Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[TexasTuff]

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

Saying they were capable because ANYONE is capable doesn’t cut

Excellent point.

 

[TexasTuff]

After-the-fact, things come out. When you start looking, things are found. But, let’s pretend there were no indicators in these people or in their life’s – none of these people are the Ramseys. It’s a funny thing about people. We’re all individuals. SO, what you need to do is to forget about these other people. They don’t make your case against the Ramsey-people
…

AK

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

Excellent point!

 

[TexasTuff]

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

EXCELLENT! :rockon:

 

[BOESP]

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.

And a good parent's job is to be in charge and place controls on these childish urges if said urges/wants could cause possible harm. Children love lots of things that are either harmful or potentially harmful.

BBM: I agree; that Las Vegas showgirl outfit doesn't make the parents child killers but it sure makes them look like lousy parents, imo. Who in their right mind would want to encourage such thoughts and behavior in their 5-6 year old daughter?

 

[TexasTuff]

Patsy was in the middle of a five year waiting period during which she would periodically be scanned for any new cancer cells. She had a very aggressive form of stage 4 ovarian cancer, so I would imagine she thought that if any were found when she was scanned, she would die.

Patsy Ramsey was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in June 1993. By Dec. 26, 1993 she was cancer free. So at the time of JB's death she was in remission. People are joyous when they are in remission.

According to Lin Wood Patsy's attorney in 2006 the cancer didn't return until three previously in 2003, long after JB's death.

 

[TexasTuff]

And a good parent's job is to be in charge and place controls on these childish urges if said urges/wants could cause possible harm. Children love lots of things that are either harmful or potentially harmful.

BBM: I agree; that Las Vegas showgirl outfit doesn't make the parents child killers but it sure makes them look like lousy parents, imo. Who in their right mind would want to encourage such thoughts and behavior in their 5-6 year old daughter?

That's your personal opinion and doesn't carry any weight in a court of law, as to being guilty of child murder.

 

[BOESP]

That's your personal opinion and doesn't carry any weight in a court of law, as to being guilty of child murder.

I understand about opinions :butthead:, but I'm sorry ... in which court of law are we?

Where did I say it was evidence they were child murderers?

 

[TexasTuff]

I understand about opinions :butthead:, but I'm sorry ... in which court of law are we?

Where did I say it was evidence they were child murderers?

The court of public opinion.

 

[Anti-K]

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 ...

The cord is not a shoe lace. It is Stansport, ¼ inch, white nylon utility cord. It comes packaged in 50 and 100 foot lengths and may have been purchased at the Boulder Army Store or McGuckins.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Yes, I'm quite aware of that.



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



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.



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



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.



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



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

Go ahead. Show that they did it.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I'm not qualified to guess.



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



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



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?

There is a difference between something being done badly and not being done at all. In this case, staging someone coming in from the outside didn’t happen at all.
…

AK

 

[Ellie9]

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.

The real issue with socio economic differences is that rich people tend to get away with things far more often. Rich people get amazing lawyers. Rich people are not instantly suspected. There is less of a criminal stereotype with the wealthy.

But I can assure you that making assumptions about what a person is or is not capable of based on their income is a fallacy in thinking. If this crime were motivated by a small sum of money, then yes I suppose this makes sense. Rich people probably won't kill someone for a thousand bucks. But this was not motivated by cash. No socio economic group is just above crimes of passion, or child abuse, or attempts of covering their butts.

We can't just look at a person and tell if they are a killer. It's a dangerous myth that you can tell a serial killer by looking into their eyes. You have to take into consideration all of that evidence.

Mainly, there is little to no evidence that an intruder came into that house. All I can think of is DNA on clothes, but this was said to have come from workers handling clothes before shipment. Why should we assume that so many DNA samples must include one outsider killer when there isn't any other proof. There were not a group of men down there traipsing around. It makes far more sense to just assume all that DNA is from workers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ellie9]

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

If it was just an unusual outfit choice, sure. The same clothing makes it appear as though she stayed up all night in a case where she probably would have had to stay up all night for her to become a suspect.

But this isn't the main problem even. It's just one more part of the big picture. The main problem is the lack of intruder evidence. For another example, that all stuff used in the crime were found in their house. Even the ransom note was written with their pen and paper. Who in the world plans to abduct a child and just brings along nothing of their own to complete the crime?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ellie9]

There is a difference between something being done badly and not being done at all. In this case, staging someone coming in from the outside didn’t happen at all.
…

AK

The ransom note? The unnecessary loose ropes around JBR? The duct tape, put on after unconsciousness or death because of no marks from her attempting to remove it with her tongue? The garrot applied after the blow to the head? The vaginal trauma that was probably meant to imply a sex crime, and cover up prolonged abuse that JBR endured?

You know what gets me the most? The duct tape honestly. You can't actually silence someone with duct tape like this. They'll easily poke their tongue out, wet the tape, and get it off so they can scream for help. Try it on yourself right now. I can do it. It's easy. It's instinctual. You can even get it off from moving your jaw up and down a little. Ever have someone jokingly hold your mouth closed with their hand when you were a little kid? What's your first instinct? Lick the hand. Move your jaw. The tape was not meant to silence anyone. Therefore it's unnecessary. Therefore it reeks of cover up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

If it was just an unusual outfit choice, sure. The same clothing makes it appear as though she stayed up all night in a case where she probably would have had to stay up all night for her to become a suspect.

But this isn't the main problem even. It's just one more part of the big picture. The main problem is the lack of intruder evidence. For another example, that all stuff used in the crime were found in their house. Even the ransom note was written with their pen and paper. Who in the world plans to abduct a child and just brings along nothing of their own to complete the crime?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, what if they couldn't find blank paper? Before my kids were in school I never had paper in my house. And what about the flashlight? Meh, I'll probably find one there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

There is a difference between something being done badly and not being done at all. In this case, staging someone coming in from the outside didn’t happen at all.
…

AK

Well, John said the suitcase shouldn't have been there. And John later revealed that he had latched that window closed without telling anybody know. So whether he staged it or not, it seems to me like there was a concerted effort to convince LE that someone came through that window.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Go ahead. Show that they did it.
…

AK

I think that's been shown many times. Perhaps you are too ... stubborn to see it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

That's your personal opinion and doesn't carry any weight in a court of law, as to being guilty of child murder.

Nobody said it did. They said it showed bad parenting, I I think you are quite aware of that. So let's dispose of the childish games shall we.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[icedtea4me]

Patsy Ramsey was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in June 1993. By Dec. 26, 1993 she was cancer free. So at the time of JB's death she was in remission. People are joyous when they are in remission.

According to Lin Wood Patsy's attorney in 2006 the cancer didn't return until three previously in 2003, long after JB's death.

She still wasn't out of the woods so, on the other hand, there would be that underlying fear that it could return.

 

[TexasTuff]

The real issue with socio economic differences is that rich people tend to get away with things far more often. Rich people get amazing lawyers. Rich people are not instantly suspected. There is less of a criminal stereotype with the wealthy.

But I can assure you that making assumptions about what a person is or is not capable of based on their income is a fallacy in thinking. If this crime were motivated by a small sum of money, then yes I suppose this makes sense. Rich people probably won't kill someone for a thousand bucks. But this was not motivated by cash. No socio economic group is just above crimes of passion, or child abuse, or attempts of covering their butts.

We can't just look at a person and tell if they are a killer. It's a dangerous myth that you can tell a serial killer by looking into their eyes. You have to take into consideration all of that evidence.

Mainly, there is little to no evidence that an intruder came into that house. All I can think of is DNA on clothes, but this was said to have come from workers handling clothes before shipment. Why should we assume that so many DNA samples must include one outsider killer when there isn't any other proof. There were not a group of men down there traipsing around. It makes far more sense to just assume all that DNA is from workers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We can't just look at a person and tell if they are a killer. It's a dangerous myth that you can tell a serial killer by looking into their eyes.

You need to tell Arndt that because she is convinced by looking into JR eyes when he carried JB up from the basement she knew immediately he was the killer.