Apology To The Ramseys?

[Hyatt]

My very first thought when this story broke was: How much did John Ramsey pay that perv to be the Patsy?

After several days my first thought hasn't changed.

I think The Karr Show would've opened sooner, but Ramsey and his co-producers had to wait for (the real) Patsy to die, not because she wasn't 100% behind the scam, but because it's way too risky to bring a fake perp onto the same stage as the real one. Can you imagine if Karr's defense attorneys got hold of her or, god forbid, got her on the witness stand in a criminal trial?

I agree with most of what you say but the strange timing tells me that Patsy was NOT behind this move and I suspect that it was a combination of religious beliefs and the knowledge that she was dying. I think that religious people could well acquire additional scruples when they know death is close. Yes, there are generalizations here ... but it is simply my hunch.

Edited to add: I don't believe that anyone owes the Ramseys an apology. Even on the off-chance that they were innocent, the cloud of suspicion which follows them was their own creation. Just think of the privately held (and paid for) polygraph. Many of us watched closely as the Ramseys built, brick by brick that cloud of suspicion with such shenanigans as the private polygraph. No apologies are merited here.

JMO

JMO

 

[txsvicki]

I agree with a previous poster who said that John Mark Karr has just as much of a right to walk the streets as anyone else. Okay, so he's an effeminate weirdo with a morbid fascination in child murder cases. If that's all he proves to be, so what? Until he's actually convicted of a serious crime he's an ordinary citizen like anyone else on this forum and is entitled to clink champagne glasses and eat grilled prawns with whomever he wants.

The guy is innocent until proven guilty.
​

Yes, but Karr was overly affectionate or inappropriate with female students, fired from jobs, and had child on his computer. I don't feel safe with these types of people walking the streets.

 

[wenchie]

You don't feel comfortable with people who've been fired from jobs walking the streets?

 

[Peter Hamilton]

Well,of course John Ramsey changed his story--suits his purpose,makes an intruder theory more likely--First,he says originally all the doors were secure--then,later,he changes his mind,saying he didn't check ANY door--Well,gee,now we have the way the phantom intruder entered--he just walked in,the elusive intruder just happened to guess this was the one night John didn't check the doors--its all clear to me now

 

[wenchie]

Do I remember incorrectly, or was it John himself who found the basement window open and closed it, but never mentioned it til later?

 

[Camper]

I agree with a previous poster who said that John Mark Karr has just as much of a right to walk the streets as anyone else. Okay, so he's an effeminate weirdo with a morbid fascination in child murder cases. If that's all he proves to be, so what? Until he's actually convicted of a serious crime he's an ordinary citizen like anyone else on this forum and is entitled to clink champagne glasses and eat grilled prawns with whomever he wants.

The guy is innocent until proven guilty.
​

===>>>Welll, the guy in response to a random on camera question

Question: Are you innocent?
Answer: No.

The Coo Coo clock is still chiming on this case.

.
Hmmm

 

[RiverRat]

Ok, my apologies to Toltec. I should have posted that Toltec's post was completly unfounded and based on nothing instead of directing it at him or her personally. I shouldn't do that, and usually try not to.

:clap:

I'm still working on figuring out what my mistake(s) were so I will Bee back with my apology the minute it dawns on me! :woohoo:

 

[Jayelles]

Do you think John Ramsey is the type to accept an apology??? I don't - I think he's way too arrogant.

I've never believed the Ramseys killed their daughter although I do believe they were were hiding *something* (I thought that might perhaps be an affair or something).

However, if I had accused them of murder or stated that I believed they were murderers and then found out I was wrong, I doubt I'd offer them an apology (I don't believe it would be well received - and why should it?). Instead, I'd publicly acknowledge that I'd been wrong and I'd make a donation to some worthwhile children's charity as a symbolic gesture of eating crow.

 

[kwatson696]

You don't feel comfortable with people who've been fired from jobs walking the streets?

Nope, not just fired from his job but ...{IMO} a child predator. I would'nt want him living in my town. Would You? Would you want him teaching your six year old daughter? Not me.

 

[BBB167893]

"SD, gotta tell you, while I am normally in lurker mode since the Peterson case is over I did come out for this one. You NEVER fail to crack me up. Great posts and funny when need be."

Thanks.

"What on earth is uncoopertive about not handing yourself over to people who aren't looking at the evidence but merely trying to fit the evidence to what they want to believe."

No evidence of that I can see.

"And what credible information or evidence do you have to say that they did it? Anything other than the initial reluctance to talk with LE?"

Would you like a list?

"He must be an okay attorney because he has managed to keep the Ramseys out of jail!"

Through unscrupulous means!

"There is no evidence to ignore, all the evidence points straight at the R's.
I don't count Smit's delusions."

Well put!

"Not hatred, just facts."

Also well put.

 

[Amraann]

The bottom line is many have spent years believing the R's are guilty because there's been no proof of anyone else committing the crime.
There is no evidence to ignore, all the evidence points straight at the R's.
I don't count Smit's delusions.

I know that 13 Point DNA doesn't count because it doesn't fit in with the R's are guilty. The fact that the police screwed up from the beginning doesn't count.
THe Grand jury not indicting them and another Judge PLUS the DA both saying they feel an intruder did it dopesn't count.
Lou Smit who has an unblemished 18 year record and knows ALL the evidence doesn't count.

 

[Amraann]

What??????

They are two separate issues and two separate crimes!

SOME people are stating that even if he's innocent of murder, she should be locked away forever.

Karr's wacky confession does NOT equate to guilt.


I don't believe that he killed Jonbenet, and so far there has been not ONE credible piece of information to make me think that anyone other than the Ramseys were in the house that night.

It sure equates to something.
I never stated that I stated that I feel ANYONE in possesion of child should be in prison.
Per your previous post to me I never said he should recieve a harsher sentence I said THEY ALL SHOULD.
If he was assinine enough to create this situation due to his own sick obsessions and he does get a harsher sentence? Then so be it. Its only due to his own stupidity and his fleeing the country.
Which makes me ask WHY DID HE FLEE?
Did he have something else to hide? As you have pointed out it was a misdomeaner charge... WHy flee the country? Why not leave the state if he was so embarrassed?

 

[BBB167893]

I know that 13 Point DNA doesn't count because it doesn't fit in with the R's are guilty. The fact that the police screwed up from the beginning doesn't count.
THe Grand jury not indicting them and another Judge PLUS the DA both saying they feel an intruder did it doesn't count.
Lou Smit who has an unblemished 18 year record and knows ALL the evidence doesn't count.

I don't like the tone of this.

1) It's not 13 points. It's only ten.

2) The police DID screw up initially, then got it together.

3) The Grand Jury was naive in the extreme and run in a slipshod manner.

4) The judge did not see all the evidence.

5) The DA was biased from the start and, to hear the GJ prosecutor tell it, not reading her own file

6) Lou Smit never took on a heavily staged case or perps with millions and left the case in 1998, so I don't see how he knows "all" the evidence. The Chief said he ignored evidence.

 

[wenchie]

It sure equates to something.
I never stated that I stated that I feel ANYONE in possesion of child should be in prison.
Per your previous post to me I never said he should recieve a harsher sentence I said THEY ALL SHOULD.
If he was assinine enough to create this situation due to his own sick obsessions and he does get a harsher sentence? Then so be it. Its only due to his own stupidity and his fleeing the country.
Which makes me ask WHY DID HE FLEE?
Did he have something else to hide? As you have pointed out it was a misdomeaner charge... WHy flee the country? Why not leave the state if he was so embarrassed?

A harsher sentence doesn't equate to "never walking the streets again", which was the comment I originally responded to.

 

[wenchie]

Nope, not just fired from his job but ...{IMO} a child predator. I would'nt want him living in my town. Would You? Would you want him teaching your six year old daughter? Not me.

Getting fired from his job was on the list of reasons he should never be free again - which was what I was responding to.

He will never teach again.

He will have to pay the penalty for the child .

Other than that, he has just as much right to walk the streets, live wherever he wants to, and be left alone.


There's no law against being strange, obsessed with a crime, wearing makeup, and getting fired from his job.


There's NO evidence that he's ever HARMED any human being of any age, so - I'd rather live next door to him than next door to a meth lab (or whatever).

 

[Amraann]

A harsher sentence doesn't equate to "never walking the streets again", which was the comment I originally responded to.

Let me clearify because somehow I think you are misconstruing my posts in regaurd to this matter.

Any person in possession of child should never be permitted to walk the streets again.
I am unclear as to what your disputing about this?

 

[Amraann]

I don't like the tone of this.

1) It's not 13 points. It's only ten.

2) The police DID screw up initially, then got it together.

3) The Grand Jury was naive in the extreme and run in a slipshod manner.

4) The judge did not see all the evidence.

5) The DA was biased from the start and, to hear the GJ prosecutor tell it, not reading her own file

6) Lou Smit never took on a heavily staged case or perps with millions and left the case in 1998, so I don't see how he knows "all" the evidence. The Chief said he ignored evidence.

What is the tone you don't like??
I was replying to another poster who replied to me.

Your incorrect about the markers It is on CODIS and it could not be without 13.

When exactly was it that the police got it together? and if so then how come the Grand Jury did not indict the R's? As far as nieve and run in a slipshod way??
WHy do you say that? Simply because they did not indict?
What reason did the DA have to be Biased?

Lou Smit has a far cry more experience in Homicides then any other investigater on this case at the time.

I am saying that people that have clearly much more info then we online do and information not privvy to the public, those with sterling records have said their was an Intruder.

 

[BBB167893]

I figured it was a general chastisement.

No, it was ten. Even the latest th's say that.

"When exactly was it that the police got it together?"

Almost immediately, even with that fool Eller in charge.

"and if so then how come the Grand Jury did not indict the R's? As far as nieve and run in a slipshod way??"

Well, the GJ only met for about two hours every three or four days. Remember when Schiller got the Grand Juror to talk? She said they all decided from the photos that no parent could do that. I guess they weren't aware of Susan Smith, Diane Downs or Marilyn Lemak.

"WHy do you say that? Simply because they did not indict?"

No. I say it because anyone who thinks a parent can't kill is living on another planet.

"What reason did the DA have to be Biased?"

Well, to hear other people tell it, Mary Keenan, now Mary Lacy, is a very strident feminist who thinks all women are victims. That's no way to run a DA's office. She, way back in 1997, decided the Ramseys couldn't be it because they "didn't fit the profile," whatever that means. I guess she's never heard of Tim McVeigh or the DC Snipers, huh?

"Lou Smit has a far cry more experience in Homicides then any other investigater on this case at the time."

More than the CASKU guys?

 

[jnsngrl]

great post Nedthan

Nedthan nailed it exactly. These people who are apologizing to the Ramseys seem wishy-washy to me. Yes, it is within the realm of possibility, though remote, that someone other than the Ramsey's committed this horrendous crime. But the Rams have only themselves to blame for all the analysis, speculation and blame that the media has spun all these years. If they had done what I believe most innocent family members would, they would have folded that umbrella of suspicion a long time ago.

 

[Amraann]

I figured it was a general chastisement.

No, it was ten. Even the latest th's say that.

"When exactly was it that the police got it together?"

Almost immediately, even with that fool Eller in charge.

"and if so then how come the Grand Jury did not indict the R's? As far as nieve and run in a slipshod way??"

Well, the GJ only met for about two hours every three or four days. Remember when Schiller got the Grand Juror to talk? She said they all decided from the photos that no parent could do that. I guess they weren't aware of Susan Smith, Diane Downs or Marilyn Lemak.

"WHy do you say that? Simply because they did not indict?"

No. I say it because anyone who thinks a parent can't kill is living on another planet.

"What reason did the DA have to be Biased?"

Well, to hear other people tell it, Mary Keenan, now Mary Lacy, is a very strident feminist who thinks all women are victims. That's no way to run a DA's office. She, way back in 1997, decided the Ramseys couldn't be it because they "didn't fit the profile," whatever that means. I guess she's never heard of Tim McVeigh or the DC Snipers, huh?

"Lou Smit has a far cry more experience in Homicides then any other investigater on this case at the time."

More than the CASKU guys?

I still fail to see what about my post was chastising??
I am simply going to presume that your reading of the evidence was read as well as my post.
THe DNA cannot be on CODIS without 13 markers. It is on CODIS so therefore it must be concluded that it has 13.
The police did not immediatly or any time quickly get it together and when they finally approached anything remotely close to "getting it together" their recourse was to blame the parents by leaking outright lies to the media in order to cover their own butts.
I see nothing wrong with the time that the GJ met furthermore the women you use as examples simply killed their children they did not torture them.
I am sure it was more then just some gruesome photos that led them to that conclusion.
SHiller is not an exactly credible person when it comes to this case.
Mary Lacy obviously is not running around boulder like some crazy biased feminist and if that was the case she simply could have elected to prove that John Ramsey did this and poor Patsy vicitm went along rather then search for some intruder.
If fact she talked to profilers and knows evidence we (the public) are not privvy to thereby being in a position to make a better judgement about what happend then we are.
Lou Smit was involved in the investigation very early on and the only arguement so far that I have heard to discredit him is the he "befriened the Ramsey's"
I hardly think he would jeapardize a perfect carreer record by lying to the world because he befriended the killers.
He looked at the evidence and saw intruder.
That is good enough for me.