Ramseys and their supporters want you to believe that they couldn't have been more cooperative with the investigation. That's a farce and they can only offer twisted facts to try and prove it.

The reality is that not once did the Ramseys show ANY type of interest in what the police were doing to try and find their daughter's killer. Everything from Day-1 was about THEM--and how they were going to stay out of jail. John even admitted a couple years ago that none of the investigators they hired ever worked on trying to solve the crime. Their job was solely to keep he and Patsy out of jail.

 

[Brefie]

John even admitted a couple years ago that none of the investigators they hired ever worked on trying to solve the crime. Their job was solely to keep he and Patsy out of jail.

WOW! Really? Do you have an exact quote? This is genuine surprise and interest - not sarcasm. I would really like to learn more about this.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Seeker]

Armistead said his assignment, working for the Ramseys' lawyers, was not to solve the crime. It was to keep the Ramseys from being arrested.

"I was alert to the fact that there's no getting around the fact that many children who are killed are killed by their parents," he said. "It was not like I was naive. It wouldn't have changed how I did anything. It didn't really matter to me whether they did it or didn't do it.

"I saw my mandate as being to protect the Ramseys. At some point in time, there was some pressure to 'find the killer.' But I was not in a position to do that. I didn't have access to the evidence."

here.

 

[Brefie]

Very interesting. Thanks for the link, Seeker, I apreciate it.

 

[BlueCrab]

No one can prove which one did it, withput a reasonable doubt, and which one covered up.

It can be done by the process of elimination. ONE of the three Ramseys in the house that night killed JonBenet or knows who killed her. If exculpatory evidence can be developed for two of them, then the third one is the likely killer.

For instance, if they'd publicly release the results of all three handwriting examinations (John's, Patsy's and Burke's) it would, IMO, tell a story all of its own if two could be definitely eliminated as the writer.

JMO

 

[Seeker]

Yes BC, but that story would be that none of them could be ruled conclusively as the writer of the note. None of the 3's handwriting was anywhere close to it.

Patsy rated 4.5 with 5 being the lowest probablility and 0 being a conclusive match. The handwriting isn't going to solve this crime.

You cannot charge both parents with the same crime as a unit. You would have to choose which one you could prove beyond reasonable doubt did the deed, and no-one can.

If the Ramseys are covering for someone, then the logical conclusion would be their remaining child IMO. I don't see them covering for one another. I don't believe they would have stayed together this long if one knew the other did it.

With this particular case it's really hard to prove who killed her. There is a lot of forensic evidence from the family found, but they lived there.

 

[why_nutt]

If the Ramseys are covering for someone, then the logical conclusion would be their remaining child IMO. I don't see them covering for one another. I don't believe they would have stayed together this long if one knew the other did it.

From a certain perspective, can we not already say that Patsy has demonstrated she will cover for John? In the incident of John's affair with a woman he subsequently deemed dangerous and has described his fear of, Patsy protected John and herself from the woman by pretending she was nothing more to John than an acquaintance, so the woman would not hurt either of them in a jealous rage. The woman bought the lie. Nearly twenty years later, Patsy denied knowing of this woman's existence and expected the BPD to buy this new lie just as easily. Could it be that, in the absence of knowing John had already confessed to the BPD of the affair, she was covering up for John by not admitting such an affair had taken place? Would this not be proof she can cover when she wants to?

 

[Seeker]

I'm sure she could, but the question in my mind is would she over something as traumatic as the murder of not only just your youngest child, but your only daughter and hope of fullfilling your own ambitious dreams?

The murder and sexual desecration (sp) of her baby daughter is a far different thing than an affair. An affair John had before he even knew her (or am I misremembering that part again?).

I may be remembering this wrong, but didn't he have an affair while married to his first wife? Isn't that what broke up the marriage? If so then it was way before Patsy ever met him. It's not like he cheated on her...so if she covered it up then it's because it really didn't affect her IMO, because it wasn't done to her. IOW she wasn't the recipient of his betrayal in that instance.