One thing that is clear from the BODY OF EVIDENCE is that it was not an intruder, but someone within the home, someone who had access to JonBenet that night, someone Patsy Ramsey would write a faux ransom note to cover for. You think that's a stranger/intruder? Fine, your opinion, just like I have mine.
The evidence pointed to the Ramseys: Patsy's clothing fibers tied into the garrote knots; Patsy's paintbrush; Patsy's pad, pen, handwriting, etc. John's shirt fibers were found in the genital area where the child was wiped down, as well. John and Pasty lied repeatedly to LE through their interviews; they withheld evidence they knew was extremely important in the investigation--the alleged package of Bloomies; they obstructed the investigation through hiring lawyers they hid behind from Day One. Their child was found in their basement, with all the evidence which has ever been linked to anyone belonging to the Ramseys, with the exception of minute particles of DNA which even Mary Lacy once stated could be artifact.
If you don't think that's evidence against the Ramseys, then that's your opinion. Sure RDI have differing opinions. None of us has ever seen the full case files, including Dr. Wecht and Dawna. None of any of the evidence in this case has been tested in a court at trial, so we're all crippled by not hearing any expert testimony about any of it under oath. IDI have differing opinions as well. What I have is my opinion, and I don't "expect" anyone to believe it, buy it, or care a flip about it. I'm not the judge and I'm not the jury. I'm just discussing my own observations. I thought that's what we do on forums.
[I inserted some things to clarify the issues you were addressing.]
You brought up probabilities, so I was asking you to consider probabilities in face of the factual evidence. You seem to be applying 50/50 chance to individual pieces of evidence. But to correctly calculate the probabilities you'd have to include each element built upon other elements. That's typically called "the body of evidence" in a case, which is supposed to be considered by a jury to determine if the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been met.
You also seem to believe JonBenet could have been molested by someone and Patsy Ramsey didn't much care about it, if you think she would ignore that someone they did or didn't know was molesting her child before JB's autopsy proved it.
Here's a simple, unambiguous question that you might consider: why would Patsy Ramsey refuse to help LE find the molester and killer of her child? That's exactly what she did when she allowed her lawyers--who worked for HER--to stand between her answering questions ONLY SHE could answer for LE in the investigation into who murdered her child.
If someone were sexually assaulting JonBenet before that night--and the actual autopsy evidence is damning that someone was--then Patsy was the most likely person to help LE find out who that was. Maybe the only person.
Considering the injuries inflicted on JonBenet the night she was killed, finding the person who was molesting her before that night could be THE KEY to finding out who in fact abused and murdered her. Even if it were an intruder, that would be the one thing that should lead LE right to the killer; whether the person who committed the prior sexual assault was the killer or not, it's certainly critical to identify that person, because that could have been the catalyst to the series of events on Dec. 25th. It's important. How can LE ignore it? How can Team Ramsey ignore it?
But of course, IDI have to deny, deny, deny those facts of evidence. Why? Why can't you simply accept that this is factual evidence and that it is very relevant that a six year old murder victim was being molested in the days/wks./mo's. before her death?
Because you also don't believe Patsy Ramsey would cover up for someone she wasn't invested in who molested and murdered her child. That's why you refuse to admit the facts of the ransom note lead to Patsy, or that the Ramsey's refusal to cooperate with LE not only crippled the investigation from the start but is evidence the Ramseys meant to do exactly that. You refuse to admit the prior molestation happened, as well; because if you admit the facts of evidence of prior sexual abuse, then you have a huge set of elements incriminating the Ramseys to explain which begin with that "no history" IDI so love. Prior sexual assault is HISTORY.
And that sexual abuser would certainly have to be someone who knew the child, unless you think Patsy was in the habit of handing her 5/6 year old over to strangers for periods of time adequate to groom and molest JonBenet.
Now why wouldn't Patsy and John be racking their brains to figure out who did this before that night, instead of denying it and arguing about the evidence when faced with it by LE? There is a limited number of people who could have done that, after all, and the Ramseys would know all of them.
Now answer me this: why did the Ramseys OWN INVESTIGATORS ignore that evidence, not even discuss it with the Ramseys, if they were actually looking for that old intruder, as they told us countless times? More Ramsey lies to make themselves appear not guilty to the public; we only found out the truth of that when under oath in the Wolf deposition JR said their lawyers were only building a defense, not looking for the killer. May not be evidence admitted in court, but it is yet another example that the Ramseys were very comfortable lying to anyone and everyone about the investigation into the murder of their child. You may not think being a pair of studied liars is incriminating when the stake is a child killer has never been identified whom they allege targeted their family, but it seems a no brainer to me.
The Ramseys have never sought an answer to the question, who was molesting their child before that night? Patsy quickly skipped over that evidence in 1998 when asked about it by Det. Haney. What innocent parent of a child murdered by an intruder would do that?
I never said stats were evidence. I was responding to you because you brought up probabilities. You conveniently are taking what I wrote out of context.
Now you're misstating the evidence; you should read more on the ransom note, the expert opinions, including the Ramseys' own experts.
Now you're insulting me. Attacking me, because you can't win on the evidence. That's the hallmark of a weak argument; I think I've clearly backed up with evidence my theory that the Ramseys are guilty of this murder. By dismissing me as just picking a name out of a hat, you ignore my fact-based points and prove you know you have lost the debate.
Again, I don't expect anything. You take my opinions very personally. If you are somehow invested in the Ramseys personally, then I understand. They inspire loyalty among their family, friends, and fans.
But that doesn't erase the evidence, which I'm looking at to guide my own OPINIONS. Call it a conspiracy if you like; the facts are that the detectives Hunter hired ended up working for Team Ramsey. That's indisputable. The fact is that Hunter refused to get subpoenas for the phone records and the Ramsey's clothes. Ever. The fact is that Hunter decided not to indict the Ramseys and ended up on TV quoting the Ramsey's own disinformation about the "scale" upon which Patsy Ramsey was compared to the ransom note writer--a scale that in fact does not even exist other than in the propaganda of Team Ramsey. The fact is that Mary Lacy, without any legal ability or professional responsibility, spent her 8 years in office working to exonerate the Ramseys, effectively putting the last nail in the coffin of any prosecution, ever, of anyone, when her job was to act on behalf of the State.
Instead, Lacy finally destroyed any possibility of prosecution for all time. With the very public arrest of John PERV Karr, with Lacy's public statements and letters "exonerating" the Ramseys, it's over for any successful conviction in a court of law. It's that simple. There isn't a half-brained lawyer in the country who couldn't build reasonable doubt with the (Patsy's) ransom note and the arrest of Karr for anyone ever tried.
Why do you think it took Karr's public defenders exactly two weeks to get him released without so much as one question being asked of him by LE while he was in the Boulder jail?
As for influence brought to bear on behalf of the Ramseys: if you don't believe there is any power in being an executive of Lockheed Martin, you probably also believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. I'd be the last to disabuse you of that childish trust. So yeah, you're so right; Hunter and Lacy would have spent $2 million of their paltry budget to make sure any of us wouldn't have been unfairly prosecuted. Sure they would!
Any defense picks at each piece of evidence individually. That's how it's done, I know. But what you don't want to address is that added together, it's a damning case against the Ramseys, with little-to-no room for an intruder. Which one did what to JonBenet, WE don't know. Maybe LE has the evidence to prove that, but WE have never seen it. There were three people in the house who could have executed the elements of the crime in several combinations; because they lived there, I admit it is hard to determine exactly what happened among those four people that night. The three who remain have covered up the truth, have lied about it to the public and to LE for 15 years, which the actual evidence has proven without any doubt.
That this never went to trial, that there are various opinions on who did what, does not negate that the actual evidence points to none other than one or more of the Ramseys as perpetrator(s) of all the crimes against JonBenet: I belive that they know what happened and why.
And that's my opinion. As my tag says, nothing more. You don't agree. Got it.
