Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[Sophie]

Welcome, Sophie.

Some of us think attention-getting is a factor in JB's killing.

Thank you for the welcome, SuperDave. Over the years, I had come to think that my initial thought was absurd so it was interesting when a number of the people in my book group came up with this sort of hypothesis as an alternative to ST's bedwetting theory as their first reaction.

BTW, can't wait for your book to be published!

 

[anne11]

Can anyone point me to a good source of information on Patsy's character?

 

[Tadpole12]

Thank you for the welcome, Tadpole. Sorry for late reply: with exquisite timing, my broadband packed in more-or-less as soon as I posted!

With regard to the touch DNA, I have to admit to being far less au fait than everyone else on here but a couple of things really bother me about the whole issue:

1. I don't understand how anyone can be cleared on the basis of the DNA alone. I gather there are significant issues with the integrity of the samples and the comparative accuracy of this sort of testing so it seems a little premature to be clearing people on the basis of these samples. I'm not articulating this very well but was DA Lacy essentially saying that someone who ticked all the other evidential boxes would be exonerated on the basis of not ticking the DNA box? This, to me, is akin to a case over here where suspects in the serial killing of prostitutes were eliminated on the basis of their regional accent (leading to at least one avoidable death).

As I say, I am nowhere near as expert on this case or on DNA as the rest of you and I'd love to hear more informed views than my own.

2. If the DNA is that of the murderer, you have to marvel at the blamelessness of his life before and after the JonBenet murder that he hasn't shown up on any DNA database for another offence. This would seem to eliminate paedophiles and career criminals so the cast of people who could have done this crime is actually really small.

I imagine you are all thinking I'm an idiot. I'm anxious to learn, though!

Hi Sophie. Well I'm a novice, sems like there's thousands of pages of material available online that I have yet to read ..... and the saga's not complete.
I don't think anyone here's an expert ..... so forget about the dunce cap!

1) yes it's hard to get a grasp around that.
2) ya, unidentified by a match in CODIS.

 

[BBB167893]

Thank you for the welcome, Tadpole. Sorry for late reply: with exquisite timing, my broadband packed in more-or-less as soon as I posted!

With regard to the touch DNA, I have to admit to being far less au fait than everyone else on here but a couple of things really bother me about the whole issue:

1. I don't understand how anyone can be cleared on the basis of the DNA alone. I gather there are significant issues with the integrity of the samples and the comparative accuracy of this sort of testing so it seems a little premature to be clearing people on the basis of these samples. I'm not articulating this very well but was DA Lacy essentially saying that someone who ticked all the other evidential boxes would be exonerated on the basis of not ticking the DNA box? This, to me, is akin to a case over here where suspects in the serial killing of prostitutes were eliminated on the basis of their regional accent (leading to at least one avoidable death).

As I say, I am nowhere near as expert on this case or on DNA as the rest of you and I'd love to hear more informed views than my own.

2. If the DNA is that of the murderer, you have to marvel at the blamelessness of his life before and after the JonBenet murder that he hasn't shown up on any DNA database for another offence. This would seem to eliminate paedophiles and career criminals so the cast of people who could have done this crime is actually really small.

I imagine you are all thinking I'm an idiot. I'm anxious to learn, though!

An idiot? Not in the least! Exceptionally well-put!

 

[Sophie]

People on here are really nice. Wondering why I was so nervous of joining!

 

[Ames]

People on here are really nice. Wondering why I was so nervous of joining!

There are some boards that have rude posters. I was a member of one of them, until I left because I couldn't take it anymore. I do not have high blood pressure, but, after reading some of the comments about my posts, I could feel it rising. I have to say though, that they were mainly IDI's.

 

[Sophie]

There are some boards that have rude posters. I was a member of one of them, until I left because I couldn't take it anymore. I do not have high blood pressure, but, after reading some of the comments about my posts, I could feel it rising. I have to say though, that they were mainly IDI's.

This is just a musing but I am sure that the Internet is proof of the fact that a surprising number of people accept freedom of speech only as long as people keep their opinions to themselves. This site is an oasis of respect and maturity in comparison to many (even most?) discussion sites...

 

[BBB167893]

This is just a musing but I am sure that the Internet is proof of the fact that a surprising number of people accept freedom of speech only as long as people keep their opinions to themselves. This site is an oasis of respect and maturity in comparison to many (even most?) discussion sites...

No kidding! I wouldn't trade this site )or anyone in it) for anything.

I know the site Ames speaks of. The posters there were enough to make a killer out of ME!

 

[Sophie]

SuperDave, have you thought of writing a book about the Internet subculture and JBR? There's a tremendous story in this for someone with your writing abilities.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave, have you thought of writing a book about the Internet subculture and JBR? There's a tremendous story in this for someone with your writing abilities.

Oh, Sophie! Did you just ask the right question!

Thought of it? My dear, I've DONE it! Or NEARLY done it.

 

[Tadpole12]

Ya. SD. Congrats.

You've survived the JBR internet subculture! Intact.

Those diehard-longterm JBR posters have been around since the get go ...

I've read the oldschool threads here, and on other forums, the history between sleuthers, the JMK connection , the jameson factor ...... obcessions, manipulations and cyberstalking .....

*agahst ........ cybersleuths do eat their young.

 

[Sophie]

Oh, Sophie! Did you just ask the right question!

Thought of it? My dear, I've DONE it! Or NEARLY done it.

Ooh, more details please.

 

[BBB167893]

Ya. SD. Congrats.

You've survived the JBR internet subculture! Intact.

Sometimes I wonder, Tadpole!

Those diehard-longterm JBR posters have been around since the get go ...

I've read the oldschool threads here, and on other forums, the history between sleuthers, the JMK connection , the jameson factor ...... obcessions, manipulations and cyberstalking .....

*agahst ........ cybersleuths do eat their young.

It can be awful no doubt.

 

[BBB167893]

Ooh, more details please.

Well, as most people here know, over the last few months, I've been writing a book about this case. Not the Internet subculture surrounding it, specifically, but the case. I decided to write it for two reasons:

1) just about all the books on the case have been written by case insiders or news correspondents. I thought it was time for the "common man" to have his day.

2) More importantly, there are a lot of things that the average person may not know. My primary reason for writing it was so people don't forget.

Now, even though the book is not wholly devoted to the Internet subculture, I do devote several chapters to it.

 

[Sophie]

Well, as most people here know, over the last few months, I've been writing a book about this case. Not the Internet subculture surrounding it, specifically, but the case. I decided to write it for two reasons:

1) just about all the books on the case have been written by case insiders or news correspondents. I thought it was time for the "common man" to have his day.

2) More importantly, there are a lot of things that the average person may not know. My primary reason for writing it was so people don't forget.

Now, even though the book is not wholly devoted to the Internet subculture, I do devote several chapters to it.

Can't wait for it to be published: this case has been crying out for a new, independent study for years. The subculture stuff will make excellent reading for all sorts of reasons, not least because the JBR subculture has been simultaneous in its development with Internet discussion so there's real historical interest.

 

[eleven]

Tides must be turning in this case....According to the current poll results, more people here think that John and/or Patsy did NOT kill JB versus those that do.

Interesting!

 

[BBB167893]

Tides must be turning in this case....According to the current poll results, more people here think that John and/or Patsy did NOT kill JB versus those that do.

Interesting!

You must be reading a different poll than I am!

 

[eleven]

You must be reading a different poll than I am!

Nope. Do the math.

View Poll Results: Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? POLL John

476.29%Patsy

31642.30%Burke

13117.54%An Intruder, (anyone including someone known to them)

25333.87%Voters: 747. You have already voted on this poll


Out of 747 voters, 47 think it was John, 316 think it was Patsy....for a grand total of 363.

131 Think it was Burke, and 253 people think it was an intruder....for a grand total of 384.

Clearly, in this poll, there are MORE people that think John and Patsy are NOT responsible than there are those who think they ARE.

 

[BBB167893]

Nope. Do the math.

View Poll Results: Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? POLL John

476.29%Patsy

31642.30%Burke

13117.54%An Intruder, (anyone including someone known to them)

25333.87%Voters: 747. You have already voted on this poll


Out of 747 voters, 47 think it was John, 316 think it was Patsy....for a grand total of 363.

131 Think it was Burke, and 253 people think it was an intruder....for a grand total of 384.

Clearly, in this poll, there are MORE people that think John and Patsy are NOT responsible than there are those who think they ARE.

Oh, I see. I though you were saying that more people thought an intruder was responsible. Don't mind me.

 

[eleven]

Nope. Do the math.

View Poll Results: Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? POLL John

476.29%Patsy

31642.30%Burke

13117.54%An Intruder, (anyone including someone known to them)

25333.87%Voters: 747. You have already voted on this poll


Out of 747 voters, 47 think it was John, 316 think it was Patsy....for a grand total of 363.



Oh, I see. I though you were saying that more people thought an intruder was responsible. Don't mind me.

Well...yes. Specifically, more people think an intruder or Burke is responsible than people who think John and/or Patsy is.