Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[OliviaG1996]

Well the IDIs are crawling out of the woodwork aren't they.?

Nobody credible believes it was the Ramsey's? What about every police chief and detective that actually worked on the case, with the exception of the IDI ringer that was parachuted in to the investigation by a DA who had no intention of ever prosecuting the case?

And the Ramsey's were cleared by the same clown that went half way around the world to arrest Mark Carr, the guy it took LE about 30 minutes to clear. So don't put much stock in that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BBM: Some IDIs also conveniently forget the 20+ FBI agents from CASKU who agreed, "the totality of the case pointed in one direction: This was not the act of an intruder." But who cares about professional experts' opinions, right?

 

[Annapurna]

I find the constant suggestion by IDI's that we are somehow "ignoring" evidence or somehow out for R blood ridiculous. Many of us have read extensively on this case. I have read all the transcripts, seen all the photos. This case has caught me, I've sought out every piece of information that is out there. This isn't the only case I've ever followed either, this isn't my first rodeo! I have read in depth about many crimes and the vast majority of children are murdered by their closest relatives.


I know SuperDave was an IDI that was converted. I was as well.

The totality of evidence does include DNA. But if we're going down that road we must include all the DNA evidence. As you know, Kolar reported that there were several (5 or 6, can't remember exactly) spots with unidentified DNA on JB. Several male, at least one female.

So if we're gonna include the microscopic DNA we must account for all of it. Do you believe there were six intruders? Six extraordinarily lucky and sneaky intruders?

I also take issue with the idea that this is"argumentum ad ignorantiam". If I am simply not imagining hard enough, what do you suggest is the motive? If you say "there could be 1000s of motives" or "just because you don't know", that is not an argument. At least I refuted examples, I have yet to see a convincing answer from an IDI. And no, before you say it, it is not because I never considered them. It is orders of magnitudes more likely that parents or close family members kill their children than some bogeyman assasin.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

A Grand Jury, who heard from Lou Smit as well as other believers of an IDI, concluded there still was enough evidence to indict both Patsy and John Ramsey.

Two detectives and others involved in the investigation believed one or more family members were involved.

That means very very little. Indictments do not mean guilt. They mean that a bunch of people think there is a possibility that something happened. It is not a trial. How about all the people who are indicted and found not guilty? What does that say about indictments?? It says them mean nothing more that a prosecutor was persuasive. It does not mean anything about the truth.
What about the fact that the DA knew there was not enough evidence to get a conviction and so he did not move forward?
The problem is that when this farce went on DNA was not good enough to provide real answers.. It does now.
DNA tells the story.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Well the IDIs are crawling out of the woodwork aren't they.?

Nobody credible believes it was the Ramsey's? What about every police chief and detective that actually worked on the case, with the exception of the IDI ringer that was parachuted in to the investigation by a DA who had no intention of ever prosecuting the case?

And the Ramsey's were cleared by the same clown that went half way around the world to arrest Mark Carr, the guy it took LE about 30 minutes to clear. So don't put much stock in that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I don't crawl.. I walk. Mainly I walk in and out of this forum because as much as I am passionate about this case, I can not stand the ridiculousness of people pushing non facts as facts.
No one with any real credibility believes it was the ramseys.. There are many many LE people, lawyers, prosecutors and when they are interviewed about this case they all say the same thing.. It was bungled from the beginning and the R's are not responsible.

They went around the world to get him because that is what you do when a little girl is murdered and a man who is confessing to the crime is there. Yes, It turned out it was not him.. But really, they should not have gone and gotten him and ran his DNA? Which CLEARED him amazingly enough.
I am always amused that people are willing to clear others based on the DNA but not the Ramseys.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Thanks for making my point. Always nice to be vindicated.
...

AK

Just because he makes up stories does not make them so..

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Impossible?! The hell you say! I've done it! Here ya go:

The Ramseys get home from the party at the Whites'. Burke asks for a bedtime snack. Patsy sees a bowl of pineapple on the kitchen counter and gives him some, telling him not to paw at it. Both children have some.
JOHN: "Come on, honey. Let's get you to bed. Be with you in a minute, son."
BURKE: "I'll wait for you there, Dad."
PATSY: "Just a quick check to see if I missed anything."
Patsy is now alone. She's doing her thing. John puts JonBenet in bed. They speak for a minute. Maybe something else. Maybe he gives her privates a "quick check." He goes down to the basement.
Patsy's catching her breath in the living room. John and Burke come up.
JOHN: Head on up to bed, son.
BURKE: "Okay, Dad."
The parents are alone.
JOHN: "Come on up to bed."
PATSY: "No, I'm not done yet."
JOHN: "You shouldn't take so much on yourself."
PATSY (irritated at him): "I have to. I do everything around here."
JOHN: "Sorry I mentioned it."
John goes upstairs. Soon, JonBenet is back down.
PATSY: "What do you want now, honey," with a little irritation in her voice.
JONBENET: "I did it again."
PATSY: "Oh, God. Come on."
Up to JonBenet's room.
PATSY: "I don't see anything."
JONBENET: "I didn't go to bed yet."
PATSY: "Can't you do anything I ask?"
JONBENET: "I'm sorry."
PATSY: "Get in there."
Into the bathroom. Patsy cleans her up.
PATSY: "Here, don't tell you're father."
JONBENET: "You and Daddy tell me secrets."
PATSY: "Secrets?"
JONBENET: "Yeah, Daddy tells me to keep secrets."
PATSY: "Like what?"
JONBENET (suddenly sullen): "It wouldn't be a secret then."
PATSY (now more irritated): "Fine."
Patsy becomes rough.
JONBENET: "OW! Mommy, that hurts! Daddy's nicer."
PATSY: "I didn't think your father cleaned you up."
JONBENET: "He doesn't. He calls it our special game."
PATSY's head snaps up. Their eyes meet.
JONBENET (whispering): "I told the secret."
PATSY (in a rage): "YOU ROTTEN LITTLE LIAR!!!"
JONBENET (almost in a panic): "I'm sorry, Mommy!"
PATSY: "I'll teach you a lesson you won't forget!"
JonBenet tries to run away, but her pants are still around her knees. She tries to pull them up, but trips. As she gets up, Patsy grabs her collar and begins to struggle with her. She MEANS to toss JonBenet onto the bed face-first and spank the daylights out of her. But during the fight, JonBenet takes a hard blow that cracks her skull.
Patsy sees JonBenet crumpled on the floor.
PATSY: "That won't work, you little faker. You're in big trouble."
She picks JonBenet up and lays her on the bed. But she's so limp.
PATSY: "I said, cut it out."
Nothing. JonBenet is in shock and doesn't seem to be breathing.
PATSY (anger replaced by worry): "JonBenet Patricia Ramsey, you cut that out right now. Baby? (Now panicked): BABY?! PLEASE say something! Oh, GOD, I didn't mean to! No, oh, God, no! Not my baby!"
John comes in.
JOHN: "What the h*** is going on in here?!"
Patsy turns. Her eyes are full of tears and hate. She blitzes him.
PATSY: "YOU *******!"
He grabs her wrists. "Are you crazy?!" He sees JonBenet. "What did you do?!"
PATSY: "Me?! You couldn't get it from me, so you took her! And I believed YOU!"
JOHN: "You stupid, crazy *****! I have to save her!"
PATSY: "It's too late now! She's dead!"
JOHN: "NO! That's impossible!" (Keep in mind, John's lost Beth.)
PATSY: "I'll see you rot for this!"
JOHN: "How?! You killed her."
Patsy fights until she's fought-out. She collapses to the floor, sobbing.
JOHN: "Honey..."
PATSY: "We can't leave her like this. She's so beautiful. like an angel. She deserves better."
JOHN: "I can't believe this. Burke...what will happen to him?"
PATSY: "He can't ever know about this. He can't think we killed JonBenet."
JOHN: "How do we make this right?"
PATSY: "I thought you were the big expert!"
JOHN: "Shut up! I'm trying to think."
PATSY: "What kind of person would do this?"
JOHN: "The kind we saw in the Navy. Damn, I wish I could remember who they were."
And it just spirals from there. Putting anything they can think of into a possible scenario, they stage a scene. But Patsy's dramatic flair puts it over the top. John, wracked with guilt, knows she hangs by a hair, so he says nothing. He also knows that the truth will put them in prison where the inmates will do horrible things to them...
PATSY: "What kind of knot do we use?"
JOHN: "Do it yourself."
Patsy ties a sloppy noose and sloppier wrist ties.
JOHN: "I can't even look at her like that."
They think about bundling her up to dump, but it's too risky. In the basement.
PATSY: "Wouldn't she have been messed with down there?"
JOHN: "Don't ask me to--"
PATSY: "You already DID! That's how we got into this mess."
JOHN: "I can't touch her like this." He uses the brush to avoid touching her privates. His fibers end up on her, having scuffed off his sleeve on her clothing when he pulls his arm back. "Can you write left-handed?"
PATSY: "Yeah, but--"
JOHN: "Come on."
John dictates part of the note, she writes. At this point, she's caught up in this. Her greatest pageant, her greatest adventure. It's exhilarating. Just what he's counting on.

Except you made that all up. So......

This is fiction based on your own bias. It may be interesting to read but does nothing to provide clarity on the case.

 

[BOESP]

That means very very little. Indictments do not mean guilt. They mean that a bunch of people think there is a possibility that something happened. It is not a trial. How about all the people who are indicted and found not guilty? What does that say about indictments?? It says them mean nothing more that a prosecutor was persuasive. It does not mean anything about the truth.
What about the fact that the DA knew there was not enough evidence to get a conviction and so he did not move forward?
The problem is that when this farce went on DNA was not good enough to provide real answers.. It does now.
DNA tells the story.

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.

 

[Anti-K]

Um, maybe from the cloth or towel that was used to wipe her down? Maybe it was already on the packaged garments? Maybe it was contaminated by someone after the fact. For the millionth time, it is not uncommon for unidentifiable TDNA to be found at a crime scene, in fact I'm willing to bet that it happens more often than it doesn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only the DNA found on the leggings is tDNA. The matching CODIS sample is not.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM: Some IDIs also conveniently forget the 20+ FBI agents from CASKU who agreed, "the totality of the case pointed in one direction: This was not the act of an intruder." But who cares about professional experts' opinions, right?

This quote is from – what? 1998? I think the “totality of the case” has changed since that time. Also, this is a quote from Thomas, someone – thanks to his own deposition – whose credibility is a little shaky and whose bias is well known. Schiller gave us a somewhat different interpretation of what CASJKU had to say, noting that at the time CASKU was not working with all the information (in Hunter’s words, they had half-a-loaf). Schiller had CASKU saying things like IF – IF –IF this was staging than it was staging unlike any they had seen before.

Kenneth Lanning, the FBI’s leading expert on crimes committed against children disagreed with CASKU. We’ve heard from a few retired profilers, and they don’t say RDI, they say things like this: “[Ressler] is sure the child knew her killer and that the killer had to have come from the ‘immediate circle’ of people surrounding the home.

“That circle would include her immediate family, neighbors, friends of the family, Ramsey houseworkers, adolescent boys who live in the neighborhood or members of her half-brother's nearby fraternity house.”

And, of course we know where Douglas stands. And, we know that Smit, and other experienced investigators (ex: Gray, San Agustin), members of the DA’s office (DeMuth, Ainsworth) and it goes on. BPD’s Whitson, who was in the house that morning (Ramsey handed him the notepads) is RDI.

So, if you want to talk about professional opinions – fine. But, IDI opinion is also a professional opinion.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I find the constant suggestion by IDI's that we are somehow "ignoring" evidence or somehow out for R blood ridiculous. Many of us have read extensively on this case. I have read all the transcripts, seen all the photos. This case has caught me, I've sought out every piece of information that is out there. This isn't the only case I've ever followed either, this isn't my first rodeo! I have read in depth about many crimes and the vast majority of children are murdered by their closest relatives.


I know SuperDave was an IDI that was converted. I was as well.

The totality of evidence does include DNA. But if we're going down that road we must include all the DNA evidence. As you know, Kolar reported that there were several (5 or 6, can't remember exactly) spots with unidentified DNA on JB. Several male, at least one female.

So if we're gonna include the microscopic DNA we must account for all of it. Do you believe there were six intruders? Six extraordinarily lucky and sneaky intruders?

I also take issue with the idea that this is"argumentum ad ignorantiam". If I am simply not imagining hard enough, what do you suggest is the motive? If you say "there could be 1000s of motives" or "just because you don't know", that is not an argument. At least I refuted examples, I have yet to see a convincing answer from an IDI. And no, before you say it, it is not because I never considered them. It is orders of magnitudes more likely that parents or close family members kill their children than some bogeyman assasin.

RDI such as UK GUY BLATANTLY ignores all unsourced trace evidence. Everyone who says that the totality of the case is RDI is ignoring evidence. This is just a fact.

Yes, yes, we have to include all the trace evidence, including these six samples (one of these samples is 3 separate but matching samples). But, we do not have to accept that all or none are related to the crime. This is just another example of Kolar’s flawed reasoning. The truth is that all or some or none of these samples could have come from her killer(s).

Do we need to account for all of this DNA? I don’t think so. I think we need to account for the tDNA and the matching CODIS sample, identify that guy and investigate him, and if he turns out to be a worthy suspect then I think we could safely set aside the rest of the DNA.

It isn’t a matter of “imagining hard enough.” It’s when one says something like (NOT accusing YOU of this!) “I can’t think of an IDI motive; therefore, IDI cannot be true” that they commit this fallacy (Personal Incredulity).

IDI is very different than RDI because IDI has no reasonable suspect (some IDI have suspects, I disagree with most of them; they could be right, I could be wrong). Having a suspect changes everything. If your suspect is Karr (BTW, lmfao!!), then you can find a motive. If your suspect is White (good grief!!) then you can find a motive. If your suspect is a pedophile, than you can find a motive. But any motive one comes up with – this is also true for RDI (BTW, Thomas said there was NO motive) – is still only one of speculation.

Yes, it is true that “it is orders of magnitudes more likely that parents or close family members kill their children than some bogeyman assassin [sic].” But, that is a general statement that applies to these types of crimes in general and it tells us nothing about what occurs in any specific case.
...

AK

 

[BOESP]

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

 

[BOESP]

It is always comical to me that some posters want to use ad hominem comments, apparently thinking it makes their opinion or interpretation more valuable than, say, the opinions of Steve Thomas and James Kolar or other posters here who disagree with the IDI theories.

 

[OliviaG1996]

This quote is from – what? 1998? I think the “totality of the case” has changed since that time.

1999, actually. The year the Rs were indicted.

Also, this is a quote from Thomas, someone – thanks to his own deposition – whose credibility is a little shaky and whose bias is well known.

Unlike Smit who held hands with the Rs while they prayed, the man who tried to bond with the Rs on a personal level. How can you not be biased when you start sobbing with people you're supposed to be investigating?

May I ask why you think Thomas is biased?

Schiller gave us a somewhat different interpretation of what CASJKU had to say, noting that at the time CASKU was not working with all the information (in Hunter’s words, they had half-a-loaf). Schiller had CASKU saying things like IF – IF –IF this was staging than it was staging unlike any they had seen before.

"Not working with all the information," meaning information about the indictment and (IMO) meaningless DNA? Many experts have said this is not a DNA case. I'd like to hear what CASKU has to say about the case today- it'd likely be the same thing.

Kenneth Lanning, the FBI’s leading expert on crimes committed against children disagreed with CASKU. We’ve heard from a few retired profilers, and they don’t say RDI, they say things like this: “[Ressler] is sure the child knew her killer and that the killer had to have come from the ‘immediate circle’ of people surrounding the home.

“That circle would include her immediate family, neighbors, friends of the family, Ramsey houseworkers, adolescent boys who live in the neighborhood or members of her half-brother's nearby fraternity house.”

And, of course we know where Douglas stands. And, we know that Smit, and other experienced investigators (ex: Gray, San Agustin), members of the DA’s office (DeMuth, Ainsworth) and it goes on. BPD’s Whitson, who was in the house that morning (Ramsey handed him the notepads) is RDI.

So, if you want to talk about professional opinions – fine. But, IDI opinion is also a professional opinion.
...

AK

I've already went over Smit's bias. DeMuth had been IDI since the very beginning, where absolutely nothing would've changed his mind. Is that reaching a conclusion by taking all the evidence into consideration or bias?

The Rs have plenty of money and a guard-dog named Lin Wood by their side to sue anyone that looks at them the wrong way. We've seen how their wealth has contributed to their success at appearing as the victims. Most people who haven't researched this case still think the DNA was semen and the hair on the blanket was the intruder's pubic hair.

 

[Annapurna]

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.

Hey BOESP, I noticed your link was broken so here is a working one :https://www.***********/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/30nfvc/hi_im_chief_marshall_james_kolar_ama/, if it doesn't work (maybe reddit links are blocked) I did read the full text of the AMA on forums for justice. I couldn't find the link, but I believe it was transcribed by Cynic.

I highly recommend everyone read this AMA regardless of opinion. I learned a lot from this (& his book). Kolar is trying to be vague with some of his answers, but a lot of the things he says definitively were very interesting to me.

The most interesting information to me was that Kolar says the bruise on her neck "could not have been made by the cord". This puts some kinks (pun not intended) in the erotic asphyxiation idea, IMHO. Additionally it gives some more hints as to the timeline. Kolar also does not thing the ligature strangulation was staging, but rather a conscious decision to kill her (however influenced that consciousness might be).


ETA: reddit links are indeed blocked. I can't find the FFJ link because I don't have an account there. BOESP perhaps you can find it?
I know we were talking about the DNA but I found that so interesting! I'll make another post about the dna.

 

[BOESP]

Annapurna, I see the bleep gremlins got you too.:gaah:

Here's how to get the link to work:

copy the censored link

https://www.***********/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/30nfvc/hi_im_chief_marshall_james_kolar_ama/

and paste it into your "GO" html address box in the browser of choice and before you hit "GO" or "SEND" or "ENTER" remove the asterisks using your delete key; then in the space you just deleted, type in reddit dot com (substituting a . for the word "dot") then hit your ENTER key.

It should work. I would copy it from FFJ but it still won't work over here.

 

[houndstooth]

I suspect Burke hit JB with a golf club after she climbed into bed with him and then wet his bed. Which parent was abusing her? Probably both in their own way.
She was not killed by the blow, but was brain-dead. I think Patsy finished her off in her staging of the crime scene.
I think JR was aware of the incident and perhaps aided in the staging of the crime scene to look like an intruder.

Because JR put his clubs on the plane to snowy Michigan, I think he may have shoved Burke's club in the bag, to hide the "murder weapon".
That they made plans to fly away less than an hour after claiming to be surprised in finding their daughter's body in the house, speaks to the involvement of both parents and the son as well. JMO

 

[TheCuriousFrog]

I suspect Burke hit JB with a golf club after she climbed into bed with him and then wet his bed. Which parent was abusing her? Probably both in their own way.
She was not killed by the blow, but was brain-dead. I think Patsy finished her off in her staging of the crime scene.
I think JR was aware of the incident and perhaps aided in the staging of the crime scene to look like an intruder.

Because JR put his clubs on the plane to snowy Michigan, I think he may have shoved Burke's club in the bag, to hide the "murder weapon".
That they made plans to fly away less than an hour after claiming to be surprised in finding their daughter's body in the house, speaks to the involvement of both parents and the son as well. JMO

Where on earth do you get the idea that a golf club was used? The thing about the Ramsey theories is that people want to go into specifics like that (the same as those BS dialogues like you were there) that we don't even know. Also, what do you suppose their motive was ? A normal, loving family just out of the blue murders their daughter and no one says a word?

Burke never exhibited violence towards other children (at least not that we're aware of) and nothing seemed unusual about John or Patsy either. BTW JBR's bed was urine soaked, not Burke's.

 

[houndstooth]

Where on earth do you get the idea that a golf club was used? The thing about the Ramsey theories is that people want to go into specifics like that (the same as those BS dialogues like you were there) that we don't even know. Also, what do you suppose their motive was ? A normal, loving family just out of the blue murders their daughter and no one says a word?

Burke never exhibited violence towards other children (at least not that we're aware of) and nothing seemed unusual about John or Patsy either. BTW JBR's bed was urine soaked, not Burke's.

I didn't want to write some TL;DR post, so I tried to be brief and to the point.
I got the idea from the fact it had happened before with the golf club and Burke hitting JB. That these clubs were outside the door to the studio/wine storage. The thought being the offending items was removed from the scene along with JB and taken there, but of course not taken into the room. Later, these clubs were loaded into a plane and taken to snow country, where they would be completely useless from a practical standpoint. And besides, who would be thinking about golf when your daughter has just been murdered?

Her soaked PJs and underwear would have gotton Burke's bed wet, and himself also if she hugged up against him.

Though, the maglite was also moved, I don't believe it to be the murder weapon, just that it was used to find the way down to the basement at night. It was a guilty psychological move to hide it off the counter, just in case anyone would notice it there. Fresh prints being left from a recent unexplained use.

I believe Burke's motive was jealousy, frustration and anger over some slights at Christmas. He may have been the sexual abuser, rather than the parents, playing "doctor" and such.
These are my opinions based on what I have read about the case and seen from the demeanor of the parents subsequently.

 

[Annapurna]

Frog,

Half the point of this forum is to trade theories and debate. If the RDI theories irritate you there are IDI only threads where you won't have to see them. Otherwise it seems slightly rude to disparage the idea of trading our theories (including SuperDave's dialogue: its fiction! no kidding he wasn't there, it was supposed to be illustrative. Its a part from his book, its not presented as fact). I don't mean to attack you, but please be polite to people who don't agree (I know its frustrating, trust me!).

That said: nothing seemed strange about J & P? Nothing? They were far from normal. It is difficult to judge what they were like before the murder as there is not much evidence available to us other than what they presented and friends or family said after the incident.

After the incident there was lots of strange behavior. Houndstooth, you touched on one of the more peculiar moments, IMO. JR called his pilot at 1:40 (according to several sources). He brought JB's body up at 1:10. So with his daughter lying there (on the floor by the tree, no less) he was trying to leave the state. He told the officer who told him he needed to stay that he had "a meeting he couldn't miss" or an "important business meeting" (the phrasing differs by author but the message is the same). This is reported by a Police Officer who overheard him on the phone. I will edit later with more info or you are welcome to look it up yourself. I believe this was in 3 major books by Thomas, Schiller and Kolar respectively.
Now you may ask, so what? he was a business man. But he was planning on leaving for MI that day. What kind of business meeting could this be? It would be very rare for someone to plan a meeting (supposedly an important meeting) for the day after christmas. It is worth noting that JR changed his story at his interview several months later (after he had enough time to come up with a better story...). He never clarified who this meeting was with. He said that he "wanted to bring his family home to Atlanta" Which sounds fine until you remember his dead daughter hadn't even been seen by the coroner, she wasn't somewhere safe, she wasn't en route to a funeral home. What family would want to leave their young daughter in a state halfway across the country? Her funeral was in ATL, true, but it is also quite strange to imagine a father arranging her funeral less than an hour after finding her horribly injured body? I imagine that PR would want to have a hand in the affair, she was the party planner and she would want it all to be up to her high standards.

This is simply one example of very strange behavior exhibited by the family in the hours after the incident. I know that it is frequently said you can't know how someone else would grieve, but if these people are so normal, you would expect them to behave normally.

If this doesn't satisfy you I can bring up several more examples. I know this won't convince you of their guilt, but my point is that there are red flags. Some IDI theorize that the family knew the intruder (D.stein is often suggested), perhaps you will like that explanation.

Thanks for debating Frog! Feel free to ask questions, I know there are many regulars here that would be happy to jump in and answer some too. I find this kind of debate so interesting, it really stretches the brain. Its great to hear conflicting view points (there are so many even among people who agree on the perp), I think it strengthens everyone's different opinions to consider things that don't fit and hopefully it changes some opinions too.

 

[andreww]

I didn't want to write some TL;DR post, so I tried to be brief and to the point.
I got the idea from the fact it had happened before with the golf club and Burke hitting JB. That these clubs were outside the door to the studio/wine storage. The thought being the offending items was removed from the scene along with JB and taken there, but of course not taken into the room. Later, these clubs were loaded into a plane and taken to snow country, where they would be completely useless from a practical standpoint. And besides, who would be thinking about golf when your daughter has just been murdered?

To clear up some misconceptions for you...

1) Yes, the golf clubs were close to the WC, you got that much right.

2) The clubs were not removed from the scene with JB. The Ramsey's sent Patsy's sister with a list of items to be removed from the house for them to take back to Atlanta with them. The golf clubs were on that list but she did not get them as LE would not allow her access to the basement. SO the golf clubs never left the house.

3) As above, the clubs were never loaded on a plane. As for the "Snow Country" part, I take it you have never been to Georgia. Augusta Golf club, arguably the most famous golf club in Georgia and arguably the whole world, actually shuts down after the Masters in April as it gets too hot for its members to play. Winter in Georgia is mild and perfect for golf.