Are they innocent?

[LP Moderator]

Ok Shylock!!! Thanks for sharing!

 

[sissi]

What would you do if your child was murdered and you lived away from home and family?
I "think" I know what I would do.
I would grab my husband,together, we would march to the police station,and offer any possible assistance ,then I would get the heck out of that town and go home.
I would be more than willing to talk to the police,with my husband. Together we would share anything ,build on each others hunches,together discuss anything or anyone strange that made us feel uncomfortable on that day and on the days preceding the crime. Together ,we would feed the police any information no matter how minor that could lead to the arrest of the killer. Separate us!!!!!!!! We would consider the investigation was aimed at our being guilty ,because separate we could NEVER be as fruitful as our "two heads" together in finding the murderer of our child. Separate us, and we would know there was no real investigation,that they "wanted" one of us,meanwhile letting the killer get a head start and the case getting colder.
It's easy to say,take the polygraph,do this..lalala..do that lalala..clear yourselves so the investigation can focus on finding the killer. NO,this investigation ended the minute the body was found,the hunches,gut feelings centered on a Ramsey, and the egotistical bunch of blunderers couldn't let it go for fear of losing face. Face was more important than finding the real killer. From there they went to the media ,leaked enough garbage as to convince 80% of the population that the parents were killers.
Without evidence of parental abuse,without pathology within a family,why wouldn't they listen to these parents together as a team,why would they insist on interrogations. IMO the way the BPD handled the entire case,was very wrong.

(the fur that wasn't sourced in her hands btw,clearly wasn't sourced to any clothing belonging to either of the children or the parents)
IMO

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Barbara & WolfsmarGirl, I hope you'll bring us some cases to look at where good birth parents with no prior history of psychosis or depression killed their children. Several JBR posters have been looking for just such an example for years.

Patsy isn't perfect, any more than any of us are, but she is a positive person. At the time of JonBenét's death Patsy was not depressed, was in remission, and believed she had been healed from cancer. She was happy to be alive, to be healthy, to enjoy her life, her family, her children. There was no pathology, no prior history found in Patsy's life to even suggest she was capable of what happened to JonBenét..

 

[BlueCrab]

What would you do if your child was murdered ... I "think" I know what I would do. I would grab my husband,together, we would march to the police station,and offer any possible assistance ... I would be more than willing to talk to the police,with my husband. Together ,we would feed the police any information no matter how minor that could lead to the arrest of the killer.

Correct! And so would anyone else. But the Ramseys didn't. The Ramseys launched an immediate coverup to protect someone, and rightfully became immediate suspects.

JMO

 

[tuppence]

Interestingly enough, this case was a topic at lunch today.

The question was asked, do you think that there is a chance that John, Patsy and Burke Ramsey are innocent?

I had to think about that. I can not state that they are 100% guilty. That said, is there any credible evidence that points to their innocence?

The "foreign" DNA- no one knows if it is really foreign.
The "Beaver" hairs could have come from Patsy's boots.

Seriously, are there any CREDIBLE facts that point to their innocence?

I think this is a great question for those who are convinced of guilt to consider. I'm not an expert on this case at all but I think the liklihood that this was an intruder is extremely remote. That said, here are the things that would convince me to reconsider:

1) If the abrasions were proven to be stun gun marks (body should have been exhumed).

2) If a credible DNA expert testified that the DNA found was probably meaningful to the case (unlikely to have come from casual contact) and excluded the Ramseys. I see alot of people arguing this issue and its hard to get a clear picture but my sense is that the DNA is most likely not meaningful.

3) Convincing handwriting analysis was published by an expert that Patsy was not the writer of the note. This is more iffy - I'm just not sure how credible this type of analysis is in general. I know there were experts that evaluated her based on a point system and she didn't score close but others have contradicted this. I would love to see the supposed "expert" tested.

 

[Britt]

There was no pathology, no prior history found in Patsy's life to even suggest she was capable of what happened to JonBenét..

How do we know that what happened that night wasn't a manifestation of a "pathology" or "history" which we would now be citing as (Ramsey) pathology/history were we to know the truth?

IOW, how can an unknown be cited as evidence of nonpathology? Not to mention: there's a first time for everything.

The family, including John's first family, lawyered up, drugged up and shut up. Who would tell us, or the BPD, about any pathology/prior history?

Personally, I think John was a child (daughter) molester/incester. But two of his three daughters are dead, and the ex-wife and other daughter were shielded by lawyers, not that either of them would ever reveal such a horrible secret to the masses anyway.

Even if Patsy had no pathology, how can we know she didn't stumble into a nightmare instigated by John... and JonBenet was unintentionally injured/killed as a result? "Why would she cover for him?" you might ask. She might if SHE were the one who struck the fatal blow and she decided, with John's help, that self and family and image preservation were more important than telling the truth.

 

[sissi]

Correct! And so would anyone else. But the Ramseys didn't. The Ramseys launched an immediate coverup to protect someone, and rightfully became immediate suspects.

JMO

This is where I believe the information gets "fuzzy",I believe THEY were willing as a couple to be interviewed,however,the BPD made ground rules as to where and when,then insisted the interviews be separate. It screamed of "interrogation".
It is now,and has been my opinion ,since I discovered there was no snow in which to leave prints,that the Ramseys are innocent.

 

[Old Broad]

Old Broad, I don't post much about this case either, but I may disagree with you a bit on your stmt. I think while their actions may have cast suspicion on themselves, its precisely those actions that have kept them out of prison for something they didn't do. While the idea of "lawyering up" doesn't sit well with most people, I think its the smart thing to do. In this case, however, an attorney who just happened to be a friend of the family is the one who arranged for them to be represented in the first place. Had this not happened, they may have faced a trial for something they didn't do.

LP I understand your point about it being necessary to have legal councel and no doubt, if I ever find myself in a situation I would want a lawyer to help me right away!!
I do feel tho, that somewhere along the way both the Ramseys and LE could have and should have been able to work something out. I don't blame the parents for all of this, I do believe the LE did not want to be seen as giving in to them.

 

[Shylock]

Old Broad,
If you read Steve Thomas' book, you'll know exactly why this case went down the tubes. There was a political feud going on between LE and the DA's office.

 

[LP Moderator]

LP I understand your point about it being necessary to have legal councel and no doubt, if I ever find myself in a situation I would want a lawyer to help me right away!!
I do feel tho, that somewhere along the way both the Ramseys and LE could have and should have been able to work something out. I don't blame the parents for all of this, I do believe the LE did not want to be seen as giving in to them.

Well LE was in a hurry to solve the case - I understand the pressure they were under to do so. Statistics also show that most crimes of this kind are done by someone known to the victim. However, we all know mistakes were made by just about everyone involved. That's a sad fact of a lot of cases.

 

[Barbara]

Barbara & WolfsmarGirl, I hope you'll bring us some cases to look at where good birth parents with no prior history of psychosis or depression killed their children. Several JBR posters have been looking for just such an example for years.

Patsy isn't perfect, any more than any of us are, but she is a positive person. At the time of JonBenét's death Patsy was not depressed, was in remission, and believed she had been healed from cancer. She was happy to be alive, to be healthy, to enjoy her life, her family, her children. There was no pathology, no prior history found in Patsy's life to even suggest she was capable of what happened to JonBenét..

I am not one of the JBR posters looking for any examples of prior history. There is no need. Prior history of psychosis, depression is only a history IF IT IS DOCUMENTED. There are many people who go into depression, etc. and never see a doctor, and nobody knows. I am also one of the posters who never found a real problem with the pageants. However, the level of importance Patsy placed on the pageants and JonBenet could be considered some pathology by many and is one area where pathology can be well hidden, although in this case, was not hidden at all.

As for the rest, what Britt said. Although I don't think John was molesting JBR.

 

[BlueCrab]

BC,

I think you might be misunderstanding me here. I am not refering to the severity of the abrasion. I am talking about the pattern within the abrasion.

If you get a chance, take my link again. Check out the green-colored photo of the mark on JB's cheek. You will see a large abrasion with a distinct, clear pattern within the mark.

I am contending that the cluster-ring has a pattern that is so close to the pattern in the abrasion that it has to be the cause of the mark.

If a stun gun does not produce a pattern within the burn-mark it leaves, then it is impossible for a stun gun to be responsible for this injury.

I agree there's a pattern of some kind in the injury on the face, but it may or may not have been from a ring. It's unknown whether the face injury is an abrasion, or a burn, or both. A severe stun gun burn could also form a pattern of some kind.

JMO

 

[Curious]

I have only recently started reading about this case. Have just ordered Steve's book. I've seen the Ramsey interviews, seen the 20/20 features, etc. At first, I didn't think the Ramey's had anything to do with the crime. But the more I learn about the details of the case, the more I am convinced SOMEONE within the family committed the crime. I'm no so sure I have all the details worked out in my theory, but it goes something to the effect that neither John nor Patsy actually killed JBR, but know who did and are eye-ball deep in the coverup. I think that's why they don't ever want to be interviewed seperately...Patsy might slip. I'm leaning more toward an extended family member molesting/accidentally killing JBR, or Burke & friend molesting/accidentally killing her. Either way, John and Patsy covering up.

Lately I find that I don't have much faith in the court system in this country. Especiallly when politics come into play, as in this case. Famous and/or wealthy defendants seem to be able to 'buy' their way out of responsibility for their crimes. Innoscent people being found guilty for crimes they didn't commit, only to be exhonerated by DNA years later. Media/tabliods' biased or outright false, unverified reporting solely to increase ratings or circulation. It's hard to know what is the truth anymore. I say all of this just to say that even if someone does go to trial for JRB's murder, I don't necessarily think it will be the right verdict, or even the right person(s).

 

[tipper]

Actually the best book to start with for this case is Perfect Murder, Perfect Town by Lawrence Schiller. It gives a relatively unbiased overview of the case and the politics that went on behind the scene. Then read Thomas' and the Ramsey's books. Also CrimeLibrary.com has a relatively long article on it.

 

[TLynn]

I remember looking at the marks on JonBenet and seeing one of the "rectangular squares" was angled differently than the other.

Not so on the pig example - both squares were angled the same way.

 

[BlueCrab]

I remember looking at the marks on JonBenet and seeing one of the "rectangular squares" was angled differently than the other.

Not so on the pig example - both squares were angled the same way.

The little rectangular burn marks on the pig were uniform and aligned because the pig's skin was tough, rigid, relatively flat, and the pig was kept from moving. On JonBenet the skin was soft, pliable, curved, and she was likely squirming when the stun gun was pressed against her.

JMO

 

[Ivy]

Stun gun? What stun gun? It has never been established that a stun gun was used on JonBenet.

IMO

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

I remember looking at the marks on JonBenet and seeing one of the "rectangular squares" was angled differently than the other.

Not so on the pig example - both squares were angled the same way.

Yes, I agree.

Take a look at my 'hand' photo. You will see the same shapes as on JB's back.

http://www.geocities.com/wolfchick942003/photopage.html

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

I agree there's a pattern of some kind in the injury on the face, but it may or may not have been from a ring. It's unknown whether the face injury is an abrasion, or a burn, or both. A severe stun gun burn could also form a pattern of some kind.

JMO

Sure, maybe some type of a pattern, but, not the pattern I see in JBR's abrasion.

There are tiny little squares here, each angled just slightly...like a cluster-ring setting...

Believe me, I checked out everything from clothing snaps to buttons to screws and bolts...Nothing else comes close.

Now, I sound like a broken record, lol.

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

Here you go LP, an article about mothers, oh, excuse, me good BIRTH mothers who kill.

I snipped quite a bit of it, since the main focus was 'why aren't men and women treated equally when they kill,' or something along those lines:

http://www.fathers.ca/women_that_kill.htm

"Mothers who kill"

"Why do women direct their most violent impulses toward their own children?

By Dahlia Lithwick
SLATE.COM

March 13 — *Women do not, by and large, make terrific criminals. In the United States, women commit only two crimes as frequently as men. The first is shoplifting. The second is the murder of their own children. Andrea Yates, the Houston mother whose trial for the murders of three of her children ended Tuesday in a guilty verdict, and Marilyn Lemak, the Chicago nurse recently convicted of killing her three children, are not at all statistical anomalies. Somehow, women — who commit less than 13 percent of all violent crimes in the United States — commit about 50 percent of all parental murders. Why do so many women direct their most violent impulses toward their own children?
* ...
***** *
***** *
THE MENTAL-ILLNESS FACTOR
***** *The scholars, the media, and most of the studies do their best to persuade us that these murderous moms really are ill. Perhaps it comforts us to believe that anyone who violates the sacred mother-child bond is simply crazy; it would be unimaginable if these mothers were making rational criminal choices. And since women are not violent in other contexts, most scholars, including Oberman, argue that the majority of maternal murderers suffer from depression, postpartum psychoses, and other mental afflictions...
***** *The problem with the “illness” theory is that it only goes partway toward explaining why women kill their babies. Illness may explain how some women eventually snap and behave violently. But it doesn’t begin to explain why they direct this madness so disproportionately toward their own offspring. Even taking into account that some small fraction of the mental illnesses associated with maternal filicide — most notably postpartum depression — are triggered by the births themselves, the illness theory doesn’t explain why mothers suffering from other mental illnesses, or who aren’t ill at all, act out with their own children rather than strangers...
***** *
CRIMES AGAINST ‘PROPERTY’
Women who murder their own children are more likely to be hospitalized, whereas men who do so are more likely to go to prison.

* * * * *Pulling murderous mothers out of the field of ordinary criminology and viewing them as fundamentally different raises more questions than it answers. Perhaps murderous mothers are no crazier than fathers. Perhaps murderous fathers are even crazier than mothers. Either way, the failure to view these crimes as morally or legally equivalent reflects a more central legal truth: We still view children as the mother’s property. Since destroying one’s own property is considered crazy while destroying someone else’s property is criminal, women who murder their own children are sent to hospitals, whereas their husbands are criminals, who go to jail or the electric chair...
* * * *
THE NUMBERS, THE MEDIA
* * * *Children under the age of 5 in the United States are more likely to be killed by their parents than anyone else. Contrary to popular mythology, they are rarely killed by a sex-crazed stranger. FBI crime statistics show that in 1999 parents were responsible for 57 percent of these murders, with family friends and acquaintances accounting for another 30 percent and other family members accounting for 8 percent. Crime statistics further reveal that of the children under 5 killed by their own parents from 1976 to 1999, 30 percent were murdered by their mothers while 31 percent were killed by their fathers. And while the strangers, acquaintances, and other family members who kill children skew heavily toward males (as does the entire class of murderers), children are as likely to be murdered by their fathers as by their mothers.
Cases involving mothers who kill their children seem to get an inordinate amount of media attention...

* * *
* * * *
THE MOTIVES
* * * *The same studies that have been used to prove that murderous mothers are “sick” can as readily be used to support the theory that both mothers and fathers consider children to be a woman’s property. Social science research and FBI crime statistics show that men and women differ in the reasons they kill their children, in the methods they employ, and in the ways they behave following such murders. None of this data proves that fathers are crazier than mothers. Much of it suggests that we all simply believe children “belong” to their moms.
* A small stuffed animal and other items are placed on the Texas gravesite of one of the five children who were drowned by their mother, Andrea Yates.
* * Researchers, building on the work of Phillip Resnick, have shown that women tend to kill their own offspring for one of several reasons: because the child is unwanted; out of mercy; as a result of some mental illness in the mother; in retaliation against a spouse; as a result of abuse. Frequent themes are that they themselves deserved to be punished, that killing the children would be an altruistic or loving act, or that children need to be “erased” in order to save or preserve a relationship. Contrast this with the reasons men kill their children: ... The consistent idea is that women usually kill their children either because they are angry at themselves or because they want to destroy that which they created, whereas more often than not, men kill their children to get back at a woman ...
* * * *According to a recent article by Elizabeth Fernandez in the San Francisco Chronicle, studies further reveal that fathers are far more likely to commit suicide after killing their children. Mothers attempt post-filicide suicide but rarely succeed. Some scholars suggest this is because mothers tend to view their children as mere extensions of themselves and that these homicides are in fact suicidal.
* * * *
METHODS OF MURDER
* * * *Perhaps more revealing than the differences in why they kill their offspring are the differences between how fathers and mothers do so. For one thing, parental murderers tend to be highly physical. According to a 1988 survey done by the U.S. Justice Department, while 61 percent of all murder defendants used a gun in 1988, only 20 percent of the parents who killed their children used one. Children were drowned and shaken, beaten, poisoned, stabbed, and suffocated. These methods betray a certain “craziness” in both genders — they betray an intense passion and a lack of planning.
*
* *

The Yates trial

More on the case and postpartum depression:


•* Mom who drowned five kids found guilty
•* Beyond the baby blues
•* Breaking Bioethics: Taking reproductive responsibility
•* Mothers warn about postpartum depression

* * * *But a study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children shows that fathers are far more violent. And mothers frequently dispose of the corpses in what researchers call a “womblike” fashion. Bodies are swaddled, submerged in water, or wrapped in plastic. Moreover, the NCMEC study showed that while the victims of maternal killings are almost always found either in or close to the home, fathers will, on average, dispose of the bodies hundreds of miles away. All these behaviors suggest that women associate these murders with themselves, their homes, and their bodies
* * * ... while complete psychotic breaks explain why some of this homicidal rage and violence is turned upon one’s own children, it doesn’t account for either the staggering numbers of maternal homicides...

* * * * ... Women still believe that they have sole dominion over so little property that arson and armed robbery and rape make no intuitive sense to them. But the destruction and control of something deemed to be a woman’s sole property sends a powerful message about who’s really in charge, and this message hasn’t changed since the time of Jason and Medea. It would, of course, help if we could stop thinking of children as anyone’s property.
* * * *It does nothing to advance the feminist cause to simply assume that all mothers who kill their children must necessarily be crazy...."

*

*(emphasis mine)