Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[TroyinTX]

I watched the Barbara Walters special the other day. All it did was just reinforce my belief that the Ramsey's were involved with the crime. Patsy just came off as so.....phony in that interview. And could John be any more emotionless, even today? Not saying these are the sole reasons I believe they were involved, but again, was just another reinforcement.

 

[Tadpole12]

Yes, thank you Andrew for the rebuttal.

I had checked you tube for the program in it's entirety, but alas the link I found was not available in my country. Will continue to monitor you tube.

Was interested to see if JR has abandoned the 'friend with unusual behaviour' angle = FW, or if he pulled the Helgoth rabbit out of his hat.

 

[andreww]

Its actually very interesting how they work their lies in there. For instance, when Barbara is talking about John Mark Karr, she ends it by saying he was exonerated "the DNA didn't match". We all know that he was let go because it took Boulder police less than a day to figure out he wasn't in Colorado that day and that his story didn't match what they knew had happened. He was cleared long before his DNA test ever hit the lab. But it is important to the Ramseys that the DNA myth be reenforced at every opportunity. Make the public believe in the DNA. DNA is what cleared the Ramseys so it has to clear Karr as well. Who gives a damn who it belongs to!

 

[houndstooth]

Its actually very interesting how they work their lies in there. For instance, when Barbara is talking about John Mark Karr, she ends it by saying he was exonerated "the DNA didn't match". We all know that he was let go because it took Boulder police less than a day to figure out he wasn't in Colorado that day and that his story didn't match what they knew had happened. He was cleared long before his DNA test ever hit the lab. But it is important to the Ramseys that the DNA myth be reenforced at every opportunity. Make the public believe in the DNA. DNA is what cleared the Ramseys so it has to clear Karr as well. Who gives a damn who it belongs to!

Yes, but, he could have been cleared before the champagne and filet mignon flight of him from Thailand, even.
Why they carried out such a farce of a distraction story is pretty eyebrow raising.

 

[Frigga]

Yes, but, he could have been cleared before the champagne and filet mignon flight of him from Thailand, even.
Why they carried out such a farce of a distraction story is pretty eyebrow raising.

Not really, in my opinion it was pretty transparent. Mary. Lacy.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Honestly the Ramsey case to me is insane.

Its like someone walked in, caught two toddlers with cake all over their faces and hands, and BELIEVES the "boogeyman" ate the cake.

Bizarre - the Power of PR and a big bank balance.

Ramsey is probably going to run for public office again. He seems to enjoy the limelight eh.

When you consider his Main Claim To Fame is being present in the same house while his baby was raped and murdered....

Bizarre.

 

[SapphireSteel]

SapphireSteel,
There was a lot going on fecally:

James Kolar, Foreign Faction; Excerpt


Also we have Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse Team, who visited JBR's bedroom on the third day of the investigation reported saying: most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material.

In JonBenet's bathroom lying on the floor was a black pair of fecally soiled pants!

.

So far you've just given me a link to a book (Kolar) and an alleged statement, unlinked.

Im sorry but I need a bit more evidence than this.

Too many people have made $ from Jonbenet.

There was a grand jury right? Did THEY hear evidence about the fecal smearing?

Or was it all just made up to sell books?

Again - does anyone have a link to an Official confirmation re fecal smearing in JB's bedroom?

You only smell feces when its wet btw. Is there any statement as to how Fresh this fecal smearing was?

Or was it tiny trace amounts left by a kiddie who is not taught to wash their hands or wipe their butts properly by an uncaring and unhygienic mother?

I need more evidence before I go into tangents about Blake and JB playing scat games!

 

[questfortrue]

"What a piece of crap/ Shame on you Barbara Walters."- Andreww

Yes Andrew, I agree. Upon viewing, I had thought that perhaps there's a special place in hell reserved for BW, where the sycophant would have access to many candidates for interview.
I'm not usually so reactionary or judgemental, but I'm cranky this morning, and riding on sugar from leftover Hallowe'en candy.

~RBBM~

Hmm. :thinking: Might not be her last interview with JR after all.

 

[SapphireSteel]

JR tells BW he gets "kind of" upset when he sees kids like JB.

"kind of" = not really, at all.

What a piece of work.

Also, everyone - be careful knocking Babs. That lady could make anyone talk.

These interviews are going to be full of leaks and slips. Because she soothed them out of him.

What a fool. Hoist on his own Ego and Narcissism.

If he just shut up and went away he'd likely be forgotten about but no - in true psychopath style, he runs for government and goes on tv.

Where he can barely muster a "yes its gutting" about his dead daughter.

Just, kinda tugs at him. Kinda.

Unbelievable. Talk about hiding in plain sight.

2 Corinthians 11:14

And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Theres a special ring in hell for Ms Lacy.

The same ring reserved for all those who turn a profit, in some way, from an abused child.

Even if they didn't lay a finger on her, like Lacy, she still used and abused JB memory disgracefully, to save her own butt.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

To my knowledge, no one here has ever said grand juries decide innocence or guilt. They do decide if there is, in their opinions, enough evidence to proceed to trial. I choose not to comment on you calling it a "farce."

There is no way for either of us to know what Hunter's reasoning was but the fact remains that a grand jury heard from both sides, pro and con, on available evidence and believed there was enough to take the Ramseys to trial.

A DA knows no such thing in advance about whether or not a trial jury will find a defendant guilty or not guilty so your statement is, at best, misleading.

Unsourced DNA is neutral. If or when it is sourced it might be useful. Until then, it means nothing one way or the other.

Ramsey DNA was found on items as well and IDIs often want to excuse that as meaningless. Depending on location and probabilities, touch DNA from a family member may mean nothing or something.

Deciding guilt or innocence based on only one piece of evidence is ludicrous.

We do. He said there was not enough evidence to get a conviction.

No it is not. Many many cases are decided on one piece of evidence.. DNA.
Ramsey DNA was supposed to be all over the house. It is normal for it to be there and transferred. I bet My DNA is on everything in my house in some form or another.

The telling thing is the DNA that is there, is on her in two places and not matched to ANYONE they tested, family, friend or suspect.
It belongs to someone else who was there that night. It clears anyone in the house. Anyone who was tested in the days after.
All a grand jury does is decide whether it could go to trial. Nothing else. With all the people who have been through the GJ process and been found innocent subsequently by DNA it just means little to be indicted.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Submitting to CODIS and being admitted as a forensic quality sample are two different things. I understand there must be 13 markers present. Seems like JonBenet's was a 10-marker sample.

ETA: Second link below is a redditt dot com link to Chief Kolar's comments about the DNA in this case. Not sure why the link is automatically edited in my post here.



Interesting links here relating to DNA testing:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet


https://www.***********/r/JonBenet/...pts_from_chief_james_kolars_book_relating_to/

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-DNA.htm

If it is in CODIS, it meets the standards by which to match. CODIS does not take samples that are not up to their standards to match a suspect.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BW promotes American Scandals series;
[video=youtube;mW2-HhFUWJE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW2-HhFUWJE[/video]@2:44

BW: JonBenet would have been 25 this year, that's hard to believe

JR: Uhmuhm

BW: Do you think about what kind of a woman she would have been?

JR: Mostly I think of her as a six year old child, that I remember

BW: When you see, ah, a six year old
playing in the park, do you ..

JR: ya it tugs at me, yep a little bit... particularly if they're a little girl and blond hair and ya kinda does


(apply the Hodgisms)

And???

If your child was killed at a certain age it would stick with you. It would be the age time stopped. It is normal.

I hate when people make sick things out of thin air.

 

[andreww]

If it is in CODIS, it meets the standards by which to match. CODIS does not take samples that are not up to their standards to match a suspect.

Um, obviously it does. It is common knowledge that this sample was short of markers and was manipulated in a lab to meet the standard. Nothing wrong with that I guess but I wonder what the accuracy is of those enhanced markers? Is that 100% accurate technology? 80%? 50%? Who knows.

But bottom line is that sample did NOT meet CODIS standards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

We do. He said there was not enough evidence to get a conviction.

No it is not. Many many cases are decided on one piece of evidence.. DNA.
Ramsey DNA was supposed to be all over the house. It is normal for it to be there and transferred. I bet My DNA is on everything in my house in some form or another.

The telling thing is the DNA that is there, is on her in two places and not matched to ANYONE they tested, family, friend or suspect.
It belongs to someone else who was there that night. It clears anyone in the house. Anyone who was tested in the days after.
All a grand jury does is decide whether it could go to trial. Nothing else. With all the people who have been through the GJ process and been found innocent subsequently by DNA it just means little to be indicted.

So let me get this straight. A GJ hearing was held and jurors heard the evidence and decided there was enough evidence to indict John and Patsy, and Alex Hunter decides there isn't enough evidence? Give your friggin head a shake? And let's ignore that for a second and wonder why Hunter strongly insinuated that the GJ made no such indictment recommendation? Why did he lie to the people that he represented?

Even if he didn't think he had the evidence, why not arrest the two of them and see if you could get the other to crack? Heck, with those charges I bet they could have even had Burke removed from the house for his own safety!

But hell no. Hunter was soft on the Ramsey's from day one. His own department was telling him John and Patsy were involved. Thomas, Beckner, Kolar, all of them after studying all the evidence came to the conclusion that the murderer was one of three people, but Hunter purposely protected them. Denied warrants for phone records, doctors reports , wire taps, etc., this was not a guy that had justice on his mind. Then, despite the fact that his department was telling him this was an inside job, he hires Lou Smit to go in a completely different direction.

Don't feed me this lack of evidence crap. AH was dirty and should probably be investigated.

And BTW, it's nice to see you around to fill in for Anti K. It's a shame you guys are never around at the same time. [emoji57]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TexasTuff]

Even if he didn't think he had the evidence, why not arrest the two of them and see if you could get the other to crack?

Found this article. The guy says the biggest mistake the investigators made was not interviewing the Ramsey's seperately.


http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/n...ef-reveals-new-details-jonbenet-ramsey-murder

 

[andreww]

Found this article. The guy says the biggest mistake the investigators made was not interviewing the Ramsey's seperately.


http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/n...ef-reveals-new-details-jonbenet-ramsey-murder

Of course it was. Patsy would have cracked like a nut if she had been interrogated without John or a lawyer present. LE should have taken John and Patsy straight to the station from the house. But whatever, something tells me John had been in touch with an attorney before he stepped foot out of that house and there was no way he was going to talk to anyone.

 

[Tadpole12]

And???

If your child was killed at a certain age it would stick with you. It would be the age time stopped. It is normal.

I hate when people make sick things out of thin air.

SS,

Yes I know you hate.

 

[icedtea4me]

*snip*
And BTW, it's nice to see you around to fill in for Anti K. It's a shame you guys are never around at the same time. [emoji57]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Translation: I, andreww, am insinuating that ScarlettScarpetta and Anti K are the same person.

 

[Anti-K]

Um, obviously it does. It is common knowledge that this sample was short of markers and was manipulated in a lab to meet the standard. Nothing wrong with that I guess but I wonder what the accuracy is of those enhanced markers? Is that 100% accurate technology? 80%? 50%? Who knows.

But bottom line is that sample did NOT meet CODIS standards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it is in CODIS, it met CODIS standards. Anyone who denies this is quite simply ignorant of the facts.
With DNA nothing is 100 % except exclusion. And, the Ramseys and 200+ persons (friends, family, associates, etc) have been excluded.
...

AK