Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[BBB167893]

His religion does not matter. I am positive that he investigated many people who would be called Religious. That makes no difference in the out come.

It shouldn't, anyway. But he wouldn't be the first guy to start believing his own press.

In this case it is just something used to pick apart someone who was once on the side of the LE and then saw things go the other way. He is persecuted for that.

PLEASE. He's hardly persecuted. Merely called out on some of the awful things he did in this case, from making up his own "evidence" out of thin air to forgetting his own rules, how he thought he knew more than the forensic experts, and right down the line.

People want to make him all kinds of things to ignore his findings.

He did that just fine on his own. And he EARNED it. ALL of it. As far as I'm concerned, Lou Smit is a big reason why no one has had to answer for JonBenet's death. He allowed himself to be taken in by a couple of ruthless manipulators and supplied them with evidence that he took illegally. He should not have been allowed to remain on the case when his biases became obvious, and he should have gone to jail. As far as I'm concerned he can go to hell.

 

[Venom]

There can not be direct evidence that it was NOT someone.. Only that it was someone.

Their fibers and dna are there because they all belong there.

Fibers from JR's shirt do not belong in the inside of a brand new pair of underwear. Anyone can spin it however they want, but there really is no reason for them to be there.

 

[madeleine]

Fibers from JR's shirt do not belong in the inside of a brand new pair of underwear. Anyone can spin it however they want, but there really is no reason for them to be there.

most important...fibers from a shirt he wore THAT night

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Fibers from JR's shirt do not belong in the inside of a brand new pair of underwear. Anyone can spin it however they want, but there really is no reason for them to be there.

Sure they do. Fibers are everywhere and can get everywhere. Want to see a quick way? JB hugs her daddy in that shirt, She goes potty later, The fibers end up on her person. they are transferred to the panties.

Patsy has her hands on JR, She goes and helps JBR in the potty later, They transfer.

Fiber transfer is not going to be the answer to this case. Unless you can get some fiber that is unique to one person that is not supposed to have contact with the child or those she would normally touch and hug.

His fiber there means nothing other than they had contact, since they live together, that is no big sign of proof.

 

[Venom]

I believe the underwear were brand new, just taken out of the pack located in the basement that were wrapped up for the niece. Assuming that the killer took them out of the unopened pack, there should be no reason for JR's fibers from the shirt he had on that night to be inside the underwear.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I believe the underwear were brand new, just taken out of the pack located in the basement that were wrapped up for the niece. Assuming that the killer took them out of the unopened pack, there should be no reason for JR's fibers from the shirt he had on that night to be inside the underwear.

It does not matter. The fibers could have already been on JB and were moved around that way. The fact that the killer took them and used them, would only mean that the fibers could have been somewhere else on JB and transferred that way. It does not mean JR had anything to do with the death of JBR

 

[madeleine]

not even the official page mentions the correct COD :banghead:

https://bouldercolorado.gov/pages/jonbenet-ramsey-homicide

onBenet Ramsey was six years old when she was reported missing on December 26, 1996, after her family reported finding a ransom note inside their home in the 700 block of 15th Street. Her body was found in a basement room, and a later autopsy revealed that the cause of her death was strangulation. Anyone with information about JonBenet Ramsey’s homicide is asked to contact Detective Sgt. Tom Trujillo at 303-441-3338. Anonymous tips may be emailed to [email protected]. Tips leading to the arrest and conviction of the suspect in this crime may be eligible for a cash reward.

 

[madeleine]

The strongest evidence against the Ramseys in this case is nothing that directly implicates them. [It is] the implausibility that anyone else committed [the murder]. But paradoxically, the strongest evidence…, by its very nature, is the weakest evidence against the Ramseys…. If we come to the conclusion that JonBenét was not murdered by an intruder, the inevitable question presents itself: which [parent] did it? A prosecutor can't argue to a jury, "Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence is very clear here that either Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey committed this murder and the other one covered it up…" There is no case to take to the jury unless [the DA] could prove beyond reasonable doubt which one…did it…. Even if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note, that doesn't mean she committed the murder.

Schiller summarizes a Denver district attorney's position: "Until investigators could identify each parent's individual actions, two suspects meant no suspects." In other words, the law can shield a suspected murderer or murderers in certain circumstances.

In their joint effort Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey? the forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht and the journalist Charles Bosworth come to a similar conclusion. Given the impenetrable legal wall that has shielded the Ramseys, the case came to seem to the "inexperienced" DA Alex Hunter (in fact, a twenty-five-year veteran) unwinnable; and since in his professional vanity Hunter wanted to file only a case he was certain of winning, he vacillated for months, poisoning the working relations between his office and the Boulder homicide detectives, and further weakening the investigation.

From the first, the Ramseys' wealth and prestige set them apart from ordinary police scrutiny; their alliance with well-known Boulder attorneys who were associates and friends of Alex Hunter's further strengthened their position. As Wecht and Bosworth write, "The case would have been entirely different if the victim was a girl from a poor or even middle-class home." The subtext of the JonBenét Ramsey case is class and privilege in America vis-à-vis "justice." Carlton Smith in Death of a Little Princess concludes:

Where have the authorities gone wrong? The grim answers are in the evident lack of police training and experience that allowed so many errors on the critical first day; in the egos of the participants, which came to occupy more and more of the battle to control the investigation as the publicity intensified; and the worst: the clear fact that there are two kinds of police procedures in America, one for the rich and another for the poor…. The parents of any young child found dead under the same circumstances almost certainly would have been interrogated at once, in depth and separately, when the event was still horrific enough to have produced spontaneous answers. That did not happen in Boulder, and was why the investigation entered a state of seemingly interminable drift. It was a betrayal of our expectations about justice.


http://www.usfca.edu/jco/mysteryofjonbenetramsey/

 

[Venom]

Where have the authorities gone wrong? The grim answers are in the evident lack of police training and experience that allowed so many errors on the critical first day; in the egos of the participants, which came to occupy more and more of the battle to control the investigation as the publicity intensified; and the worst: the clear fact that there are two kinds of police procedures in America, one for the rich and another for the poor…. The parents of any young child found dead under the same circumstances almost certainly would have been interrogated at once, in depth and separately, when the event was still horrific enough to have produced spontaneous answers. That did not happen in Boulder, and was why the investigation entered a state of seemingly interminable drift.


http://www.usfca.edu/jco/mysteryofjonbenetramsey/

That right there is a sad fact. I will never understand why parents wouldn't have wanted to sit down and talk to investigators about who would have done this. Their wealth and connections sure have worked out for them.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

You don't have to be wealthy to not talk to LE, though. It's one of our rights. Working class people don't have the money to hire a lawyer, so they aren't aware of their exact legal rights. Nowadays, cases become high-profile so easily, so lawyers latch onto them, and inform their clients of various economics means that they can stay silent. Look at Baby Lisa's parents, for example.

Something like the R's phone records never being turned over to LE would be more of an example of connections and privilege IMO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The strongest evidence against the Ramseys in this case is nothing that directly implicates them. [It is] the implausibility that anyone else committed [the murder]. But paradoxically, the strongest evidence…, by its very nature, is the weakest evidence against the Ramseys…. If we come to the conclusion that JonBenét was not murdered by an intruder, the inevitable question presents itself: which [parent] did it? A prosecutor can't argue to a jury, "Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence is very clear here that either Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey committed this murder and the other one covered it up…" There is no case to take to the jury unless [the DA] could prove beyond reasonable doubt which one…did it…. Even if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note, that doesn't mean she committed the murder.

Schiller summarizes a Denver district attorney's position: "Until investigators could identify each parent's individual actions, two suspects meant no suspects." In other words, the law can shield a suspected murderer or murderers in certain circumstances.

In their joint effort Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey? the forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht and the journalist Charles Bosworth come to a similar conclusion. Given the impenetrable legal wall that has shielded the Ramseys, the case came to seem to the "inexperienced" DA Alex Hunter (in fact, a twenty-five-year veteran) unwinnable; and since in his professional vanity Hunter wanted to file only a case he was certain of winning, he vacillated for months, poisoning the working relations between his office and the Boulder homicide detectives, and further weakening the investigation.

From the first, the Ramseys' wealth and prestige set them apart from ordinary police scrutiny; their alliance with well-known Boulder attorneys who were associates and friends of Alex Hunter's further strengthened their position. As Wecht and Bosworth write, "The case would have been entirely different if the victim was a girl from a poor or even middle-class home." The subtext of the JonBenét Ramsey case is class and privilege in America vis-à-vis "justice." Carlton Smith in Death of a Little Princess concludes:

Where have the authorities gone wrong? The grim answers are in the evident lack of police training and experience that allowed so many errors on the critical first day; in the egos of the participants, which came to occupy more and more of the battle to control the investigation as the publicity intensified; and the worst: the clear fact that there are two kinds of police procedures in America, one for the rich and another for the poor…. The parents of any young child found dead under the same circumstances almost certainly would have been interrogated at once, in depth and separately, when the event was still horrific enough to have produced spontaneous answers. That did not happen in Boulder, and was why the investigation entered a state of seemingly interminable drift. It was a betrayal of our expectations about justice.


http://www.usfca.edu/jco/mysteryofjonbenetramsey/

We don't have to talk to police without a lawyer. Ever. That is a right to protect yourself from self incrimination.
ONCE you have an atty you follow their advice. They tell you not to talk, you don't. Simple as that. It means nothing more than that.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You don't have to be wealthy to not talk to LE, though. It's one of our rights. Working class people don't have the money to hire a lawyer, so they aren't aware of their exact legal rights. Nowadays, cases become high-profile so easily, so lawyers latch onto them, and inform their clients of various economics means that they can stay silent. Look at Baby Lisa's parents, for example.

Something like the R's phone records never being turned over to LE would be more of an example of connections and privilege IMO.

The only problem is that No one can circumvent a subpeona. It takes just a court order and the police gets it all.

 

[DeeDee249]

No one has to talk to police with or without a lawyer. But I am always suspicious when a lawyer tells a client NOT to talk. The questions Patsy was not allowed to answer were all I needed to convince me of her involvement.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No one has to talk to police with or without a lawyer. But I am always suspicious when a lawyer tells a client NOT to talk. The questions Patsy was not allowed to answer were all I needed to convince me of her involvement.

Wait, The questions she was TOLD not to answer.. That is what lead you to believe in her involvement? So she gets a lawyer which is her right, Then she follows his advice and that means she was involved?

???

 

[Venom]

No one has to talk to police with or without a lawyer. But I am always suspicious when a lawyer tells a client NOT to talk. The questions Patsy was not allowed to answer were all I needed to convince me of her involvement.

Yes, aren't people told not to answer so they don't self incriminate?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes, aren't people told not to answer so they don't self incriminate?

And? This is the rights of all people.

It is one thing if they are breaking the law but they are being lawful. Using their rights.. who knew that could be something bad?

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

A little OT (perhaps, perhaps not)....

I liked how the mother of Natalie Halloway kept searching for years for her daughter and fought so hard for justice.
She went down to Aruba many times, hired a P.I., she was on tv.....she did whatever she could to keep her daughter's name out there and to catch the perp.

Natalie Halloway's mother did not say that she forgave whoever took her daughter. She did not grant them grace or understanding. She was always mad and I don't blame her one bit.

.....and therein lies my point--> the contrast. The contrast.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

A little OT (perhaps, perhaps not)....

I liked how the mother of Natalie Halloway kept searching for years for her daughter and fought so hard for justice.
She went down to Aruba many times, hired a P.I., she was on tv.....she did whatever she could to keep her daughter's name out there and to catch the perp.

Natalie Halloway's mother did not say that she forgave whoever took her daughter. She did not grant them grace or understanding. She was always mad and I don't blame her one bit.

.....and therein lies my point--> the contrast. The contrast.

Yet, Beth had a relationship with John Ramsey.. Something she would not have done if she at all felt he was guilty of anything. I trust her judgment as apparently you do.

Forgiving people and having grace for the someone even when they hurt you is strength. Not weakness. Certainly not a sign of guilt.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Yet, Beth had a relationship with John Ramsey.. Something she would not have done if she at all felt he was guilty of anything. I trust her judgment as apparently you do.

Forgiving people and having grace for the someone even when they hurt you is strength. Not weakness. Certainly not a sign of guilt.

A lot of assumptions in the above post, sorry.
Maybe she was initially involved with JR 'cause they both suffered a loss of their daughter's and it was as simple as that. Just that connection sparked an interest due to their pain and loss.
However, I am assuming that *could* be a reason for their liason.
I don't think it was enough of a bond to keep them together for very long.
Anything is pure speculation regarding their relationship as I haven't seen a link or any quotes from either party regarding it.

I will say this though, I think her behavior was a lot more predictable and understandable than I've ever seen PR's regarding the issue of their missing or dead daughters.

For me, seeking truth and justice is strength.

moo.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

A lot of assumptions in the above post, sorry.
Maybe she was initially involved with JR 'cause they both suffered a loss of their daughter's and it was as simple as that. Just that connection sparked an interest due to their pain and loss.
However, I am assuming that *could* be a reason for their liason.
I don't think it was enough of a bond to keep them together for very long.
Anything is pure speculation regarding their relationship as I haven't seen a link or any quotes from either party regarding it.

I will say this though, I think her behavior was a lot more predictable and understandable than I've ever seen PR's regarding the issue of their missing or dead daughters.

For me, seeking truth and justice is strength.

moo.

Oh gosh, really? Beth is no idiot. She is a smart cookie. If she felt he was dangerous or guilty she would not have gone near him.

That is just your opinion. I think that no one can know how they will react unless they are there.
I think all the time about the Amish families who went to the funeral of the man who killed their daughters. They brought his widow food and toys for the kids. They had grace and forgiveness. I have seen that many times for murderers from the victims family. It is just grace. Amazing grace.

I hope my heart would be that big.