Team JonBenet

[capps]

Goody,

"No, they weren't indicted because the crime scene was never secured and what evidence was there was compromised. I am not saying they should have been indicted, only that the circumstantial evidence that might have worked against them was tainted by poor police response in the early hours."

Possibly,but that still leaves us with no hard evidence.

"The state doesn't have to prove motive, only that an individual committed the crime."

The state does not have to prove the individual committed the crime to indict someone,that comes about during the trial.


"I don't know what you mean by negative history. I've never heard of anyone gettting convicted on that. That sounds more like an emotional response than a legal one."

Again,I'm not talkng being convicted,the Ramsey's were never indicted so there never was a trial to convict them.To indict the Ramsey's there had to be enough reasonable information to do so,and there was none. No motive,no hard evidence,not even prior negative history,and that is why they were never indicted.

 

[Goody]

Pretty sad considering that there is no hard evidence of an intruder. Not no hard evidence against a particular individual, no hard (or soft, for that matter) evidence that anyone else was in the home that night that was not invited.
The foreign DNA argument is WAAAAAAAY weaker than the signs that Patsy wrote the note.

Like Goody said, no one has to prove motive, and the no prior history thing is getting old and it's not even that trustworthy....Scott Peterson, anyone?

Good observation. Just more proof that domestic violence is a unique crime that can hit any family at any time no matter how "good" they may seem. Or are even. Good people sometimes do very violent or very bad things.

 

[Britt]

I really don't think those three reasons are why the Ramsey's weren't indicted.

Me neither. And IMO there aren't three reasons; there's only one: the staggering incompetence of the DA and his prosecutors, who were not only not up to the challenge of handling this difficult case, they made sure it was unprosecutable by sabotaging it themselves.

 

[Goody]

Goody,

"No, they weren't indicted because the crime scene was never secured and what evidence was there was compromised. I am not saying they should have been indicted, only that the circumstantial evidence that might have worked against them was tainted by poor police response in the early hours."

Possibly,but that still leaves us with no hard evidence.

"The state doesn't have to prove motive, only that an individual committed the crime."

The state does not have to prove the individual committed the crime to indict someone,that comes about during the trial.


"I don't know what you mean by negative history. I've never heard of anyone gettting convicted on that. That sounds more like an emotional response than a legal one."

Again,I'm not talkng being convicted,the Ramsey's were never indicted so there never was a trial to convict them.To indict the Ramsey's there had to be enough reasonable information to do so,and there was none. No motive,no hard evidence,not even prior negative history,and that is why they were never indicted.

The state cannot get an indictiment on someone's bad reputation. They have to present enough evidence to warrant probable cause so the only point you mention that could effect an indictment is the so called "hard evidence." I agree that they didn't have it, and the reason they didn't have it is because the crime scene was not secured immediately. No one should have been allowed in that house other than the Ramsey's themselves and police. The Ramseys should not have been allowed to wander all over, and certainly not to search the place. The FBI should have been called in immediately, esp when you have detectives overwhelmed and not certain what to do.

The fact that they weren't indicted doesn't carry much weight when you are looking for the truth. The truth hinges only on whether they did it or not, not whether it is provable or not. Obviously we can't know that because there is only enough salvageable circumstantial evidence (which includes blood, fiber evidence, etc) to create suspicion. Sad to say this case will never be solved, but sometimes I think that is the way it was supposed to be. Like maybe there is a little devine intervention going on here to protect the guilty party this time. I am not so sure that is bad thing, but being a sleuther I can;t help but want the truth to come out.

 

[Jayelles]

I'm sorry Jayelles, I admire your intelligence and your thoughtful posts but we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'm a Libertarian who believes that you have every right to say what's on your mind whether or not it hurts anyone else. You also have the right to be sued for slander and to have your nose broken by someone who may disagree with your obnoxious point of view. And, due to the possibility of these two different (and many other) outcomes, most people have the ability to censure themselves without having legislation tell them how to behave.
For those who don't have that ability, they'll get it eventually. (may depend on the size of their wallet or their tolerance for pain)

Yes, we shall have to agree to disagree because I think no-one should have the "right" to hurt another person - just because the hurtful thought was in that person's mind. Where would it stop?

I like to get along with people for a quiet life

 

[Jayelles]

I have often commented on how few of their friends spoke out on their behalf following the murder and I surmised that this was because the class of friend that they had - were not the kind of people who'd want to be contaminated by association to a messy murder case.

However, there are plenty of tributes to Patsy now that she has died. People describe her as someone who lit up a room, who always thought of others even when she had her own problems, as one of the nicest people they'd ever met.

This is interesting - I'd have expected nothing more. Does it mean she couldn't be involved in a murder? I don't know. What I do know is that everyone who ever got to know Myra Hindley, really liked her. She was said to "cast a spell" over people. Her MO was to never approach them first. When new inmates joined her wing in the prison, she was often assaulted - but she never fought back, she just took the poundings. I've read account after account from people who prepared to hate her - but who were surprised when they found her to be modest, kind, intelligent ... (add list of compliments here). Many of these people also spoke of their inability to imagine her being involved in child murders. As long as she denied her involvement in the crimes -the people who knew her - believed her. A lot of them turned against her when she finally admitted her involvement because she'd cheated them.

Now I'm not suggesting for a minute that Patsy Ramsey was anything like Myra Hindley (of course she wasn't) but what I am saying is that people who are emotionally involved cannot make objective judgements because they cannot see past the person they know on a personal level.

 

[BBB167893]

"No, they weren't indicted because the crime scene was never secured and what evidence was there was compromised. I am not saying they should have been indicted, only that the circumstantial evidence that might have worked against them was tainted by poor police response in the early hours."

Probably didn't hurt that the Haddon law firm practically ran the state, AND sicced private detectives on anyone who might say the Ramseys were involved. What a story that is to tell!

"The foreign DNA argument is WAAAAAAAY weaker than the signs that Patsy wrote the note."

I'm inclined to agree. As is Henry Lee, BTW.

capps, maybe you're right about there not being any ONE solid piece of evidence, but everything taken together is a different story. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

There was one person who said that Patsy was physically abusive, but I don't know how believable the posters here would find it...

 

[Brefie]

Share it anyway, SuperDave....I for one would be VERY interested......

 

[BBB167893]

Share it anyway, SuperDave....I for one would be VERY interested......

Okay, Brefie, here goes. I found it in the now-infamous first chapter of Linda Hoffman-Pugh's hitherto-unreleased book:

"JonBenet wet the bed again, didn't she? You took her into the bathroom. It was the same destination you always took JonBenet when it was time to punish her for bedwetting. You forget that I saw you take her there so many times before, shutting the door tightly behind you, so her screams could not be heard."

She says a lot that's damning to Patsy, come to think of it. But the readers here can make up their own minds. I would remind you that this woman was willing to state this to the GJ.

Plus, one of the medical experts agreed with this scenario. Dr. Krugman said this was "textbook toilet rage murder."

 

[Brefie]

Ok, Dave....thanks for that! I have actually read that chapter.

I think the mistake that LHP makes with this chapter is that it is seemingly so full of bitter revenge. She could have 'been heard' in a much more receptive audience had this chapter been less scathing, IMO.
I am inclined to believe that a Ramsey did this, however, this chapter has a feel to it that leads me to think this book is for sensationalism and entertainment more than finding justice for JBR.

I am finding it hard to say what I mean.....but I think that the 'narrator' in a book like this should be more 'likeable' to be believable.

Lord, I am rambling trying to find the words...perhaps SOMEONE knows what I mean!!

 

[BBB167893]

Ok, Dave....thanks for that! I have actually read that chapter.

I think the mistake that LHP makes with this chapter is that it is seemingly so full of bitter revenge. She could have 'been heard' in a much more receptive audience had this chapter been less scathing, IMO.
I am inclined to believe that a Ramsey did this, however, this chapter has a feel to it that leads me to think this book is for sensationalism and entertainment more than finding justice for JBR.

I am finding it hard to say what I mean.....but I think that the 'narrator' in a book like this should be more 'likeable' to be believable.

Lord, I am rambling trying to find the words...perhaps SOMEONE knows what I mean!!

Maybe you're right, but just me, I would not put something in print if I knew it wasn't true.

 

[Brefie]

Maybe you're right, but just me, I would not put something in print if I knew it wasn't true.

Maybe I am wrong, too, who knows. So many unanswered questions.....

I don't doubt you wouldn't print anything you knew to be untrue, and that goes for me too.
Imagine the world, though, if the same could be said for everyone.

 

[BBB167893]

Maybe I am wrong, too, who knows. So many unanswered questions.....

I don't doubt you wouldn't print anything you knew to be untrue, and that goes for me too.
Imagine the world, though, if the same could be said for everyone.

Yeah, people might actually get along!

 

[Brefie]

Got a theory, Superdave? Would love to get the cliff notes if you don't want to write a novel. However loose it might be....Jeez, mine has enough holes to almost place you and I at the scene....and at least 1 of us was never in CO until about 6 years ago!

 

[Goody]

Okay, Brefie, here goes. I found it in the now-infamous first chapter of Linda Hoffman-Pugh's hitherto-unreleased book:

"JonBenet wet the bed again, didn't she? You took her into the bathroom. It was the same destination you always took JonBenet when it was time to punish her for bedwetting. You forget that I saw you take her there so many times before, shutting the door tightly behind you, so her screams could not be heard."

She says a lot that's damning to Patsy, come to think of it. But the readers here can make up their own minds. I would remind you that this woman was willing to state this to the GJ.

Plus, one of the medical experts agreed with this scenario. Dr. Krugman said this was "textbook toilet rage murder."

If this bnook is unreleased, how are you reading it? Got a link maybe?

 

[BBB167893]

Got a theory, Superdave? Would love to get the cliff notes if you don't want to write a novel. However loose it might be....Jeez, mine has enough holes to almost place you and I at the scene....and at least 1 of us was never in CO until about 6 years ago!

Yeah, I have a theory. It's kind of out of style now, what with the prime suspect six-feet-under.

Maybe JB told her that John was molesting her and she couldn't handle it. She had to silence her lying mouth. But a head bash was too suspect. It had to look like an outsider. So she wrung the life out of her with a garrote. It wasn't difficult to make. I have. The note was further staging. It had to look exotic. Who better than Arab terrorists? It was common knowledge that beheadings happen there even before 9/11. The clothes were a problem. She hadn't had time to change out of them. So the first chance she has, she throws herself onto the body to confuse the fiber issue. The note was a way of placing blame on someone else. There are and always have been a hell of a lot of people who can justify the most heinous acts as God's will. I believe she wrote it with her opposite hand. She even admitted she could, and one of the DE's said that certain letters were a perfect match. Most agree on one thing: whomever wrote the photo album captions wrote that note. The tape was no problem. It came off of a doll from the house. The cord from the package LHP mentioned. The marks from her rings when she cradled the body.

But sometimes I wonder.

Goody, the first chapter is available. You might find it on www.acandyrose.com

 

[Brefie]

If this bnook is unreleased, how are you reading it? Got a link maybe?

I have a link...just googled and found it.

Can I post links to the double b here? If not I would be happy to email it.

 

[Goody]

I have a link...just googled and found it.

Can I post links to the double b here? If not I would be happy to email it.

As far as I know you can. Or you can PM it to me if you like. Thanks.

 

[Solace]

Yeah, I have a theory. It's kind of out of style now, what with the prime suspect six-feet-under.

Maybe JB told her that John was molesting her and she couldn't handle it. She had to silence her lying mouth. But a head bash was too suspect. It had to look like an outsider. So she wrung the life out of her with a garrote. It wasn't difficult to make. I have. The note was further staging. It had to look exotic. Who better than Arab terrorists? It was common knowledge that beheadings happen there even before 9/11. The clothes were a problem. She hadn't had time to change out of them. So the first chance she has, she throws herself onto the body to confuse the fiber issue. The note was a way of placing blame on someone else. There are and always have been a hell of a lot of people who can justify the most heinous acts as God's will. I believe she wrote it with her opposite hand. She even admitted she could, and one of the DE's said that certain letters were a perfect match. Most agree on one thing: whomever wrote the photo album captions wrote that note. The tape was no problem. It came off of a doll from the house. The cord from the package LHP mentioned. The marks from her rings when she cradled the body.

But sometimes I wonder.



I agree with lots that you say but not all. But can you tell me what is this thing about the photo album and the doll? Please answer, thanks. Solace

 

[BBB167893]

I agree with lots that you say but not all. But can you tell me what is this thing about the photo album and the doll? Please answer, thanks. Solace

Sometimes even I wonder about it.

The captions I speak of were written in a photo album that Patsy kept around. Most agree that whomever wrote them wrote the ransom note. And since they match some of her known writing, it stands to reason she wrote it.

The doll was a present to JB. It had a feature about it where tape was used to add a finishing touch. A lot of people think the tape over JB's mouth came from there.

All I know is, if this were you or me, our rear ends would have been in prison.