Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[Anti-K]

BBM

My take on it is this: if this were the case, then the scene would have been staged to look like it was done by the parents. Instead, it was staged to look like someone came in from outside.


Dumb or smart doesn't really apply. A smart person with no experience can make amateur mistakes.



How and where would they do it?

Aha!!



I just thought it would be funny to say that. I don’t know what’s wrong with me. But, I disagree with something. You said, “it was staged to look like someone came in from outside.” I don’t think this is true. There was no sign of forcible entry, and the Ramseys said that all the doors were locked. The note was written with materials from inside the house, the paintbrush used was from inside the house, evidence that could connect someone from outside the house was removed, etc; so, what were the signs that “someone came in from outside?” on the surface, and at first glance, it looks like things were staged to look like no one came in from outside.
…

AK

 

[giagreen]

Hello//I just have a question as i was looking as some of the crime scene pics i thought of it. The rope used to do the garotte its simply a shoelace .I cant speak for the rest of you but for myself i dont have a spare set of shoe laces lying around i would have to take one out of another pair of shoes to get one untill i could get to the store and they come in 2 so iam just wondering did they ever check the spare shoes in the house to see if there was a shoe with only one shoe lace in it or if they had a set of new ones was one allready used the other still in the package..just wondering your thoughts and well if you know the awnser ...

I don't know that answer. Just wanted to say good thinking and good point. Idk but I sure hope le ruled that out....

 

[BBB167893]

We’ve had this discussion before.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that.

You lost the point then, so I don’t know why you bother to drag it out again.

There's a difference between losing a point and not being willing to keep up with the other person's word-twisting.

There have always been people wiling to sacrifice themselves, their freedom or their lives simply because they could not and would not do ANYTHING.

You're confusing capability with willingness. For example, there's a lot of things I'm capable of saying here, but I don't want a time out, if you take my meaning.

This is a lie that you are telling yourself.

No, Anti-K. The lie I told myself was the opposite. Reality was particularly harsh.

Saying that anyone is capable of anything makes anyone a suspect, I guess. I mean, it doesn’t allow us to differentiate or describe any sort of group at all, really.

Hallelujah! I thought we'd never make it, but we did! You've finally gotten it! Once we get past this naive, "too nice to do it" garbage, we can focus on evidence.

If you want to say that ______ was capable of committing this crime, then you have to show that they were capable of committing this crime.

Wrong. I just have to show that they DID do it.

Saying they were capable because ANYONE is capable doesn’t cut it because we wouldn’t be talking about ANYONE, we would be talking about ______.

Oh, no, Anti-K. I'm not gonna let you twist out of this one that easily.

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, well, we had this discussion before, too. My logic is not as you describe it.

I wasn't referring to you specifically.

You have built a straw man.

There's a Wizard of Oz response to that, but I'll leave it alone.

 

[Anti-K]

WHAT??

I'm still trying to figure out that statement. Without the note, all you have is a dead girl with sexual injuries in her own home. Ask Ron Walker who LE would be looking at.



I'd like to see how well YOU'D do under similar circumstances. Actually, I hope that NONE of us here will ever be in similar circumstances. Moreover, they didn't have to fool the police. They didn't have to fool the FBI, the DA, the pathologists or the analysts. You know who they had to fool? One person out of twelve. That's it.

This is “WHAT??”

If the parents murdered jbr (she was murdered) and decided that they had to keep the body, then they needed to explain why there was a dead body in the house (most people fake an accident, or they stage a break-in and assault).

When a body is disposed of, a kidnapping is often reported. A kidnapping is reported because a kidnapping explains why there is no body. The Ramseys had a body. A kidnapping doesn’t suit their needs. It suits the opposite of their needs. It is so opposite of their needs that no one with similar needs (dead body in house that they can’t dispose of) has ever tried it.
…

AK

 

[BBB167893]

After-the-fact, things come out. When you start looking, things are found.

That's not what you guys keep saying, though. You talk as if there's always something beforehand. Even if there is, most people don't see it or don't want to see it until it's too late. And even THEN, we're talking premeditated murder. That's not what I think happened.

SO, what you need to do is to forget about these other people. They don’t make your case against the Ramsey-people.

I'd like to put that to a vote.

 

[Anti-K]

No good, Anti-K. You guys are the ones saying that the DNA trumps all other evidence. Now you say you can pick and choose.

WHICH IS IT?

No, SuperDave. I have not been saying that “the DNA trumps all other evidence.”
…

AK

 

[BBB167893]

BBM

Aha!!



I just thought it would be funny to say that. I don’t know what’s wrong with me.

I'm not qualified to guess.

But, I disagree with something.

You disagree with me, AK? That's shocking. I gotta go lie down for a while.

You said, “it was staged to look like someone came in from outside.” I don’t think this is true.

Oh, YOU don't think it's true. Well, that's just shatters my whole outlook.

There was no sign of forcible entry, and the Ramseys said that all the doors were locked. The note was written with materials from inside the house, the paintbrush used was from inside the house, evidence that could connect someone from outside the house was removed, etc; so, what were the signs that “someone came in from outside?” on the surface, and at first glance, it looks like things were staged to look like no one came in from outside.

Begging your pardon, Anti-K, but this argument reminds me of William Ayers' argument that he can't be called a terrorist because his bombs exploded before he could kill anyone with them. In both cases, just because they did it badly doesn't mean it wasn't done. You dig?

 

[BBB167893]

If the parents murdered jbr (she was murdered) and decided that they had to keep the body, then they needed to explain why there was a dead body in the house (most people fake an accident, or they stage a break-in and assault).

That's what I said!

When a body is disposed of, a kidnapping is often reported. A kidnapping is reported because a kidnapping explains why there is no body. The Ramseys had a body. A kidnapping doesn’t suit their needs. It suits the opposite of their needs.

That's real easy to say with hindsight.

It is so opposite of their needs that no one with similar needs (dead body in house that they can’t dispose of) has ever tried it.

You JUST GOT THROUGH telling me that everyone is an individual and that I can't use other cases to strengthen my argument. Which is it?

 

[BBB167893]

No, SuperDave. I have not been saying that “the DNA trumps all other evidence.”

You forget: I've been around you these many months. My memory isn't THAT faulty yet.

 

[giagreen]

Either way ****** le works for both sides.

 

[InstantProof]

We’ve had this discussion before. You lost the point then, so I don’t know why you bother to drag it out again. It is demonstrably not true. There have always been people wiling to sacrifice themselves, their freedom or their lives simply because they could not and would not do ANYTHING. This is a lie that you are telling yourself.

Saying that anyone is capable of anything makes anyone a suspect, I guess. I mean, it doesn’t allow us to differentiate or describe any sort of group at all, really. It’s a meaningless descriptor. If you want to say that ______ was capable of committing this crime, then you have to show that they were capable of committing this crime. Saying they were capable because ANYONE is capable doesn’t cut it because we wouldn’t be talking about ANYONE, we would be talking about ______.
….

AK

BBM: I think this applies here with their refusal or inability to remove JB from the house. That's where someone drew the line.

My opinions on people's capability don't apply much as I read about this case because I don't know what happened or who did what or what may have led to it. But I do think, whatever happened, if family were involved they were 1000% capable of trying to cover it up in order to keep up appearances. If there were an intruder, then, interesting that he did the work for them.

 

[InstantProof]

This is “WHAT??”

If the parents murdered jbr (she was murdered) and decided that they had to keep the body, then they needed to explain why there was a dead body in the house (most people fake an accident, or they stage a break-in and assault).

When a body is disposed of, a kidnapping is often reported. A kidnapping is reported because a kidnapping explains why there is no body. The Ramseys had a body. A kidnapping doesn’t suit their needs. It suits the opposite of their needs. It is so opposite of their needs that no one with similar needs (dead body in house that they can’t dispose of) has ever tried it.
…

AK

Her crime and details were very different but Casey Anthony had a completely senseless story, too.

 

[TexasTuff]

And lack of sleep. She wore the same clothes. She didn't sleep a wink and this is someone who wakes up very early normally. After a certain amount of time a sleep deprived person is about the same mental function level as a legally intoxicated person. And whose to say she didn't drink at the party? Especially if John wss the driver that night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, breaking from her routine makes her guilty?

 

[TexasTuff]

I probably should not have just guessed alcohol could have been involved, this is true. I don't think I'm building on anything else though. She did wear the same clothes, which is unusual for someone like her and strongly indicates she never went to bed.

Also it's true that tired people, and anxious upset people, do things that are below their usual functioning intelligence.

If we go by your previous post and your statistics then we can't discount the statistics that say most children are killed by members of their own family.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Edit for wrong word used.

She did wear the same clothes, which is unusual for someone like her and strongly indicates she never went to bed.

Again all that proves is she broke from her normal routine, not that she was up all night.

 

[TexasTuff]

Well, for starters, they did THIS to their child:

WTH are you trying to prove with this. It may not be everyones cup of tea, but the children that do this love it, it's like super dress-up play time. It doesn't make the R's child killers.

 

[TexasTuff]

I'll quote from PMPT, pages 377-378:

"The detectives were sure that if only Hunter had agreed to jail Patsy--even for a short time--she would have caved in. If Patsy'd had to face that kind of dreadful uncertainty about her future, she would have broken down and the case would have been solved that very day, the detectives believed."

If she'd heard that cell door slam behind her, she would have known, as the kids say, "s**t just got real."

the detectives believed

Yeah, and if you had asked them at the time the detectives believed they did a good job of handeling the crime scene. Arnt is an idiot, what detective in their right mind when they are on a crime scene would allow people to tramp all over the place looking for clues????? She was the freaking detective and it was her job to look for clues.

 

[TexasTuff]

You know, I've read that interview transcript a few times, and I don't remember Haney actually using those words. Here's what was actually said:

Detective Tom Haney talking to Patsy Ramsey "If I told you right now that we have trace evidence
that appears to link you to the death of JonBenét, what would you tell me?"

Patsy Ramsey: "That is totally impossible. Go re-test."

Detective Tom Haney: "How is that impossible?"

Patsy Ramsey: "I did not kill my child. I didn't have a thing to do with it."

Detective Tom Haney: "And I'm not talking, you know, somebody's guess or some rumor or some
story......"

Patsy Ramsey: "I don't care what you're talking about."

Detective Tom Haney: "I'm talking about scientific evidence."

"Linking to her death" is a pretty far cry from "you killed her." That's where you went wrong, TexasTuff. If the scientific evidence HAD been that Patsy killed her, then he WOULD have arrested her. Or someone else would have. But, and I've pointed this out many times, the forensic evidence couldn't show which parent actually killed JonBenet and which one was merely an accomplice.

This thread will explain it:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?84675-The-cross-fingerpointing-defense

Typically, such cases are not broken through forensic evidence, especially in a case like this, since they lived there. No; the standard police tactic in situations like this is to arrest both parents, throw them both into separate holding cells, and see which one is willing to sell out the other one.

You're welcome.

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. He starts by calling it trace and then refers to it as scientific. I may have quoted it wrong but the gist is the same.

 

[TexasTuff]

Oh, no? Let's ask FBI agent Ron Walker, who was at the house the morning of Dec 26th, 1996:

"Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children."

Don't ever tell me that someone isn't capable of something. I've thought that, and I've suffered for it. ANYONE is capable of ANYTHING. That's a hard lesson for a hard world, and we all had damn well better learn it.

I don't care what Ron Walker says, the socio economic criteria for mothers that kill their children shows that it is highly UN-likely that Patsy did it, the odds are in her favor.

 

[TexasTuff]

Major difference BEING there was no NEED.

And if you want to talk about just who in this case had lying, conniving ways, I'm your man!

I'm gonna take a tip from what you said to AK - I'm sick of arguing the point with you. You can have that one.