What's eating you alive re this case?

[Archives of Pain]

That, in the end - despite all the pettiness between everyone who argues about who did it - the simple fact it, a beautiful little girl was denied the simple right all children ought to have, and that is to grow up. Even more so that this angel still has not been allowed justice. Nearly 20 years now, and we still can't come to any conclusive evidence.

I'm of the IDI group (I could be persuaded, however), and I definitely do not view the Ramseys as completely innocent and I can definitely see how they could be considered the killers. But no matter *who* did it... The fact is, no justice has ever been served.

 

[Anyhoo]

That, in the end - despite all the pettiness between everyone who argues about who did it - the simple fact it, a beautiful little girl was denied the simple right all children ought to have, and that is to grow up. Even more so that this angel still has not been allowed justice. Nearly 20 years now, and we still can't come to any conclusive evidence.

I'm of the IDI group (I could be persuaded, however), and I definitely do not view the Ramseys as completely innocent and I can definitely see how they could be considered the killers. But no matter *who* did it... The fact is, no justice has ever been served.

I'm intrigued that you are IDI and yet definitely do not view the Ramsey's as completely innocent. I'm interested to hear your theory, if you have one. Do you consider the possibility that a non Ramsey killed JBR but not an intruder and not without Ramsey knowledge? You have people here who are going to definitely try to pull you into one of the two major camps, but the above possibility I mentioned is between the two camps and actually seems to fit better than either IMO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'm intrigued that you are IDI and yet definitely do not view the Ramsey's as completely innocent. I'm interested to hear your theory, if you have one. Do you consider the possibility that a non Ramsey killed JBR but not an intruder and not without Ramsey knowledge? You have people here who are going to definitely try to pull you into one of the two major camps, but the above possibility I mentioned is between the two camps and actually seems to fit better than either IMO.

I think the issue is that Many of us IDI do not believe that The R's were the perfect parents. We are not Ramsey supporters. We are JBR supporters. Ones who want justice for the little girl. I find it ridiculous that people connect IDI with thinking J and P were just perfect people.

I feel bad about the horrible way they had to live in the shadows, But my heart is with JB. Not J and P.

 

[Mama2JML]

That, in the end - despite all the pettiness between everyone who argues about who did it - the simple fact it, a beautiful little girl was denied the simple right all children ought to have, and that is to grow up. Even more so that this angel still has not been allowed justice. Nearly 20 years now, and we still can't come to any conclusive evidence.

I'm of the IDI group (I could be persuaded, however), and I definitely do not view the Ramseys as completely innocent and I can definitely see how they could be considered the killers. But no matter *who* did it... The fact is, no justice has ever been served.

I agree with your sentiments. What we do not know, the evidence to which we have no access, could change the whole ballgame.

 

[Anyhoo]

I think the issue is that Many of us IDI do not believe that The R's were the perfect parents. We are not Ramsey supporters. We are JBR supporters. Ones who want justice for the little girl. I find it ridiculous that people connect IDI with thinking J and P were just perfect people.

I feel bad about the horrible way they had to live in the shadows, But my heart is with JB. Not J and P.

That the Ramsey's were not perfect parents was not the point I was trying to make. I actually thought about you confusing the issue when I made that post and sure enough you did. We know your position (which has shifted from your original posts) but what I was replying to was the parents not being completely innocent of the murder. Don't confuse that with them not being perfect parents or having other issues. The person I was replying to was insinuating the parents may not have murdered JB but at the same time were not completely innocent of the murder. I agree that could be, and it has nothing to do with what you said here.

 

[bettybaby00]

I think the issue is that Many of us IDI do not believe that The R's were the perfect parents. We are not Ramsey supporters. We are JBR supporters. Ones who want justice for the little girl. I find it ridiculous that people connect IDI with thinking J and P were just perfect people.

I feel bad about the horrible way they had to live in the shadows, But my heart is with JB. Not J and P.

I really hesitate to comment b/c AoP posted their feelings and I feel weird "speaking" for her/him.

However, that being said, obviously I am commenting :lol:

I'm of the IDI group (I could be persuaded, however), and I definitely do not view the Ramseys as completely innocent and I can definitely see how they could be considered the killers. But no matter *who* did it... The fact is, no justice has ever been served.

AH asked for this poster to expand on their thought process, b/c AH is intrigued. As am I

The way I read the comment, it's hard for me to understand how we go from the above to a defense that it's "ridiculous" how IDIs are wrongly accused of "thinking the parents were perfect."

"Not being perfect" is a massive understatement.

I'm not looking to split hairs with anyone, but I think this could be an interesting convo, and I'd hate to see it move away from the original message.

Obviously, I could have read the whole thing the wrong way !!!! :blushing:

ETA:AH and I appear to be on the same wavelength.

 

[Charterhouse]

I think I can safely say, no one wanted a Ramsey to be the murderer.
It is interesting how we all have our theories but I agree with AofP. It is justice for JBR, no matter what, that is important.

 

[midwest mama]

I think I can safely say, no one wanted a Ramsey to be the murderer.
It is interesting how we all have our theories but I agree with AofP. It is justice for JBR, no matter what, that is important.

I was IDI for several years, refusing to believe the Ramseys had anything to do with JB's death, and suspecting some sicko acquaintance of theirs had done the deed making up the fake SBTC kidnapping scenario to cover himself.

Only after reading waaayy more information than I ever dreamed was even available about the case, did I fall off the fence and accept that JB was killed in her home by someone she knew and trusted.

If it was not one of the 3 other Ramseys present in that house that night, then it was someone important enough in the Ramsey's life that they were/are willing to continually keep the identity of that person(s) well protected.

By now, out of at least one shred of love and respect for JB, if Patsy had been the one to kill JB without giving a confession, you would think that JR and BR would have teamed up forces to give a disclosure about it if they knew she had. So, if it was PR alone, is it possible that neither JR or BR would or could have suspected her guilt???

It drives me crazy that if it was PR and either JR or BR or both know it was, they will not come forward to bring some justice for JonBenet. How could exposing that now make it any worse for either JR or BR?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That the Ramsey's were not perfect parents was not the point I was trying to make. I actually thought about you confusing the issue when I made that post and sure enough you did. We know your position (which has shifted from your original posts) but what I was replying to was the parents not being completely innocent of the murder. Don't confuse that with them not being perfect parents or having other issues. The person I was replying to was insinuating the parents may not have murdered JB but at the same time were not completely innocent of the murder. I agree that could be, and it has nothing to do with what you said here.

My position has always been the same. I am pro JonBenet. I want her killer found and prosecuted.

 

[midwest mama]

My position has always been the same. I am pro JonBenet. I want her killer found and prosecuted.

12 people found probable cause to warrant charges leading to prosecution of both of JB's parents for child abuse leading to death. Those 12 people satisfied your agenda several years ago.

They must have been dumbstruck when one person made a decision to ignore their findings due to his own agenda.

Being pro JonBenet gives continued desire to see this case reach a resolve, and leads many of us to look at all available case evidence and see it for what it declares....just at those 12 people did some years ago.

 

[bettybaby00]

I was IDI for several years, refusing to believe the Ramseys had anything to do with JB's death, and suspecting some sicko acquaintance of theirs had done the deed making up the fake SBTC kidnapping scenario to cover himself.

Only after reading waaayy more information than I ever dreamed was even available about the case, did I fall off the fence and accept that JB was killed in her home by someone she knew and trusted.

If it was not one of the 3 other Ramseys present in that house that night, then it was someone important enough in the Ramsey's life that they were/are willing to continually keep the identity of that person(s) well protected.

By now, out of at least one shred of love and respect for JB, if Patsy had been the one to kill JB without giving a confession, you would think that JR and BR would have teamed up forces to give a disclosure about it if they knew she had. So, if it was PR alone, is it possible that neither JR or BR would or could have suspected her guilt???

It drives me crazy that if it was PR and either JR or BR or both know it was, they will not come forward to bring some justice for JonBenet. How could exposing that now make it any worse for either JR or BR?

Totally agree with all of this. In fact I remember thinking, "what a crime that PR died before they were publicly "exonerated!"

However, there was always one thing I have also considered after reading DocGs blog and conclusions.

He feels it's JR and only JR with PR being fully unaware of what happened until well after the fact. In my mind this theory doesn't hold up. If true how could PR reconcile the previous abuse? And even if she did somehow stand by john as DocG contends, I can't see her taking it to her grave. If there would have ever been a reason for a deathbed confession, this would have been it. Despite it potentially hurting BR, how could she go to her grave letting JRBs abuser and killer go free for the rest of his life?

This is all integral musing of course, but it's definitely something that I've thought about, cause if it were me, and I felt I couldn't out my abusing, murdering husband while I was alive, I'd certainly point my finger at him from the grave!

Anyway, that's why I feel that the covering for BR theory is so plausible,

 

[bettybaby00]

12 people found probable cause to warrant charges leading to prosecution of both of JB's parents for child abuse leading to death. Those 12 people satisfied your agenda several years ago.

They must have been dumbstruck when one person made a decision to ignore their findings due to his own agenda.

Being pro JonBenet gives continued desire to see this case reach a resolve, and leads many of us to look at all available case evidence and see it for what it declares....just at those 12 people did some years ago.

The most damning aspect of their finding is that LS was allowed to present his intruder theory to the GJ, and they completely rejected it.

 

[Archives of Pain]

I consider every possibly and definitely take it into account. A theory would constitute there being no evidence; as long as there is evidence, no matter how circumstantial, then it becomes a possibility. And the possibility goes up in probability the more evidence is found.

For me, the evidence points to the possibility is a non-Ramsey murdered JBR, but the killer was not an intruder, and that the Ramseys knew of it, too. Or if they didn't know it, they suspected who the person was, but blackmailing, the killer being 'too higher up' in society, or other reasons has prevented the killer from becoming known or prosecuted.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm intrigued that you are IDI and yet definitely do not view the Ramsey's as completely innocent. I'm interested to hear your theory, if you have one. Do you consider the possibility that a non Ramsey killed JBR but not an intruder and not without Ramsey knowledge? You have people here who are going to definitely try to pull you into one of the two major camps, but the above possibility I mentioned is between the two camps and actually seems to fit better than either IMO.

Isn't that pretty much what the GJ thought as well? They didn't indict the parents for murder- they indicted them for child abuse leading to murder. What this says to me is "leading to murder by someone else.. If you read all the counts of the indictment it infers that the parents allowed an abusive situation to prevail to the extent that it resulted in her abuser killing her. They found evidence of obstruction and a coverup.

 

[bettybaby00]

I just read the poll.

M vote would be "they got away with it! :jail:

 

[Tawny]

I think I can safely say, no one wanted a Ramsey to be the murderer.
It is interesting how we all have our theories but I agree with AofP. It is justice for JBR, no matter what, that is important.

BBM

The day I finally admitted to myself that a Ramsey was responsible for JBR's death was completely heartbreaking. I desperately avoided that possibility until I just couldn't deny it to myself anymore.

 

[chlban]

Isn't that pretty much what the GJ thought as well? They didn't indict the parents for murder- they indicted them for child abuse leading to murder. What this says to me is "leading to murder by someone else.. If you read all the counts of the indictment it infers that the parents allowed an abusive situation to prevail to the extent that it resulted in her abuser killing her. They found evidence of obstruction and a coverup.

I read the GJ indictment basically the same way you did, but that only led me to believe that it was Burke instead of Patsy. I still am not 100% convinced though that it was not just a sort of "best we can do" indictment since they were unsure of which of the 3 Ramseys did exactly what.

However the idea that the Ramseys covered up for someone outside of the family is, IMO, the most absurd of all. I could accept the IDI theory over that. There is no way they would cover up for a non family member. That is patently absurd, IMO.

I know the next step for some is finger pointing at JAR, but I don't buy that either. First there is not a shred of evidence that he was in Boulder. Second, I am a stepmother of an adult stepson and he has been part of my life since he was five. I truly love him. That said, there is no way on God's green earth that I would cover for him if he murdered my child. Or anyone else for that matter. John might have protected him, but I don't believe that Patsy would have.

The only person John and Patsy would realistically cover for would be Burke.

 

[otg]

12 people found probable cause to warrant charges leading to prosecution of both of JB's parents for child abuse leading to death. Those 12 people satisfied your agenda several years ago.

They must have been dumbstruck when one person made a decision to ignore their findings due to his own agenda.

Being pro JonBenet gives continued desire to see this case reach a resolve, and leads many of us to look at all available case evidence and see it for what it declares....just at those 12 people did some years ago.

While I agree with your sentiment, mama, I have to point out that we don't really know that 12 people agreed with the true bill. All we know is that at least 9 of the GJ members did.

 

[otg]

(bbm)

The most damning aspect of their finding is that LS was allowed to present his intruder theory to the GJ, and they completely rejected it.

...and John Douglas.

 

[Tadpole12]

I have no idea what went on with the grand jury or how they dealt with Smit or Douglas. But, I don’t think Smit or Douglas could have offered them much by way of explaining why the ransom note was written in the house. And, without that explanation...

There’s so much that we don’t know: did the jurors completely reject IDI, or did they simply think RDI was more likely, or did they merely set it aside, only taking into consideration whether the incriminating evidence was incriminating enough? I don’t know, I’m not sure that it matters. Right now, I still can’t understand how they came up with those charges. I mean, how much more obvious could murder be? What do they think happened? She tripped, fell and landed on a garrote? Very bizarre.

Still, I’m not sure anyone should be too surprised. No judge, no defence, no rebuttals, no objections, no explanation for the note; the testimony of LHP alone could have had a huge impact, and the jurors may have also been influenced by their visit to the house. Even amongst IDI are many who believe that this was an inside job, and, you don’t get any more inside that RDI!
.

Here are a couple excerpts from two different books that give some indication as to what went on in the grand jury proceedings. The first is from “Forensics Under Fire; Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice.” P. 193

Kane cross-examined these well intentioned and highly qualified men [Smit, and document examiners Rile, Cunnigham and Vacca] as though they were enemy defence witnesses at a criminal trial. The last thing Kane needed were four credible witnesses tearing down a case that was already weak, and he took out his frustration on them. Howard Rile, the former Colorado Bureau of Investigation document examiner, was stunned and shaken by the viciousness of Kane’s attack. He would later describe his grand jury appearance as a nightmare. After he recovered from Kane’s unprecedented assault, Riel asked for a second chance before the panel. Kane denied his request.

In his latest book, Law and Disorder, Douglas writes a paragraph or so about his grand jury experience:

…when I got into the grand jury room, they let me read my notes pretty much verbatim into the record, including my candid observations on many of the key players.

Two of the grand jurors had backgrounds in science, so I knew it would be important to explain to them what I did and how we had developed the discipline. I recall one member asking me something like, “What if we told you there was evidence that two people were involved in the crime?”

“I’ve investigated and testified in cases in which I thought there were two people involved,” I replied, “but I don’t see it here.” Then I added, “But if you actually have the evidence you mention, then why am I here? Why are you talking to me? Go with your evidence.”

He backed off. p. 206-7
...

AK

Heyya Anti-K

ty for posting the quotes.

for further read,
Forensics under Fire:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=1d_...=onepage&q=Rile, Cunnigham and Vacca]&f=false