LIfe as a fence sitter

[tumble]

I really mean those in charge of the JBR investigation. They've made it appear as though they believe an unknown intruder did it, because they used the DNA comparison to rule out a possible intruder suspect.

Are you sure? The way I see it they tried to rule him IN using the DNA but failed.
If they had managed to place him in Boulder they probably woud have charged him even if the DNA didn't match.
Having nothing else than DNA they obviously could not go forward with the case.

 

[olive]

Shelayne,


I find your perspective interesting, and I can undertand...somewhat. As I've said repeatedly on these boards, I discount most speculation...with either theory. However, I just have real trouble with this one.

If the first thing you read is that your kid was kidnapped, immediately the focus in a parent's mind is one of safety. I just don't see that displayed here, at all. Very strange.

 

[BBB167893]

"A stranger only killing once? No more crimes of this type in ten years?"

You just seized on it! If this were an intruder, serial killers don't just stop. My grandmother said it best: there would have been a hundred JonBenet's by now.

"IF this HAD been going on, wouldn't that be living a double life?"

Depends on who was doing it. Even if it was innocent (between two kids), knowing about it and doing nothing would still count as a double life.

 

[Jayelles]

A fence-sitter's life is not a happy one ...

RDI
Refusal to speak with police

Handwriting samples - look very like Patsy's but I've never seen anyone else's to compare

Fibre evidence - fibes consistent with Patsy's jacket entwined in the garotte

Large Bloomies - they just don't make sense

Evidence that John Ramsey tells lies to cover his backside

Lawyers quickly hired for everyone in the family

The DNA might not be the killer's

Pineapple cannot be easily explained if the Ramseys are telling the truth

When asked if he'd take a polygraph, JR said "I'd be insulted"


IDI

When asked if she'd take a polygraph, PR said "I'll take ten of them"

I cannot believe the Ramseys would harm their beloved daughter

The DNA might be the killer's

No duct tape and cord found afterwards

When I first started following the Ramsey case I read an article about the Internet Subculture which surrounded it.

It said (paraphrased) "there are Intruder did it theorists (IDIs), Ramsey did it theorists (RDIs) and fencesitters. However, the fencesitters tend to get lumped together with the RDIs."

How true that is. My own experience has been that IDIs tend not to accept fencesitters who may have nagging doubts about some aspects of the evidence or Ramsey behaviour. I have found that unless you are 100% in support of the Ramseys, then the IDIs will treat you with suspicion and may even label you a closet RDI (although why anyone would want to be a closet RDI OR IDI I have yet to figure out!)

I came to the case believing that the Ramseys were innocent and to this day I have maintained that there is insufficient evidence to convict them of their daughter's murder. I have never once said I thought the Ramseys are guilty of this crime (neither in public nor in private) and I have said many, many times that I do NOT think them guilty (both in public and in private) - yet I am regularly described as a "BORG" and accused of 'secretly believing in their guilt' - because 'no-one who really believed in their innocence would question their statements or behaviour!' (as I do). I've even been called a two-faced snake by a drunk who amused himself by posting here as a rabid RDI and elsewhere as a rabid IDI. That's probably been the vilest insult, but I guess one has to consider the source :furious:

Then today I found this thread whilst searching for something else and I thought it was worth bumping up as a primer for lurkers and newbies.

Are RDIs just people who like to believe the worst in people? My answer is No, definitely not. In my considered opinion, many of the RDI friends I've made over the year are amazingly kind people who support good causes with their time and hard earned cash. They are frustrated at the failure to find justice for JonBenet and whilst angry at the Ramseys failure to co-operate with their daughter's murder investigation many retain an open mind about the evidence.

Are IDIs just kind-hearted people who can't believe that good people would do a bad thing? My answer is - some of them undoubtedly seem to find it hard to believe another human being capable of a heinous crime. We saw this in the Danielle vanDam murder case amongst others - where some people seemed to prefer in a faceless, nameless bogieman rather than face the fact that an indentifiable suspect did it. It seemed to me that some believed that the prisons were full of innocent people. However, that cannot be said of all IDIS are many can be utterly rabid in their character assassinations of initial/peripheral suspects like the McSantas, Chris Wolf and the Whites - even more so than many RDIs have been towards the Ramseys.

I've seen IDIs dismiss Ramsey lies as 'normal', 'understandable'. The Ramseys' refusal to participate in interviews or to take polygraphs is similarly rationalised - yet the same people find suspicion in practically everything that a non-Ramsey suspect might do.

In the early days, I tried being a fencesitter at an IDI forum and it just didn't work. The moment I questioned any aspect of Ramsey behaviour, I was personally attacked. I had to conform or be ostracised by the group. I subsequently found that RDI posters were much more tolerant and open to different opinions and ideas - and therein lies the reason why Fencesitters temd to be lumped with the RDI!

The bottom line is that I think there's a lot to be said for being a fencesitter. I can take being attacked by the more rabid IDIs because often, they are wearing blinkers and cannot see very well I may not agree with my RDI friends on the actual murder itself, but a bigger hearted bunch of people I've yet to meet on the web.

 

[Nedthan Johns]

Hey Jay!

Good to see you. By you bumping up this thread, I received a notification in my in-box. Haven’t been around in awhile. I still see the same ole discussions rehashing..

If everyone just agreed with Ned, then we wouldn’t have any disagreements

Bottom line…..
Ramsey’s did NOT cooperate with police
The Boulder District Attorney’s office proved their ineptness first with Hunter then with Lacy and no one will ever take charges against the Ramsey’s or any other person for that matter seriously
Patsy is dead (and she wrote the note)
John Ramsey has done NOTHING, absolutely ZERO, to help search for the supposed intruder heinous pedophile killer of his daughter.

Nuff said. See you all later!:woohoo:

 

[Nehemiah]

I came to the case believing that the Ramseys were innocent and to this day I have maintained that there is insufficient evidence to convict them of their daughter's murder. I have never once said I thought the Ramseys are guilty of this crime (neither in public nor in private) and I have said many, many times that I do NOT think them guilty (both in public and in private) - yet I am regularly described as a "BORG" and accused of 'secretly believing in their guilt' - because 'no-one who really believed in their innocence would question their statements or behaviour!' (as I do)....The bottom line is that I think there's a lot to be said for being a fencesitter.

I could not have said it better myself about myself.

 

[UKGuy]

I came to the case believing that the Ramseys were innocent and to this day I have maintained that there is insufficient evidence to convict them of their daughter's murder. I have never once said I thought the Ramseys are guilty of this crime (neither in public nor in private) and I have said many, many times that I do NOT think them guilty (both in public and in private) - yet I am regularly described as a "BORG" and accused of 'secretly believing in their guilt' - because 'no-one who really believed in their innocence would question their statements or behaviour!' (as I do). I've even been called a two-faced snake by a drunk who amused himself by posting here as a rabid RDI and elsewhere as a rabid IDI. That's probably been the vilest insult, but I guess one has to consider the source

Jayelles,

I have maintained that there is insufficient evidence to convict them of their daughter's murder.

We only know what is publically available, it has been stated much more has never been placed in the public domain.

Placed on the stand today the Ramsey's would be found guilty, other people have been convicted on less evidence.

Steve Thomas thought Patsy was good for it, so obviously even in the best interests of police administration, and innocent until proven guilty, its obvious where his sentiments lay.

All the current evidence demonstrates the three residents alive in the Ramsey house that night have conspired and colluded to evade capital murder charges.

There is zero forensic evidence linking to an intruder, and given the violence visited upon JonBenet that night, the transfer of fiber, dna, and other forms of evidence was unavoidable.

Sitting on the fence may offer you an admirable view of the competing theories, but like an agnostic, you cannot test the forensic evidence against your position, in other words progress will be slow. I would much rather someone demonstrate that any aspect of my particular RDI is incorrect, then I can move forward.

.

 

[DeeDee249]

I understand how difficult it can be to imagine a parent killing their own child, especially one as doted on as much as JBR. So it's not too hard to be fence-sitter, especially with this crime.
But every week in the news, some innocent child is killed, either by a parent or caregiver.
From the day this horrible murder first hit the news, I suspected the parents had something to do with it. If not guilty of cold-blooded murder, guilty of an accidental killing and cover up. Guilty of throwing the blame towards everyone they ever knew. And guilty of never ONCE in all the years doing anything to try to find the "real" killer(s). (where have we seen THAT before?)
As far as PR's comment about taking 10 lie detector tests- SAYING you'd do it and actually doing it are 2 different things, and having your defense lawyer allow you to do it is something else entirely. Also, PR didn't seem to know what a "lie detector" test was, she thought it was the questioning by LE.
While I've been troubled at the thought that her parents did this to her, I realize that as horrible as it is, these things do happen, so that wouldn't stop me from believing in their guilt.
Not having the remaining duct tape roll or cord doesn't trouble me at all. While every killer slips up on some things, it doesn't surprise me that the killer was able to destroy or eliminate these two things. That tape could have been pulled off a paint sling or canvas, and the cord could have been all that was available. There may not have been any leftover cord or tape. There were many, many places to hide the remnants anyway, that were not searched right away. The golf bag comes to mind. It was right there, outside the wineceller. And it is one of the things Aunt P was asked specifically to retrieve from the house. (an odd thing to "need" for January, isn't it?) Also, none of the Rs were searched as they left the house that night. They were all wearing winter coats, and PR was allegedly wearing fur boots. The tape and cord are small things to hide or dispose of. And no one in their right mind would try to flush a roll of duct tape down a toilet, so that fact that plumbing was torn apart and nothing found does not surprise me in the least.

 

[Jayelles]

I could not have said it better myself about myself.

That doesn't surprise me. You too make many posts which I feel I could have written myself

 

[Jayelles]

Hey Jay!

Good to see you. By you bumping up this thread, I received a notification in my in-box. Haven’t been around in awhile. I still see the same ole discussions rehashing..

If everyone just agreed with Ned, then we wouldn’t have any disagreements

Bottom line…..
Ramsey’s did NOT cooperate with police
The Boulder District Attorney’s office proved their ineptness first with Hunter then with Lacy and no one will ever take charges against the Ramsey’s or any other person for that matter seriously
Patsy is dead (and she wrote the note)
John Ramsey has done NOTHING, absolutely ZERO, to help search for the supposed intruder heinous pedophile killer of his daughter.

Nuff said. See you all later!:woohoo:

Hey Newd Ned! In response to your comment about the same ole rehashing..... an IDI recently attacked me for not jumping in and correcting my RDI colleagues enough. This was supposedly more proof of my being a closet RDI. In fact, I rarely (if ever) debate anyone's opinions about this case. I respect other people's opinions. I read lots of posts (both sides of the debate) and disagree with them, but I don't feel inclined to jump in and respond because I've done that - years ago and one gets weary of the same circular discussions.

Nowadays I tend only to post if its to correct blatant misinformation or to provide information if I find the question interesting (or if I can look it up quickly)...or to agree with something which has been well stated (that's the teacher in me!). Increasingly, I find myself only posting in disagreement if it's something which is new (to me).

I'm sure I'm not alone here. I know there are a few oldies who still read the forums but who rarely post because of the same ole. I got an e-mail from The Sweebie not so long ago. I loved Sweebie - she was an incredible poster. One of a kind.

 

[Jayelles]

I understand how difficult it can be to imagine a parent killing their own child, especially one as doted on as much as JBR. So it's not too hard to be fence-sitter, especially with this crime.
But every week in the news, some innocent child is killed, either by a parent or caregiver.
From the day this horrible murder first hit the news, I suspected the parents had something to do with it. If not guilty of cold-blooded murder, guilty of an accidental killing and cover up. Guilty of throwing the blame towards everyone they ever knew. And guilty of never ONCE in all the years doing anything to try to find the "real" killer(s). (where have we seen THAT before?)
As far as PR's comment about taking 10 lie detector tests- SAYING you'd do it and actually doing it are 2 different things, and having your defense lawyer allow you to do it is something else entirely. Also, PR didn't seem to know what a "lie detector" test was, she thought it was the questioning by LE.
While I've been troubled at the thought that her parents did this to her, I realize that as horrible as it is, these things do happen, so that wouldn't stop me from believing in their guilt.
Not having the remaining duct tape roll or cord doesn't trouble me at all. While every killer slips up on some things, it doesn't surprise me that the killer was able to destroy or eliminate these two things. That tape could have been pulled off a paint sling or canvas, and the cord could have been all that was available. There may not have been any leftover cord or tape. There were many, many places to hide the remnants anyway, that were not searched right away. The golf bag comes to mind. It was right there, outside the wineceller. And it is one of the things Aunt P was asked specifically to retrieve from the house. (an odd thing to "need" for January, isn't it?) Also, none of the Rs were searched as they left the house that night. They were all wearing winter coats, and PR was allegedly wearing fur boots. The tape and cord are small things to hide or dispose of. And no one in their right mind would try to flush a roll of duct tape down a toilet, so that fact that plumbing was torn apart and nothing found does not surprise me in the least.

I actually think the decision not to take a lie detector wasn't Patsy's. I think it was John's. I think he made all the decisions.

 

[Jayelles]

Jayelles,

We only know what is publically available, it has been stated much more has never been placed in the public domain.

Placed on the stand today the Ramsey's would be found guilty, other people have been convicted on less evidence.

Steve Thomas thought Patsy was good for it, so obviously even in the best interests of police administration, and innocent until proven guilty, its obvious where his sentiments lay.

All the current evidence demonstrates the three residents alive in the Ramsey house that night have conspired and colluded to evade capital murder charges.

There is zero forensic evidence linking to an intruder, and given the violence visited upon JonBenet that night, the transfer of fiber, dna, and other forms of evidence was unavoidable.

Sitting on the fence may offer you an admirable view of the competing theories, but like an agnostic, you cannot test the forensic evidence against your position, in other words progress will be slow. I would much rather someone demonstrate that any aspect of my particular RDI is incorrect, then I can move forward.

.

The problem that I see is that there are multiple explanations for every piece of evidence and I believe (based on my watching the Westerfield trial) that when that is the case, jurors are instructed to take the one which is most exculpatory to the defendent (i.e. give the benefit of the doubt).

Those who know me well will say that I am overly tolerant of people (as a criticism) and that I don't see what's staring me in the face. I think I'm just not a risk-taker. I tend to be overly cautious when making decisions - I need to have a lot of information to be sure.

In the Westerfield case (I know I keep mentioning this, but it it really is the only other case I've followed), I couldn't believe David Westerfield was a killer - he seemed to normal to me and he strongly reminded me of a friend of ours. But in the end, I believed the jury reached the right conclusion - based on the totality of the evidence. For me it was the blood on his clothes and the early morning trip to the dry cleaners which clinched it. There's nothing like that in the Ramsey case. Lots of unanswered questions - yes. Lots of questionable behaviour - yes. Lies - yes. But no single piece of evidence which is a smoking gun IMO.

 

[UKGuy]

The problem that I see is that there are multiple explanations for every piece of evidence and I believe (based on my watching the Westerfield trial) that when that is the case, jurors are instructed to take the one which is most exculpatory to the defendent (i.e. give the benefit of the doubt).

Those who know me well will say that I am overly tolerant of people (as a criticism) and that I don't see what's staring me in the face. I think I'm just not a risk-taker. I tend to be overly cautious when making decisions - I need to have a lot of information to be sure.

In the Westerfield case (I know I keep mentioning this, but it it really is the only other case I've followed), I couldn't believe David Westerfield was a killer - he seemed to normal to me and he strongly reminded me of a friend of ours. But in the end, I believed the jury reached the right conclusion - based on the totality of the evidence. For me it was the blood on his clothes and the early morning trip to the dry cleaners which clinched it. There's nothing like that in the Ramsey case. Lots of unanswered questions - yes. Lots of questionable behaviour - yes. Lies - yes. But no single piece of evidence which is a smoking gun IMO.

Jayelles,
I agree there can be multiple explanantions, but usually common sense and some piece of evidence points you in the correct direction.

The smoking gun for me is JonBenet's hidden sexual assault.


.

 

[BOESP]

I actually think the decision not to take a lie detector wasn't Patsy's. I think it was John's. I think he made all the decisions.

Jay, it's things like the above that keep me wondering if Patsy was the killer or was John or were they both covering for someone else. I don't think it was an Intruder yet I'm not sure of what happened so I have alternate theories based on the evidence available to the public.

My immediate thought, when I first heard of this on television, was "the parents did it," not the mother did it or the father did it. Much later, when I saw the "Go back to the damn drawing board" video/interview given by Patsy, I decided Patsy was telling the truth. To this day, I still wonder if she was telling the truth. I am no longer a Fencesitter because I believe the evidence suggests there was not an Intruder and that the Ramseys knew more than they told.

I get angry at the DA's office because based on public knowledge they failed to properly assist the original investigation and I get angry with the Ramseys for the same reason. I find it hard to believe anyone would use lawyers to stay out of jail unless there was real reason for them to be in jail. The Ramseys wanted to protect their own hind-ends instead of doing what needed doing to find JonBenet's killer and that suggests some type of involvement and guilt.

Anyhoo, I just wanted you to know that your posts are of such high quality that everyone should read and study what you have to say. I think "Fencesitter" may be the best position for it says you are still evaluating the evidence. When a logical mind like yours is doing that, it means there are loose ends to tie up before deciding on who did what. So, hurrah for the Fencesitters. :woohoo:

P.S. We could call you The Devil's Advocate. Would that be better?

 

[Jayelles]

Jay, it's things like the above that keep me wondering if Patsy was the killer or was John or were they both covering for someone else. I don't think it was an Intruder yet I'm not sure of what happened so I have alternate theories based on the evidence available to the public.

My immediate thought, when I first heard of this on television, was "the parents did it," not the mother did it or the father did it. Much later, when I saw the "Go back to the damn drawing board" video/interview given by Patsy, I decided Patsy was telling the truth. To this day, I still wonder if she was telling the truth. I am no longer a Fencesitter because I believe the evidence suggests there was not an Intruder and that the Ramseys knew more than they told.

I get angry at the DA's office because based on public knowledge they failed to properly assist the original investigation and I get angry with the Ramseys for the same reason. I find it hard to believe anyone would use lawyers to stay out of jail unless there was real reason for them to be in jail. The Ramseys wanted to protect their own hind-ends instead of doing what needed doing to find JonBenet's killer and that suggests some type of involvement and guilt.

Anyhoo, I just wanted you to know that your posts are of such high quality that everyone should read and study what you have to say. I think "Fencesitter" may be the best position for it says you are still evaluating the evidence. When a logical mind like yours is doing that, it means there are loose ends to tie up before deciding on who did what. So, hurrah for the Fencesitters. :woohoo:

P.S. We could call you The Devil's Advocate. Would that be better?

LOL. Sometimes it can be a little thing which settles my mind into a firm decision but the Ramsey case is so incredibly muddy. The Ramsey behaviour for example - I believe it can be explained by exceptional arrogance - John Ramsey was the big CEO and they had friends in high places. Therefore, IMO, he wasn't going to be told what to do by some lowly police detective. He was used to calling the shots. I don't think he's a very nice person - despite his affable smile and mild manner. I think he's a backstabber and a coward but I don't think he's a killer.

There is no doubt that the Ramseys have some peculiar friends. I mean - what kind of person calls up a woman and pretends to be her husband's mistress? To me, this is the kind of person who would hurt an innocent person to "get at" the real object of her hatred/obsession. In my opinion, not everyone could do that (call the wife pretending to tbe the mistress I mean). I think one would have to be terribly callous. Yet a close Ramsey friend did just that, and Patsy recalled it with humour in DOI. They didn't know anything about the woman - she could have been mentally fragile - could have harmed herself even.

Patsy didn't name the friend in her book but I suspect it was Susan Stine - who was later discovered to have been impersonating Chief Beckner in e-mails 'as a joke' (but possibly in order to try and gain the confidence of members of LE and the media).

 

[BOESP]

LOL. Sometimes it can be a little thing which settles my mind into a firm decision but the Ramsey case is so incredibly muddy. The Ramsey behaviour for example - I believe it can be explained by exceptional arrogance - John Ramsey was the big CEO and they had friends in high places. Therefore, IMO, he wasn't going to be told what to do by some lowly police detective. He was used to calling the shots. I don't think he's a very nice person - despite his affable smile and mild manner. I think he's a backstabber and a coward but I don't think he's a killer.

There is no doubt that the Ramseys have some peculiar friends. I mean - what kind of person calls up a woman and pretends to be her husband's mistress? To me, this is the kind of person who would hurt an innocent person to "get at" the real object of her hatred/obsession. In my opinion, not everyone could do that (call the wife pretending to tbe the mistress I mean). I think one would have to be terribly callous. Yet a close Ramsey friend did just that, and Patsy recalled it with humour in DOI. They didn't know anything about the woman - she could have been mentally fragile - could have harmed herself even.

Patsy didn't name the friend in her book but I suspect it was Susan Stine - who was later discovered to have been impersonating Chief Beckner in e-mails 'as a joke' (but possibly in order to try and gain the confidence of members of LE and the media).

I certainly agree with your assessment of John Ramsey. I also thought Susan Stine was the friend who helped with the "mistress" story. Maybe we have a "birds of a feather" situation with Susan and Patsy??? How in the world did Stine get away with impersonating not just a police officer but the Chief of Police?

According to your theory, do you think if the Ramseys didn't kill JonBenet they know who did? I can't see them protecting anyone but themselves or their family unless, perhaps, a family member and a friend were both involved, which means one of the Ramseys is still involved.

It seems Patsy and John, evenwithout attorney advice, were very adept at fielding tricky questions and Patsy was a great performer. I think one or both are involved and they resolved the issue in their minds by clinging to religion, or their notion of religion. I don't, however, see that any justice to JonBenet would have been served if, say, Patsy had been tried and convicted. Knowing her mother was in the pen would probably hurt JonBenet alot and let's face it, Patsy wasn't a vicious person.

With apologies to those who believe JonBenet was purposely bludgeoned to death by an Intruder, etc. I still believe kind and loving people can act out in a rage and do things they would necessarily do given the right set of circumstances.

 

[Albert18]

I still see the same ole discussions rehashing..

And JonBenet deserves less?


Lizzie Borden - 115 years ago - you can still find internet discussion about this case.

Mary Phagan - 94 years ago - a book about the case was published in 2003.

Elizabeth Short - 60 years ago - the Black Dahlia movie was released in 2006.

Zodiac killer - 39 years ago - Zodiac movie released 2007.

Charles Lindbergh Jr. - 75 years ago - A book was published in 1999 and you can find current discussion of the case.


The JonBenet case is just a baby.

*Two people we know were in the house that night are still alive. Almost all of the players in the case are still alive.

*A hush has been put on the case by Ramsey lawyers in a way very similiar to the way the mob silences a case, by fear and intimidation. This oppression will stop some day.

*The behavior of the Boulder DA's office is an important story and that story has not been told.

*From the time Fleet and Priscilla White saw JonBenet alive at their house to the time they were standing in JonBenet's house is only about 9 hours, yet we have never heard their story. Fleet was in the basement when John "discovered" JonBenet and Priscilla was upstairs with Patsy at that very moment. We have never heard from them about that morning.

In my opinion the JonBenet case ranks with the Lindbergh baby kidnapping in interest and intrigue. The Lindbergh's were saddened by an intruder, the Ramsey's hoped for an intruder.

In the Ramsey case an intruder is implausible yet some people can't love the intruder enough. It just can't be the parents because of what was done to JonBenet.

In the Lindbergh case there was overwhelming evidence of an intruder and the intruder was an actual physical being. Yet there are diehards who don't believe an intruder did this and instead blame it on the family. Apparently what was done to the child only matters if it is convenient for it to matter.

So in a case where a child never left her home, the kidnapping is real and in a case where a child is found partially buried in the woods a few miles from his home, the kidnapping is a hoax.

We all know the Ramsey's loved their religion. Just loved it. If you ever have a chance to read Bruno Hauptmann's last letters to officials, they are a good read. He now be Christian. Of course he still didn't do it.

And my favorite...

Why do some people believe the Ramsey's are innocent. Because they say they are innocent.

Why do some people believe Bruno Hauptmann is innocent? Because he went to his death saying he was innocent. Because his wife claimed his innocence and she never waivered.

 

[Albert18]

LOL. Sometimes it can be a little thing which settles my mind into a firm decision but the Ramsey case is so incredibly muddy. The Ramsey behaviour for example - I believe it can be explained by exceptional arrogance - John Ramsey was the big CEO and they had friends in high places. Therefore, IMO, he wasn't going to be told what to do by some lowly police detective. He was used to calling the shots. I don't think he's a very nice person - despite his affable smile and mild manner. I think he's a backstabber and a coward but I don't think he's a killer.

I agree with your analysis of John.

He woke up to a problem and he took care of the problem. I believe that is basically the Steve Thomas theory.

So now apply your analysis to an intruder theory. You can't do it. In an intruder scenario, law enforcement is John's friend. His arrogance would have had him going over the head and running roughshod over Alex Hunter and Chief Koby if he wasn't getting what he wanted. That never happened. How is that explained? Was JonBenet not worth it? Was she a throwaway?

 

[Jayelles]

I certainly agree with your assessment of John Ramsey. I also thought Susan Stine was the friend who helped with the "mistress" story. Maybe we have a "birds of a feather" situation with Susan and Patsy??? How in the world did Stine get away with impersonating not just a police officer but the Chief of Police?

The GBI called at her door and she wouldn't speak to them.

http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3622&Itemid=0

According to your theory, do you think if the Ramseys didn't kill JonBenet they know who did? I can't see them protecting anyone but themselves or their family unless, perhaps, a family member and a friend were both involved, which means one of the Ramseys is still involved.

I don't think they would cover for anyone other than Burke - but I don't think Burke is involved at all. If a family friend is involved then I think they are unaware of it because I don't think they would sit back and take the accusations and vilification on behalf of anyone.

It seems Patsy and John, evenwithout attorney advice, were very adept at fielding tricky questions and Patsy was a great performer. I think one or both are involved and they resolved the issue in their minds by clinging to religion, or their notion of religion. I don't, however, see that any justice to JonBenet would have been served if, say, Patsy had been tried and convicted. Knowing her mother was in the pen would probably hurt JonBenet alot and let's face it, Patsy wasn't a vicious person.

Yes, but John had 4 months to work on Patsy.

With apologies to those who believe JonBenet was purposely bludgeoned to death by an Intruder, etc. I still believe kind and loving people can act out in a rage and do things they would necessarily do given the right set of circumstances.

I absolutely agree. OTOH, Patsy did spend 15 minutes chatting at the Stine house on the way home as well as calling on other friends to deliver presents. The fact that she DID chat for a while doesn't suggest to me that she was stressed.

 

[Tober]

Can you rule out the Ramseys of involvement in the crime within one or more evidentiary categories? 1) Behavioral evidence (their behavior). Is the behavior of the Ramseys following the crime and to this day consistent with their non-involvement in the crime? 2) Physical evidence. Are the items used in the crime consistent with an occupant of the home having perpetrated it, or with an outsider who came into the home having done so? 3) Forensic evidence (the scientific testing of the physical evidence). Is the forensic evidence consistent with an occupant of the home having perpetrated the crime, or with an outsider having done so? 4) Circumstantial evidence. Is the circumstantial evidence (before, during, and after the crime) consistent with an occupant of the home perpetrating the crime, or with an outsider having done so?