The Court of Public Opinion

[Imon128]

Of course they were the natural first suspects. Work from the inner circle, out. The R's were the INNER CIRCLE CORE.

 

[Toth]

>because they were wealthy
Since the police conducted a campaign of media intimidation by innuendo against these wealthy people and refused to undertake a legitimate investigation of their daughter's murder, I don't think the Ramsey's wealth really afforded them anything at all.

>A bogus ransom note left in the home
by the intruder
>No ransom call ever comes
As you said, 'bogus'.
>Parents try to flee state
No such attempt to flee was ever made or contemplated.
>Parents unconcerned about rushing to young unprotected son
seemed rather unnecessary. He was well protected by the police who were illegally questioning him or were observing the social workers questioning him.
>as to his excuse why he tried to fly them out of state that night.
Oh, you are referring perhaps to the phone call he made while the police were standing right there to overhear it? You consider this suspicious behavior?
>statistically the odds were that they were the most likely suspects as well.
No statistically it is unlikely the parents were at all responsible.

>And the Ramseys refusal to hound the police for information
their lawyers were hounding them.

>Their actions since that time have only continued to prove it.
You are referring perhaps to their constant battle to have qualified investigators assigned to the case and to have the case taken over by a more experienced police department.

 

[TLynn]

"There are two people who know who the killer is. Uhhhhh, the Killer and someone they talked to about it." (CNN quote similar to that).

Initial suspicions:

The Ramseys never woke Burke up and questioned him if he heard or saw anything.

The unbroken spider web on the grating of the window (similar to "no footsteps in the snow" but more suspicious to me).

Disregarding the RN and inviting all those friends over.

Finding the body in the house AND the phony RN.

Hard to think all the way back to the beginning and isolate what I only knew then - but I will say for the longest time I just couldn't believe the Ramseys were involved. By now, most of you know - the pineapple finding threw me into the RDI. I still couldn't believe it - so, I went the JAR way. I still find it hard to believe - but, alas...

 

[K777angel]

>because they were wealthy
Since the police conducted a campaign of media intimidation by innuendo against these wealthy people and refused to undertake a legitimate investigation of their daughter's murder, I don't think the Ramsey's wealth really afforded them anything at all.

>A bogus ransom note left in the home
by the intruder
No - by Patsy Ramsey. The note points to her liguistically and sees through
her attempts to disguise her handwriting in it.

>No ransom call ever comes
As you said, 'bogus'. Yes - the note WAS bogus. A feeble attempt by the parents to cover up the crime. NOTHING in it was true. The only purpose of it was to divert attention away from the family and the fact that it was an INSIDE job.

>Parents try to flee state
No such attempt to flee was ever made or contemplated.
LOL! You then contradict yourself below and admit there WAS in fact an attempt to flee that night on a private plane that John Ramsey was OVERHEARD arranging for just 30 minutes after "finding" his daughter's dead, cold and murdered body.

>Parents unconcerned about rushing to young unprotected son
seemed rather unnecessary. He was well protected by the police who were illegally questioning him or were observing the social workers questioning him.
Funny how you left out the rest of the sentece Toth where I stated HOW they left Burke unprotected.
Quit spinning Toth. You imply here that the police were with Burke the nearly 10 HOURS he was left by his parents at the White's and therefore he was protected. NOT TRUE. You also imply there were "social workers" questionning him while police observed. Implying this too was during the 10 HOURS of being left at the White's. Again - NOT TRUE. You know darn well there was no interview of Burke by any social worker/psychologist until a good 2 weeks after the murder.
Why would they call over a "social worker" when they thought they were dealing with a KIDNAPPING?
Also - you did not address at all the other element of unprotection Burke's parents left him with. That of his emotional well being. They not only did not RUSH to him as any sane (and truly innocent parent who really did NOT know how their daughter died) would to protect him from being kidnapped/harmed - but they did not also RUSH to him to ensure he did not hear the news of his sister's murder from the television, radio - or another person!! Unthinkable.
Both of these actions/in-actions on John and Patsy's part, indicate strongly that they KNEW what happened, who did it and therefore had no fear for Burke's safety. Their delay in telling him JonBenet was dead - AND - his odd reaction (or lack of it), to me lends suspicion that HE too knew what had gone down the night before...

>as to his excuse why he tried to fly them out of state that night.
Oh, you are referring perhaps to the phone call he made while the police were standing right there to overhear it? You consider this suspicious behavior?
NO - I said John Ramsey's EXCUSE as to why he tried to arrange to have them all flown out of state that night. Your response ignored what you claim to reply to. Let me spell it out for you (again): If John Ramsey was truly afraid for his family and their safety that day - he would NEVER have left his young son alone (NO police were there at the White's then) and at great risk of him being kidnapped too! No way. John and Patsy would have RUSHED to go to him immediately. They did not.
It greatly discredits his "reason" he was making plans to leave the state.
Actions speak louder than words.

>statistically the odds were that they were the most likely suspects as well.
No statistically it is unlikely the parents were at all responsible.
NOT TRUE. The odds were 1 in 12 she was killed by a close family member in the house that night. You can try and ammend those statistics all you like - but they are what they are. They do NOT break it down into your fantasy of it only involving "drug abusers" and poor people. Because it is not true.

>And the Ramseys refusal to hound the police for information
their lawyers were hounding them.
LOL! Yeah - "Give us their statements or the Ramseys won't talk to you."
"The Ramseys will only meet in a cushy office or home of our choice."
"Patsy will only meet with you if her doctor is present"
"They'll answer written questions only" Blah, blah, blah....
Their lawyers only hounded them to know what they had on the RAMSEYS.
Besides - other parents of murdered children who were also SUSPECTED in their child's murder - had NO hesitation in hounding the police themselves because they WANTED the police to look at them and know they did not do it.
Ask John Walsh. Ask Mark Klass. Ask the VanDamm's. Ask Samantha Runion's family. On and on......
(I'll bet you will never see John or Patsy at a support group for Parent's of Murdered Children or reaching out to other parents of murdered children. There has NEVER been any report of it. And I am certain if they had - we'd hear of it)

>Their actions since that time have only continued to prove it.
You are referring perhaps to their constant battle to have qualified investigators assigned to the case and to have the case taken over by a more experienced police department.

No - I am referring to their hiring for instance, of a CIVIL lawyer and the extreme time, effort and money they have spent - NOT on finding the killer (no need for that) but for SUING and trying hard to manipulate the public's opinion of them. Blackmailing the Boulder DA's office (you know: Tell the public that you are opening a "new" investigation in the murder or we wil SUE you")

 

[Toth]

Initial suspicions:
The Ramseys never woke Burke up and questioned him if he heard or saw anything.
Finding the body in the house AND the phony RN.

Several posters have said that they too would not have awakened Burke. This makes it more a question of personal preference and decision making under conditions of high stress and uncertainty than it makes it indicative of guilt.

Finding the body? You mean doing what the police told him to do? This is suspicious to you?

 

[Toth]

You might want to bear in mind that it was the information developed from the civil suits that gave Lin Wood the leverage that he needed to further the Ramsey's long-standing campaign to have the investigation transferred to a more competent agency.

I too think it would have been better had an investigation actually taken place without any threats of a civil right's action based on the BPD's behavior, but the Colorado authorities always had that option and never chose to exercise it.

 

[Barbara]

You might want to bear in mind that it was the information developed from the civil suits that gave Lin Wood the leverage that he needed to further the Ramsey's long-standing campaign to have the investigation transferred to a more competent agency.

Speaking for myself, I'm still waiting for that to happen

 

[Arielle]

To Barbara: Yes, I am a mother of a young child. I have absolutely no idea how I would react in a similar situationa nd hope I never have to find out. I had a whole lot I was going to respond here, but then I got to reading all the other posts and I can't remember everything I was going to say. I'll write more later.

To Twilight: I'm sorry if I said that there were linguistic experts that said the note was not written by Patsy. So far, to my knowledge, you are the only liguistic expert I've ever heard of associated with this case. I suppose you could count Donald Foster, but I'm not clear on his area of expertise and I think he discredited himself by waffling his decision. I did not mean to imply that I knew something more than that. What I mean is that there are experts in various fields that have opinions on the Ransom Note. Many beleive one way and many believe the other. So, it will come down to the "battle of the experts" should this ever reach a trial. In the meantime, people are able to beleive the set of experts that back up their point of view. So, if you think the Ramseys are guilty, you can point to all the experts who have said, yes, Patsy wrote the note. If you think that the Ramseys are innocent, you can point to all teh experts who said taht she was not positively identified as teh note writer, she just could not be completely ruled out.

 

[Ivy]

Can the so-called "re-investigation" go on and on and on indefinitely, for as long as the Ramseys and Lin Wood want it to, or is there a legal limit as to how long the charade can continue?

Edit: What I'm trying to ask is if Wood, on behalf of the Rs, can continue to threaten to sue the city of Boulder indefinitely.
____
IMO

 

[twilight]

Please understand that when I ask that question I would love to read an actual contradictory linguistic report. It would be fascinating to see how anyone would make a case for Patsy. Not just somebody's opinion, but an actual linguist with all the theory, etc. etc.

 

[jcn]

Another example is Torey Adamcik. A few months ago, he had his post conviction relief denied only because the judge was completely swayed by the public opinion.

 

[Roy23]

IDI was and still is, always right. Glad to see Burke speak for himself.

 

[otg]

(bbm)

Another example is Torey Adamcik. A few months ago, he had his post conviction relief denied only because the judge was completely swayed by the public opinion.

I’m not sure why you would dig up an old thread that was last commented on over 12 years ago, jcn -- especially when your post has absolutely nothing to do with the Ramsey case. Nevertheless, I’m curious where you get the idea that “the judge was completely swayed by the public opinion.” Reading what Adamcik admitted to doing as an accomplice with Brian Draper (together they planned her death and then stabbed her 29 times) is appalling to say the least. The standard applied at the time of sentencing was whether or not either of them was “irreparably corrupt,” and the sentencing judge said in his closing statement: “I am convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, you will kill again.” Nothing in Adamcik’s appeal was presented that would change the original judge’s decision:

http://www.localnews8.com/news/Adam...ed-seeks-sentence-to-be-reconsidered/38584604

 

[otg]

IDI was and still is, always right. Glad to see Burke speak for himself.

Too bad he chose to speak now with Dr. Phil instead of investigators six years ago who were trying to find his sister's killer. He said then (through his lawyer) that he didn't want to speak with them.

 

[BBB167893]

IDI was and still is, always right. Glad to see Burke speak for himself.

Howdy, Roy. I thought you'd left us.

For those of you who haven't heard yet, Roy's referring to a three-part interview with Burke conducted by Dr. Phil McGraw in September. It might be interesting, but I doubt it will provide any ground-breaking new information. Frankly, if I thought he WAS speaking for himself, I'd be glad.

"Always right," eh? Sure, and I'm the Czar of all Russia.

 

[BOESP]

Well, I find it interesting that if he was asleep when JonBenet was killed, what could he possibly know? If he was awake, then why did his parents lie about it and say he was asleep. And, like otg, why didn't Burke speak to investigators six years ago when they wanted to question him about JonBenet's death?

 

[Tadpole12]

referring to a three-part interview with Burke conducted by Dr. Phil McGraw in September.-SD

Heyya SD, sure maybe not ground breaking information, but it will be interesting to see how BR carries himself, how he delivers his responses.

Q? Why does BR choose to do an interview at this time?

What many believe to be the truth has been buried.
MH, GO, and Katy Perry are clearly the 'online' culprits,

 

[WhoKnowsWhat]

I too am curious how Burke will respond and appear. I wonder if he is being paid for the appearances.

I too am entitled to my opinions.

 

[Roy23]

Howdy, Roy. I thought you'd left us.

For those of you who haven't heard yet, Roy's referring to a three-part interview with Burke conducted by Dr. Phil McGraw in September. It might be interesting, but I doubt it will provide any ground-breaking new information. Frankly, if I thought he WAS speaking for himself, I'd be glad.

"Always right," eh? Sure, and I'm the Czar of all Russia.

Hey Dave!

Yeah, I am not around here much anymore as there hasn't been any reason to really. I will watch Burke and Dr. Phil assuming I remember to record it. I am certain nothing much will be revealed either but kind of shocked it is for 3 episodes. That is a good bit of time to waste. Hope you are doing well, Dave!!

 

[BBB167893]

Hey Dave!

Yeah, I am not around here much anymore as there hasn't been any reason to really. I will watch Burke and Dr. Phil assuming I remember to record it. I am certain nothing much will be revealed either but kind of shocked it is for 3 episodes. That is a good bit of time to waste. Hope you are doing well, Dave!!

Well enough, I suppose. Whoever it was said it: this is just a propaganda offensive. Frankly, Chief Beckner's AMA told me all I needed to know, IF I hadn't already known it.

On a different note, back when it was released, you said you wouldn't read my book. I don't know if you changed your mind between then and now, but it doesn't really matter. If you want to read a book that will help you understand this case, I've got just the one: The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson. Even if it doesn't help you, it's still a heck of read!