Unknown male DNA and the panties discussion

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
Well I guess if we knew exactly from whom it was being hidden we might be on our way to identifying who the redresser was.

Sure. But it's still reasonable to ask. If someone puts forth the idea that the panties hide something, it reasonable to ask -from who, even if it can't be answered definitively. It helps us imagine various scenarios and whether or not they make sense.

Have you considered that Patsy was the person from whom the direct evidence of a sexual assault was hidden?

Sure. But the size 12s don't make much sense in such a scenario.

Without the evidence of the sexual assault being hidden from view, JonBenet's death would have been treated as a domestic homicide aggravated by a sexual assault.

The staging purchased time for the Ramsey's. They had intended to flee interstate using John's private plane. Without the staging this would not have been an option. Jonh and Patsy planned to fly out of Colorado leaving Burke and JonBenet behind!

It only bought time because the first two searches were incompetent.

So the use of the size-12's serves the dual purpose of hiding any evidence of a sexual assault, e.g. blood seeping, and offering consistency from antemortem to postmortem circumstances.

But that's the point - the long johns are doing the hiding. Why say the size 12 wed panties are there to hide something?

If the purpose was to hide the assault from PR, the long johns are doing all the hiding. If for some bizarre reason PR were to walk over the JB's body and pull down the long johns she'd see what? - Waaay to big panties. At that point she knows something is wrong, even if she doesn't know what. (assuming she's not in on the plan to put the size 12s on JB in the first place) That's why I don't understand saying the panties serve the function of hiding. They are under the long johns.

I think they may have been chosen for the reasons Cynic suggests - "undoing", or possibly for some other reason. Or, as you suggest in other posts, just to make things wierd and harder to figure out.

Prima facie JonBenet was redressed and placed in the wine-cellar so to represent a staged crime-scene e.g. Pink Barbie Nightgown, Barbie Doll and size-12 Bloomingdales underwear, these items should not be present, suggesting these were intended as crime-staging artifacts?

Probably.

The wine-cellar was not the primary crime-scene, the longjohns and size-12's were not part of the initial staging, her genital assault may not have been part of the initial crime-scene, the ligature and restraints were also not part of the original crime-scene.

This is another reason why the size-12's hide something .e.g. events prior to the wine-cellar!


.

Possibly.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

My opinion, after following this for almost 15 years, is they wanted LE, and everyone else, to believe she was put to bed without her ever waking up. Patsy didn't want anyone to believe there was a bed-wetting incident. If she was wearing her Wednesday (12/25/2006),underwear when she was found Thursday, this would back up her assertion that she only put the long johns on her, not the underwear, while JBR slept soundly - there wouldn't have been any reason to change her panties if she had not wet them.

If she wet the bed, the bed would be wet. I've seen conflicting reports about whether it was stained, but if the bed was wet, what did they do? Remake the bed with fresh sheets, and hide the used sheets too? Any evidence that shows this? Evidence that other bottoms besides the longjohns were urine stained?

I would guess either there is none or that it's said it may be in evidence but has not been made public, just like the hypothetical missing panties. So much speculation needed to fill in the blanks.

 

[Chrishope]

My opinion, after following this for almost 15 years, is they wanted LE, and everyone else, to believe she was put to bed without her ever waking up. Patsy didn't want anyone to believe there was a bed-wetting incident. If she was wearing her Wednesday (12/25/2006),underwear when she was found Thursday, this would back up her assertion that she only put the long johns on her, not the underwear, while JBR slept soundly - there wouldn't have been any reason to change her panties if she had not wet them.

Early on, when the tombstone was made public, there was a lot of controversy over the date the Ramsey's used.

The story would be consistent if the size were correct, but the fact that they are size 12 strongly suggests (though does not prove) that she was redressed in the size 12s.

The urine stains on the long johns suggest she died in them, but the lack of urine stains on the size 12s suggest redressing after death.

So, if the story is supposed to be -"We put her to bed, after putting the long johns on her, then we know nothing until nearly 6am the next morning.....blah blah blah...." - the size of the panties blows the story to pieces. So does the presence or urine stains on the lj but not on the panties. So does the improbability that PR put those long johns on JB over size 12 panties.

The Rs were not master criminals, but they weren't idiots either. They'd have to have known that the story wasn't going to hold together.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The urine stains on the long johns suggest she died in them, but the lack of urine stains on the size 12s suggest redressing after death.

Autopsy report says the underwear was urine stained. How do you know it was less stained?

So, if the story is supposed to be -"We put her to bed, after putting the long johns on her, then we know nothing until nearly 6am the next morning.....blah blah blah...." - the size of the panties blows the story to pieces. So does the presence or urine stains on the lj but not on the panties. So does the improbability that PR put those long johns on JB over size 12 panties.

The Rs were not master criminals, but they weren't idiots either. They'd have to have known that the story wasn't going to hold together.

Yes, that theory does depend on someone wanting to hide a change of underwear by using the wrong size which would point to a change in underwear. Even JR would probably know what fit right. Especially, if he's also been molesting her, as the theory often also says.

If she had wet herself that night, urine stains could also have been explained by the Ramseys as due to a scared child being kidnapped wetting herself. Her clothing was in the end urine stained anyway.

 

[Chrishope]

Autopsy report says the underwear was urine stained. How do you know it was less stained?

My mistake. I had the idea that the underwear she had on when found was not urine stained. Apparently I am wrong.

 

[vlpate]

The story would be consistent if the size were correct, but the fact that they are size 12 strongly suggests (though does not prove) that she was redressed in the size 12s.

The urine stains on the long johns suggest she died in them, but the lack of urine stains on the size 12s suggest redressing after death.

So, if the story is supposed to be -"We put her to bed, after putting the long johns on her, then we know nothing until nearly 6am the next morning.....blah blah blah...." - the size of the panties blows the story to pieces. So does the presence or urine stains on the lj but not on the panties. So does the improbability that PR put those long johns on JB over size 12 panties.

The Rs were not master criminals, but they weren't idiots either. They'd have to have known that the story wasn't going to hold together.

Hi Christophe,
I think Patsy said JB may have put the panties on herself - unless she was running around in just her underwear, they wouldn't have fallen off of her. I used to wear a bra under my shirt when I was little because I wanted to be a big girl....still do it to this day, haha.

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't see any reason the Ramseys, as killers, would want people to believe she died on Wednesday and I don't see that they would be that foolish to believe panties worn to bed on a Wednesday would prove the wearer died Wednesday rather than the next day. Are these magic panties that change to Thursday when the clock strikes midnight unless the wearer has been killed?

The point was NOT to have people believe she died on a Wednesday. The point was to make people believe she died wearing the exact clothing she was last seen in (by them). The panties may have just as easily said Thursday, Friday, or NO day at all. But whatever the panties looked like, if a replacement pair was available in ANY size, that is what she would have been redressed in.
The panties don't prove WHEN she died. They attempt to show she died wearing he same clothes she was put to bed in.
It really isn't that complicated, yet we seem to spend endless effort on the "Wednesday" panties.
The parents claimed to have put her to bed, first removing her black velvet pants and leaving her white shirt on her, then pulling the long johns on her OVER her panties. When asked about this very thing, Patsy says in her interview that she would have noticed if she had not been wearing any panties, so she was sure she had been. Matching up the "before and after" panties was what was desired, so the day of the week wasn't the issue- it just had to be the same as what she already was wearing.
An intruder would have had no need to make sure she was wearing any panties, let alone a pair that looked like the ones she was wearing before the assault.

 

[vlpate]

The point was NOT to have people believe she died on a Wednesday. The point was to make people believe she died wearing the exact clothing she was last seen in (by them). The panties may have just as easily said Thursday, Friday, or NO day at all. But whatever the panties looked like, if a replacement pair was available in ANY size, that is what she would have been redressed in.
The panties don't prove WHEN she died. They attempt to show she died wearing he same clothes she was put to bed in.
It really isn't that complicated, yet we seem to spend endless effort on the "Wednesday" panties.
The parents claimed to have put her to bed, first removing her black velvet pants and leaving her white shirt on her, then pulling the long johns on her OVER her panties. When asked about this very thing, Patsy says in her interview that she would have noticed if she had not been wearing any panties, so she was sure she had been. Matching up the "before and after" panties was what was desired, so the day of the week wasn't the issue- it just had to be the same as what she already was wearing.
An intruder would have had no need to make sure she was wearing any panties, let alone a pair that looked like the ones she was wearing before the assault.

Hey dee dee - from what I remember, and it's been a long time ago, there was a reason they were adamant that she died on the 25th. I'll dig and see if I can find anything. I agree totally that whomever changed her needed the panties to be the same as what she had on at the White's party - I'm assuming because someone helped her potty there and would have remembered them being day of the week panties.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The point was NOT to have people believe she died on a Wednesday.

I was responding to this.

Wearing underwear with a Wednesday feature does not mean JonBenet was killed on a Wednesday. She may have been killed on the Thursday, the underwear is no arbiter on this issue.

The Ramseys wanted everyone to believe JonBenet died on December 25th - they had her death as December 25th on her tombstone. Everything documenting her death indicates she died on December 26, 1996. It was important to them that the date be December 25th, which was on a Wednesday.

vlpate believes it does serve that purpose.

The point was to make people believe she died wearing the exact clothing she was last seen in (by them). The panties may have just as easily said Thursday, Friday, or NO day at all. But whatever the panties looked like, if a replacement pair was available in ANY size, that is what she would have been redressed in.

It's speculation that she wore other panties of that same style. You're trying to prove there was a similar style of another size by the mere presence of the crime scene size 12s. It's like trying to bootstrap that evidence in there.

The panties don't prove WHEN she died. They attempt to show she died wearing he same clothes she was put to bed in.

Yet, by being the wrong size, the size 12s show the panties were likely changed, which defeats the purpose. They show that to you, by your own argument. Perhaps they did it because they didn't consider your argument, but then it's speculation either way.

It really isn't that complicated, yet we seem to spend endless effort on the "Wednesday" panties.
The parents claimed to have put her to bed, first removing her black velvet pants and leaving her white shirt on her, then pulling the long johns on her OVER her panties. When asked about this very thing, Patsy says in her interview that she would have noticed if she had not been wearing any panties, so she was sure she had been. Matching up the "before and after" panties was what was desired, so the day of the week wasn't the issue- it just had to be the same as what she already was wearing.
An intruder would have had no need to make sure she was wearing any panties, let alone a pair that looked like the ones she was wearing before the assault.

There was no need to hide assault (your claimed intent) if their story was she was killed by someone else. Whatever the motivation was it wasn't logical thinking, even if it was the Ramseys. Yes, it could be that be the Ramseys had a motivation (even if misguided, and unsuccessful in hiding assault) to replace them. Or it could have been some other psychological type of reason (which I would say would be so in the case of an intruder). But there isn't any nearly airtight, obvious dots being connected here.

 

[vlpate]

I was responding to this.



vlpate believes it does sever that purpose.



It's speculation that she wore other panties of that same style. You're trying to prove there was a similar style of another size by the mere presence of the crime scene size 12s. It's like trying to bootstrap that evidence in there.



Yet, by being the wrong size, the size 12s show the panties were likely changed, which defeats the purpose. They show that to you, by your own argument. Perhaps they did it because they didn't consider your argument, but then it's speculation either way.



There was no need to hide assault (your claimed intent) if their story was she was killed by someone else. Whatever the motivation was it wasn't logical thinking, even if it was the Ramseys. Yes, it could be that be the Ramseys had a motivation (even if misguided, and unsuccessful in hiding assault) to replace them. Or it could have been some other psychological type of reason (which I would say would be so in the case of an intruder). But there isn't any nearly airtight, obvious dots being connected here.

Please fix and attribute your quotes correctly. Thanks.

 

[BBB167893]

If she wet the bed, the bed would be wet. I've seen conflicting reports about whether it was stained, but if the bed was wet, what did they do? Remake the bed with fresh sheets, and hide the used sheets too? Any evidence that shows this?

Maybe. It's been said that JB's bed looked like it had been made. Speaking purely from my own perspective, it DOES look a little too neat for a small child to have been in it.

I would guess either there is none or that it's said it may be in evidence but has not been made public, just like the hypothetical missing panties. So much speculation needed to fill in the blanks.

Comes with the territory, I'm afraid.

 

[Whaleshark]

UKGuy said: "but the stager thought redressing JonBenet in size-12's bearing a Wednesday feature would misdirect the investigators"
__

Not if Patsy said the size 12s were what JBR put on herself, and were what she purchased, and that they would not have been brought by an intruder. And they tried to prove it by producing the rest of the underwear years later.

This falls along with them trying to stick to and prove their story no matter what, including that they put her to bed in those clothes, it was last time they saw her, and she was kidnapped for ransom.

Smelly Squirell said: "There was no need to hide assault (your claimed intent) if their story was she was killed by someone else. Whatever the motivation was it wasn't logical thinking, even if it was the Ramseys".

Maybe it wasn't logical thinking, but the original crime, original cause of the situation has to be covered up in the first place so as not to have a reason for JBR to end up the way she is, and/or point to the perpetrator in the family. It has to be just a kidnapping for ransom to explain why she is gone, not an assault, or homicide, or anything related to that. Everything associated with her condition JR and PR claimed no knowledge of: the sexual assualt - and no anger expressed about it either - and JR had said he did not notice the cord around her neck when he found her, even though he said he took the tape off her mouth and tried to loosen the cord from one wrist before taking her upstairs. So he didn't notice the long cord hanging from her neck with the wooden piece tied to the end of it? Said he touched her face and talked to her and tried to see if she was still alive but didn't notice the blood pooled in her neck and the cord tied tight around it?

Distancing themselves from any knowledge of any part of the crime and keeping with her being in bed last time they saw her to finding the ransom note, seems of utmost importance... and I think staging and restaging with illogical decisions make the most sense. If they were being logical in the first place, the ransom note would most likely not have been written on their notepad with their pen, with a practice note left behind. ...but in the middle of the night where do you go and what do you use to stage a kidnapping with a ransom note but in your own home with all your own supplies right there so that there is an explanation of why she is missing in the morning?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Maybe it wasn't logical thinking, but the original crime, original cause of the situation has to be covered up in the first place so as not to have a reason for JBR to end up the way she is, and/or point to the perpetrator in the family. It has to be just a kidnapping for ransom to explain why she is gone, not an assault, or homicide, or anything related to that.

If it has to be a kidnapping, then there shouldn't be a body at all.

Everything associated with her condition JR and PR claimed no knowledge of: the sexual assualt - and no anger expressed about it either

You saw their reaction when they first heard about this?

- and JR had said he did not notice the cord around her neck when he found her, even though he said he took the tape off her mouth and tried to loosen the cord from one wrist before taking her upstairs.

I don't see how saying this points to his guilt. He said "it could have been there but he was panicked at that point." You think he's thinking if he says that, nobody else would notice it?

Distancing themselves from any knowledge of any part of the crime and keeping with her being in bed last time they saw her to finding the ransom note, seems of utmost importance

It could be so because it's the truth. There's nothing sinister about this if that's what actually happened.

... and I think staging and restaging with illogical decisions make the most sense. If they were being logical in the first place, the ransom note would most likely not have been written on their notepad with their pen, with a practice note left behind. ...but in the middle of the night where do you go and what do you use to stage a kidnapping with a ransom note but in your own home with all your own supplies right there so that there is an explanation of why she is missing in the morning?

Yet, he found her himself in the home, when, if RDI, she's missing because she was kidnapped and taken from the house.

 

[UKGuy]

The point was NOT to have people believe she died on a Wednesday. The point was to make people believe she died wearing the exact clothing she was last seen in (by them). The panties may have just as easily said Thursday, Friday, or NO day at all. But whatever the panties looked like, if a replacement pair was available in ANY size, that is what she would have been redressed in.
The panties don't prove WHEN she died. They attempt to show she died wearing he same clothes she was put to bed in.
It really isn't that complicated, yet we seem to spend endless effort on the "Wednesday" panties.
The parents claimed to have put her to bed, first removing her black velvet pants and leaving her white shirt on her, then pulling the long johns on her OVER her panties. When asked about this very thing, Patsy says in her interview that she would have noticed if she had not been wearing any panties, so she was sure she had been. Matching up the "before and after" panties was what was desired, so the day of the week wasn't the issue- it just had to be the same as what she already was wearing.
An intruder would have had no need to make sure she was wearing any panties, let alone a pair that looked like the ones she was wearing before the assault.

DeeDee249,
I think many of us agree that JonBenet was redressed in the size-12's. Although you suggest:

It really isn't that complicated, yet we seem to spend endless effort on the "Wednesday" panties.

I reckon it is complicated if you assume a single motive e.g. the Wednesday feature.

Why so, because accepting that you may be 100% correct:

The panties don't prove WHEN she died. They attempt to show she died wearing he same clothes she was put to bed in.

The R's may be assuming someone assisted JonBenet and noted her day of the week underwear?

But you may also be 100% incorrect in that prior to her death JonBenet may have worn a non-branded and non Wednesday feature pair of size-6 underwear to the White's party.

This does not disconfirm your assumption:

They attempt to show she died wearing he same clothes she was put to bed in.

It demonstrates that the attempt to show may be contrived or staged to mislead, rather than preserve any symmetry in underwear dress?

So the same explanation is consistent with two different interpretations.

For completeness here are some of Patsy's verbatim remarks on the size-12's.



Patsy states she purchased the size-12's

19 with what - I will make it very simple for
20 you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you
21 in possession of or what do you know about
22 the underwear that your daughter was wearing
23 at the time she was found murdered?
24 A. I have heard that she had on a
25 pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.
0078
1 Q. The underwear that she was
2 wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you
3 know where they come from as far as what
4 store?
5 A. Bloomingdales in New York.
6 Q. Who purchased those?
7 A. I did.

Patsy states she purchased the size-12's for her niece

14 Q. Just so I am clear, though, it is
15 your best recollection that the purchase of
16 the underpants, the Bloomi's days of the
17 week, was something that you bought for her,
18 whether it was just I am buying underwear
19 for my kids or these are special, here's a
20 present, that doesn't matter, but it was your
21 intention that she would wear those?
22 A. Well, I think that I bought a
23 package of the -- they came in a package of
24 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
25 I think I bought a package to give to my
0081
1 niece.
2 Q. Which niece was that?
3 A. Jenny Davis.

Patsy states she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer

15 THE WITNESS: They were just in
16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I
17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all
18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can
19 help herself to whatever is in there.
20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not
21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to
22 Jenny.
23 THE WITNESS: Right.
24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in
25 JonBenet's bathroom?
0087
1 A. Right.

The tabloids and no size-12's in the house

22 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I
23 mean, my first thought is something in the
24 tabloids, but, you know, they get everything
25 wrong, so --
0093
1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you
2 aware that these were the size of panties
3 that she was wearing, and this has been
4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they
5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of
6 that?
7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.
8 Q. And how did you become aware of
9 that?
10 A. Something I read, I am sure.
11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q. -- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?

So why would Patsy say she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer when they are not actually there?

Patently someone other than Patsy removed the remaining size-12's and did not inform Patsy, thus causing her to state something that is at odds with the evidence.

This is important since it suggests that Patsy may not have known about JonBenet's molestation. JonBenet's death may have been represented to her as an accident that required being covered up?


.

 

[BBB167893]

If it has to be a kidnapping, then there shouldn't be a body at all.

What are you saying, Squirrel?

You saw their reaction when they first heard about this?

No, but a lot of other people did. And they agree.

Yet, he found her himself in the home, when, if RDI, she's missing because she was kidnapped and taken from the house.

That's the whole problem, Squirrel. He KNEW where to find her. he even screamed BEFORE he turned on the light.

 

[Whaleshark]

If it has to be a kidnapping, then there shouldn't be a body at all.

Well, don't take my words for it then....
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/01011997ramseysoncnn.htm

CABELL: An FBI spokesman was quoted as saying at this point they don't regard it necessarily as a kidnapping. You think that's a wrong assumption?

RAMSEY, J: I don't know. I mean, there is a -- a note that said -- your daughter has been kidnapped. We have your daughter. We want money. You give us the money; she'll be safely returned.

RAMSEY, P: It seemed like kidnapping to me.
_
...The Ramseys themselves were still calling it kidnapping, after it's obviously an assault/homicide -- oh, and even though the body was, in fact, found in the house.

You saw their reaction when they first heard about this?

No, you can be sarcastic if you want - but of course I'm stating that based on all the recorded testimony and facts reported in the case, oh, and their own words:
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/01011997ramseysoncnn.htm

RAMSEY, P: And if anyone knows anything, please, please help us. For the safety of all of the children, we have to find out who did this.

RAMSEY, J: Not because we're angry, but because we have got to go on.

I don't see how saying this points to his guilt. He said "it could have been there but he was panicked at that point." You think he's thinking if he says that, nobody else would notice it?

Uh, no. I was not saying that. I was talking about him distancing himself from any details of the crime.

It could be so because it's the truth. There's nothing sinister about this if that's what actually happened.

yeah, but we are all debating what actually happened; that's why we are here right?

Yet, he found her himself in the home, when, if RDI, she's missing because she was kidnapped and taken from the house.

Same answer as the first one above - numerous debate as to why she was left in the house after all....

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

If it has to be a kidnapping, then there shouldn't be a body at all.

What are you saying, Squirrel?

If you killed someone and, to explain why the person's missing, you come up with a kidnapping story, you wouldn't then want the dead body found in your house. It defeats the point of the kidnapping story. The person shouldn't be there if they've been kidnapped. If you know the body is in the house, "kidnapping" is not the first story you'd come up with.

If they did kill her, they could have more easily said that they woke up and found her dead in the house. That scenario does happen.

No, but a lot of other people did. And they agree.

A lot of people were there at the time of them hearing about the assault? Were they told at a public gathering?

I'm skeptical about that, and I'm moreso skeptical any time anyone says someone didn't react the right way, as though there is a clear definable manner in which people react to trauma, such as hearing your child's been raped. Facial expressions and body language are weak evidence of guilt/innocence.

That's the whole problem, Squirrel. He KNEW where to find her.

That he found her by opening a door in his house doesn't prove he had foreknowledge she was there.

he even screamed BEFORE he turned on the light.

You know this for sure? Eyewitness testimony is always that precisely accurate and dependable on this kind of potentially split-second detail?

Even given that, how do you know the body couldn't be seen without the lights on? (That White didn't see the body earlier doesn't prove she wasn't later in the day or to somebody else.) Here's a screen cap from a Bill Kurtis show, which isn't the right perspective, but does give some idea of the room.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

If it has to be a kidnapping, then there shouldn't be a body at all.

Well, don't take my words for it then....
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/01011997ramseysoncnn.htm

CABELL: An FBI spokesman was quoted as saying at this point they don't regard it necessarily as a kidnapping. You think that's a wrong assumption?

RAMSEY, J: I don't know. I mean, there is a -- a note that said -- your daughter has been kidnapped. We have your daughter. We want money. You give us the money; she'll be safely returned.

RAMSEY, P: It seemed like kidnapping to me.
_
...The Ramseys themselves were still calling it kidnapping, after it's obviously an assault/homicide -- oh, and even though the body was, in fact, found in the house.

Right, because there was a ransom note. If IDI, it's unknown whether it was a botched kidnapping, or a murder all along with the ransom note meant to further menace the Ramseys or LE.

The point is, if they killed her, kidnapping is not the best story to come up with if the body is in the house anyway. If they hid the body somewhere outside the home, then kidnapping is more viable.

Everything associated with her condition JR and PR claimed no knowledge of: the sexual assualt - and no anger expressed about it either

You saw their reaction when they first heard about this?

No, you can be sarcastic if you want - but of course I'm stating that based on all the recorded testimony and facts reported in the case, oh, and their own words:
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/01011997ramseysoncnn.htm

RAMSEY, P: And if anyone knows anything, please, please help us. For the safety of all of the children, we have to find out who did this.

RAMSEY, J: Not because we're angry, but because we have got to go on.

That doesn't support your claim at all. They're asking for information. I don't see how you can say with such certainty they were not angry their child was raped based on that quote.

Uh, no. I was not saying that. I was talking about him distancing himself from any details of the crime.

Sorry, but this is very flimsy as to any indication of guilt.

It could be so because it's the truth. There's nothing sinister about this if that's what actually happened.

yeah, but we are all debating what actually happened; that's why we are here right?

Well, first I hope we're trying to find out the truth of what happened. But either way, if you're going to defend a hypothesis, you're going to have to explain not only how yours fits the evidence, but why other hypotheses do not fit the evidence. You can't skip that second part and hope nobody notices.

Pointing to a piece of evidence as though it only supports your position is misleading if the same evidence fits another position as well. It's not helpful for finding the truth.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

By the way, does anybody know where to get video of that January 97 interview? I've been looking all over and nobody seems to know. Just a shot in the dark here.

 

[DeeDee249]

By the way, does anybody know where to get video of that January 97 interview? I've been looking all over and nobody seems to know. Just a shot in the dark here.

I do not believe a video is available to anyone, but the transcripts used to be available in the JB archives on ACR.