Let me hear from you if you think the R's are innocent

[aussiesheila]

to Blue Crab
My first reply! Thanks! and WOW!

There is alot of information I don’t know about this case. My main source of info before I got onto this site is the Schiller book I read 5 years ago and unfortunately I haven’t seen the photos

you said
The two crime scene photos being discussed, #'s 71 and 72, were taken early in the morning of the 26th. The crime scene technician who took the photos started snapping pictures even before the sun came up.



Is there a statement from the technician about when he/she took the photos? It seems quite logical to me that the outdoor photos would have taken before the sun rose but are you sure that the INDOOR photos were taken then too? My impression was that the police were not putting that much of their resources into the affair before 1 pm - didn’t Linda Arndt have trouble getting backup? I wouldn’t have thought that the indoor photographs would have been taken until after Jon Benet’s body had been found.

you also said
John's comment about his having to move the chair to get in is evidence that he was in the train room before Rick French or Fleet White were, because THEY didn't have to move the chair to get in. When in the train room John said he found the basement window open, so he closed and locked it.



Have you read anywhere where French has stated exactly what he saw in the doorway? Was he asked whether the doorway was blocked when he went down? And did he specifically say there was no chair in the doorway that he had to move in order to enter the room?

And what exactly did French say about the position of the window? I got the impression that he just did a quick look around and didn’t pay attention to anything in particular, rather he was just looking for something really obvious that pointed to a break in and didn’t notice that the window was actually open by 1/4 inch.

 

[Nehemiah]

No evidence to post, but I have come to believe that the Rs are not guilty.

 

[DeeDee249]

No evidence to post, but I have come to believe that the Rs are not guilty.

Would you be willing to tell us how you came to that belief?

 

[BBB167893]

Yeah, shoot.

 

[Nehemiah]

Would you be willing to tell us how you came to that belief?

Been here since Jan 2000 and I have always been a fence sitter. I have never discovered a motive by the family that I could sink my teeth into. I have no "evidence" to debate; I just got off the fence onto the IDI side. Intruder could mean anyone outside the family.

It's just my opinion, of course.

 

[DeeDee249]

Been here since Jan 2000 and I have always been a fence sitter. I have never discovered a motive by the family that I could sink my teeth into. I have no "evidence" to debate; I just got off the fence onto the IDI side. Intruder could mean anyone outside the family.

It's just my opinion, of course.

There doesn't need to be a motive. A motive suggests First Degree Murder. That means it was planned. I don't believe (nor do most RDI's) that this was planned in advance. This was either a sudden rage attack or a sudden bash on the head to silence her. A neighbor heard a scream. The lack of a motive is not enough to rule out the parents. JMHO.

 

[redeemed]

There doesn't need to be a motive. A motive suggests First Degree Murder. That means it was planned. I don't believe (nor do most RDI's) that this was planned in advance. This was either a sudden rage attack or a sudden bash on the head to silence her. A neighbor heard a scream. The lack of a motive is not enough to rule out the parents. JMHO.

I dont believe the murder was planned..If it was, we would have seen far fewer "mistakes" in the crime scene.

 

[Nehemiah]

There doesn't need to be a motive. A motive suggests First Degree Murder. That means it was planned. I don't believe (nor do most RDI's) that this was planned in advance. This was either a sudden rage attack or a sudden bash on the head to silence her. A neighbor heard a scream. The lack of a motive is not enough to rule out the parents. JMHO.

No, it's not enough to rule out the parents. It's just that I got off the fence.

 

[KariKae]

Just read the entire thread...I classify myself as a fencesitter.

Lack of motive has always bothered me as well. A previous poster mentioned a fellow pageant mom as a possible suspect. I would like to expand on this theory a little bit. I am a former pageant mom. Bear with my generalizations while I explain the pageant mom mind a little bit...

Pageant moms adore their daughters. And when I say adore, I mean pageant moms adore their daughters in a "she can do no wrong" type of way. They are some of the most pampered girls you will ever meet. Some moms will mortgage houses, run up credit cards, etc. to pay for pageant entry fees, dresses, lessons, etc. I wouldn't expect Patsy to fly into a rage over bedwetting. I would expect more minimalizing behavior...She would make excuses...JB was tired from the party, drank way too much juice, was in a super deep sleep, etc.

Many people have said JB had a natural sparkle for performing and pageants. Consider another mother...JB had "beat" her daughter. The other mom had put countless time, money, tears, etc. Perhaps the other mom or her daughter had been snubbed by one of the Ramseys. Maybe JB had upset her daughter just prior to going on stage and her daughter did not perform her best. Bottom line is JB won and the other little girl didn't. Add into this scenario Christmas which is often a stressor in dysfunctional homes. Other mom decided it was JonBenet's fault.

Of course, while I sit here typing this, I will admit the strongest piece of IDI evidence is the unknown male DNA which does not fit with this theory.

 

[BOESP]

... Lack of motive has always bothered me as well. ....

There isn't a motive if it was an accidental death (unless you want to view it from the legal standpoint of manslaughter (careless but not necessarily purposeful) or whatever terminology Colorado uses). Albeit the autopsy states asphyxiation by ligature strangulation, which is purposeful, it was associated with the blunt force trauma, which may have been accidental. In other words, the head wound probably would have given the appearance that JonBenet was already dead before the ligature was applied, thus the ligature was a part of staging.

The entire thing reeks of cover-up in my view.

 

[Sophie]

I think another issue is that 'motive' doesn't have to have been something that has emerged over a long period of time. When people think of 'motive' they tend to think of someone deciding to bump off an elderly relative for the inheritance or something of that ilk. 'Motive' can, though, emerge quite suddenly - even in the minutes before a murder. For example, a child telling his/her abuser that he/she was going to tell someone about the abuse could become a motive for murder in the hours or minutes leading up to the murder rather than something that was bubbling up for weeks. A mother deciding that she would teach her unfaithful husband a lesson by killing the kids could develop as a motive very quickly (see, eg, Debora Green).

I actually think this desire to find a motive that had been festering away for ages was a large part of what informed the DA's office's baffling behaviour.

I think BOESP has chararacterised this particular tragedy perfectly..

 

[DeeDee249]

I can only imagine how the "rival" pageant moms viewed Patsy and JB. I had read that some moms used to pull their daughters out of a pageant if JB was entered. But I do not believe this crime was committed by a rival mom or someone they hired. Why? Because there is absolutely NO evidence that anyone other than the three other residents that lived there were in the house that night. I completely discount the foreign DNA on her clothes for the simple reason that it is not found anywhere else at the scene. Gloves? Taking them on and off repeatedly for different activities during the same crime just isn't reasonable. There isn't a print, hair or fiber belonging to any one else other than a parent on her body. There are ONLY fibers (on the body, tape, cord and panties) and hair (Patsy's forearm hair on the blanket) belonging to the parents.
This crime may be unique in some ways, but there are some forensic certainties that apply to ALL crimes, even this one: There is always an exchange of forensic evidence. Always. Something is taken FROM the crime scene (hair, fiber, DNA) and something is left from the perp. Hair, fiber, DNA. The fact that the DNA alone is left and there are NO foreign hairs or fibers found on her tells me that the DNA was likely not part of the crime. Especially as it was skin cells, which are easily shed by everyone every day. The Rs were at a party that day. Lots of hand-shaking, hugging. Touching doorknobs, utensils, glasses. Other people and other people's things. Even other people's clothes (sleeves, etc) as happens in any social situation. JB was playing with other kids' toys. That male DNA is simply "male" it is not "adult male". It could have belonged to any little boy at that party. If JB touched them or anything they touched and then pulled her own longjohns and panties up or down without washing her hands, that could be exactly how those skin cells got there. I have seen lists of who gave DNA samples, but I have not seen where the young male party guests who were children at the time were ever matched to the new "touch DNA". Why hasn't it been done? The infamous suitcase- let's test that handle, if Smit is so certain it was used by an intruder to climb up the wall or to stuff JB inside (he actually said this) then let's test for a match. So far, the only things in that suitcase are a comforter belonging to JAR, stained with his semen, and a children's book. For those who suggest that the children's book and blanket were JAR's childhood items, stored in there- I say this- the suitcase was said to be used by JAR to go back and forth to college and the comforter was from his dorm room. If the items were from his childhood, how did his semen get on it? Early puberty? Somehow the children's book and ejaculation don't match up. Odd to take a children's book to college.
Yet fibers and hairs belonging to NO ONE EXCEPT THE PARENTS are found anywhere on the body, the wineceller or anywhere else related to the crime- the bowl of pineapple, the glass, spoon. ALL have prints from a family member.
Yet we do not see where that same "touch DNA" testing was applied to the tape and garrote, two things DIRECTLY related to the crime and her death. Wonder why that is? Yet, Lacy loudly proclaims the innocence of the parents based on the skin cells found on her clothing, completely ignoring the FACT that fibers belonging to the parents are found on their child's dead body and on things associated with her death.
Show me a match to the tape, cord, to that clothing DNA and I'll move a bit closer to the other side.
We won't see those things tested. Because the DA's office and the defense attorneys probably already know what's there.

 

[Sophie]

That's a magnificent post, DeeDee!

 

[cynic]

That's a magnificent post, DeeDee!

Ditto :applause:

 

[cynic]

...Yet we do not see where that same "touch DNA" testing was applied to the tape and garrote, two things DIRECTLY related to the crime and her death. Wonder why that is? Yet, Lacy loudly proclaims the innocence of the parents based on the skin cells found on her clothing, completely ignoring the FACT that fibers belonging to the parents are found on their child's dead body and on things associated with her death.
Show me a match to the tape, cord, to that clothing DNA and I'll move a bit closer to the other side.
We won't see those things tested. Because the DA's office and the defense attorneys probably already know what's there.

They were going to test those items but felt the money would be better spent flying a pedophile from Thailand to the United States.

 

[BBB167893]

I wouldn't expect Patsy to fly into a rage over bedwetting. I would expect more minimalizing behavior...She would make excuses...JB was tired from the party, drank way too much juice, was in a super deep sleep, etc.

Let me lay this on you, KariKae: what if she HAD been minimalizing things, things she shouldn't have? What if her denials all collapsed?

 

[BBB167893]

I actually think this desire to find a motive that had been festering away for ages was a large part of what informed the DA's office's baffling behaviour.

I KNOW it was!

 

[BBB167893]

Ditto :applause:

Hear, hear!

 

[Ames]

Ditto :applause:

And I second that ditto!!!

 

[Ravyn]

No, it's not enough to rule out the parents. It's just that I got off the fence.

Early on in this case that is all the DA office whined give us motive...Well what if it wasn't planned then no motive...But since you came off the fence as IDI maybe you can tell me your thought of why PR was 82% as the writter of the RN and everyone else was ruled out...Why innocent parents try to leave shortly after finding the body....Don't say for saftey cause after the murder they had no security any where else they was at....