Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[OliviaG1996]

What level of confidence do you have in Colorado LE?

In the 90s or now? I'm sure the officers who left the scene in Linda Arndt's hands aren't the ones who'd be interviewing BR.

 

[icedtea4me]

its entirely likely he cant remember anything

what can everyone here remember from the age of 9?

what did you get for your 9th birthday?

===blank----

No idea, right?

For my 9th birthday I received an Osmonds album, girl scout uniform, magic markers, Suntan Barbie, money, and flowers. (I had written it down in my baby book.)

 

[SapphireSteel]

In the 90s or now? I'm sure the officers who left the scene in Linda Arndt's hands aren't the ones who'd be interviewing BR.

its irrelevant

LE today is reliant on the work of LE then

which we all know was FUBAR

Then add Lacey in - remember her? Mark Karr did it, oh wait, no a team of Chinese underwear handlers did it...

This case will NEVER be solved short a death bed confession, due to LE mishandling and politics.

 

[SapphireSteel]

For my 9th birthday I received an Osmonds album, girl scout uniform, magic markers, Suntan Barbie, money, and flowers. (I had written it down in my baby book.)

omg I seem to recall a Suntan Barbie....somewhere along the way...!

Donny Osmond was my first true love Mwahhh

 

[SapphireSteel]

And if Burke wasn't THERE and eyewitnessing the abuse/murder, what can he possibly say?

"I wasn't there"

the end.

and he's already said it btw

 

[OliviaG1996]

its irrelevant

LE today is reliant on the work of LE then

which we all know was FUBAR

Then add Lacey in - remember her? Mark Karr did it, oh wait, no a team of Chinese underwear handlers did it...

This case will NEVER be solved short a death bed confession, due to LE mishandling and politics.

I suggest you read this post (RSBM):

The BPD has NEVER endorsed the reckless exoneration by Mary Lacy.

<SNIPPED>

The current DA has made it plain that he considers the &#8220;exoneration&#8221; to have no legal merit as far as he is concerned.

<SNIPPED>

When Stan Garnett took over the DA&#8217;s office from Mary Lacy, he quickly turned the case back to the Boulder PD, and the BPD in turn announced that a task force would be convened to take a fresh look at the case. (February 2009)
During the press conference announcing the return of the case to the BPD, City of Boulder's Chief of Police, Mark Beckner and Boulder&#8217;s current District Attorney, Stan Garnett both had the opportunity to endorse the Ramsey exoneration that ML granted, but did not.
Reporter: Mary Lacy cleared the Ramseys in this case, are they still cleared?
Beckner: Again, in keeping our focus on where we go from here, I don&#8217;t want to answer that question for a couple of reasons.
One, we are bringing in people on this task force that are going to have a fresh perspective, they are people who have never worked on this case, who are well known in the law enforcement and the district attorney field who can come in and look at this case, lay out the evidence on the table and tell us what they think, challenge us, ask us questions, give us ideas.
I think, to say anything, I would have to get into the evidence, and I don&#8217;t want to do that.
And secondly, I don&#8217;t want to set any expectations or biases for people coming into this committee.
If the police chief stands here and says, I think this, or, I think that, they may come in with some bias, we don&#8217;t want that, we want them to tell us what they think.
Boulder press conference, Feb 2, 2009

Stan Garnett un-exonerates the Ramseys. - October 11, 2010
On a Denver radio show, KHOW&#8217;s Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman interviewed Boulder DA, Stan Garnett.
What makes Stan Garnett&#8217;s un-exoneration of the Ramsey&#8217;s all that much more compelling is that his interview on KHOW was nearly 2 years after the task force convened, in other words, if the DNA evidence was so compelling, (as Lacy would have us believe,) the task force would have reported as much, and the Ramseys would have remained cleared.
Dan Caplis: And Stan, so it would be fair to say then that Mary Lacy&#8217;s clearing of the Ramseys is no longer in effect, you&#8217;re not bound by that, you&#8217;re just going to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Stan Garnett: What I&#8217;ve always said about Mary Lacy&#8217;s exoneration is that it speaks for itself.
I&#8217;ve made it clear that any decisions made going forward about the Ramsey case will be made based off of evidence&#8230;
Dan Caplis: Stan, when you say that the exoneration speaks for itself, are you saying that it&#8217;s Mary Lacy taking action, and that action doesn&#8217;t have any particular legally binding effect, it may cause complications if there is ever a prosecution of a Ramsey down the road, but it doesn&#8217;t have a legally binding effect on you, is that accurate?
That is accurate, I think that is what most of the press related about the exoneration at the time that it was issued.
[SNIP]
Craig Silverman: I&#8217;d say the headline out of our show is once again you established out of your questioning of Stan Garnett that that letter (of exoneration) isn&#8217;t worth the paper it&#8217;s written on as far as Stan Garnett is concerned.

Boulder DA, Stan Garnett interviewed by Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman
Part 1
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQqV9NslMM0"]SG_Part1 - YouTube[/ame]

Part 2
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h092gdO5Avw"]SG_Part2 - YouTube[/ame]

Part 3
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Be5LTOLxk"]SG_Part3 - YouTube[/ame]

By the way, I think it's safe to say Mary Lacy is not the reason BR is refusing an interview.

 

[Annapurna]

Sapphire you didn't answer my question: How would Burke know about the panties?
He wouldn't. He wasn't there when they were bought. He would have zero interest in them when they got home from new york. He likely wouldn't have even known about the present to his cousin. He would be much more interested in the toys from FAO Schwartz.

Of course the panties implicate the family. I think the stager might not have known that.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Sapphire you didn't answer my question: How would Burke know about the panties?
He wouldn't. He wasn't there when they were bought. He would have zero interest in them when they got home from new york. He likely wouldn't have even known about the present to his cousin. He would be much more interested in the toys from FAO Schwartz.

Of course the panties implicate the family. I think the stager might not have known that.

peeking into gift wrapped presents.

Of all the ??? in the Ramsey Case, this isn't one of them.

IMO.

 

[STANDREID]

its entirely likely he cant remember anything

what can everyone here remember from the age of 9?

what did you get for your 9th birthday?

===blank----

No idea, right?

I can actually remember one thing that I got for my second birthday (a fire truck) and I can remember a few things in the months before that.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I can actually remember one thing that I got for my second birthday and I can remember a few things in the months before that.

Most folks will remember pleasant things

precious few 9 year old boys will remember something as hideous as having their own sister murdered.

The brain is a wonderous machine.

Anyway why are we arguing this? In view of the fact the GJ indicted the Parents NOT Burke?

 

[Annapurna]

I think they are pretty important considering they are on her body in an intimate way, and under her clothes. They also contain evidence in the way of her own blood, plus degraded DNA in microscopic amounts.

So lets say BR did put them on her. Did he also go find pants to put on her? Long johns have elastic at the ankles. They would not have been easy for anyone to put on her legs. A child would not do that. This was done by someone trying to hide her sexual assault. This was done by an adult. From your theory, sure it can be JR since you think he did it. It was not and could not have been BR.

 

[BBB167893]

This is something that just doesn’t make sense to some of us.

I'd like to take a crack at this.

IF RDI, what were investigators going to investigate that wouldn’t just lead back to RDI? What benefit is the note to the Ramseys if it just leads investigators back to them?

I'll answer both of those with the same answer: it provides the whole world as alternate suspects. Besides, there was always the chance that the investigators would turn up SOMETHING on someone else that would be...compromising.

 

[BBB167893]

A lot of people have said that the back staircase is where the housekeeper routinely left all her notes to Patsy.

If RDI then they may have been planning to blame the housekeeper or someone she knew doing this job on her behalf. If IDI it basically only leaves the housekeeper, who the investigators have ruled out.

Who else in the world would leave a note there? I lived in a house with two staircases to the kitchen area too. If someone left a ransom note there the police would have to find it because no one in my family ever used the back staircase. I can think of several other places to leave a note that all make perfect sense. The back staircase isn't on the list at all.

If Patsy was the first one to say she found it in the back staircase, then I can personally easily assume that this is due to Patsy being a terrible crime stager. If John said this first, I think he's smart, and knows crime better with his reading habits, I'd think then the plan was to blame the housekeeper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's possible. It also could have just been habit.

 

[BBB167893]

Of course, in most cases these writers are people who believe themselves to be exempt from scrutiny, that their handwriting will never be compared. This cannot be said for the Ramseys.

I'm puzzled as to how you can say that as if it were a fact. They sure acted like they were above suspicion.

 

[BBB167893]

Not if deep down inside they had the need to cry out "It was us!"

You don't even have to go that far, icedtea4me. Our friend Anti-K has rather unrealistic expectations for first-time criminals flying by the seat of their pants. We're not talking Delta Force agents here.

 

[AndHence]

If Burke was involved, how much coaching if any do you think he received from the parents? People forget that while Burke was shielded, he was still the first person to give a formal interview from the family. He was interviewed at Fleet White's and then 10 days later by a child psychologist. John and Patsy would have no way of knowing how Burke would respond to questioning, so they either got lucky that he didn't leak anything of probative value or he truly knows nothing. Personally I think that if Burke was involved in any way, his parents probably sent him to bed thinking JonBenet was still alive that night. They then cooked up the kidnapping story, causing Burke to think that this was a separate event and had nothing to do with his own actions from the night before.

 

[SapphireSteel]

the oversized pants

1. HAD to be sourced by a Ramsey

2. No Adult Ramsey would have done it as it was incriminating

As much as I loathe Occams Razor

Im afraid it applies here

I believe all 3 Ramseys were up and operating half the night, all unbeknownst to each other.

If JB was a victim of ongoing SA, Burke may have known about it.

The underpants seem so childish and incriminating

Whoever placed them didn't think it through

Everything else was thought through

Not this, and not the note

I see 2 DV victims doing their best to fight back, quite honestly.

 

[ekardh]

The problem with that theory is that you can't reason by someone being seemingly "incapable". And I'm sorry but the idea of them writing the note when none of them committed the murder makes no sense. People are capable of some crazy stuff when put into crazy situations.

Not really. In a high-stress situation that brought on racing thoughts, they could've suspected Burke, particularly if there was something belonging to him found near the murder scene for example. That doesn't mean that Burke was responsible for the murder, and I've already explained the reasons for why I find that unlikely, but it does explain the rambling ransom note.

If it wasn't written by the parents, then we're dealing with a naive teenager or an adult with developmental problems.

JB was not raped. She was assaulted, but it has been described as "relatively gentle" There was one well defined bruise and some lacerations in her hymen. This is consistent with her being penetrated once with an object harder than a finger. It wasn't a jagged object either. This doesn't seem consistent with a "sexual gratification" killing.

I never said Jonbenet was raped. You need to brush up on what a 'lust killer' is.

 

[InstantProof]

the oversized pants

2. No Adult Ramsey would have done it as it was incriminating

This is what gets said about everything in this case. IDI's seem to think some child killer sat and plotted a poor crime scene to make the R's look guilty. I think they were a mix of not very good criminals, and the sort of people that felt they were above suspicion. We have decades to look at the evidence, they had panic stricken hours to set it up.
If Burke changed her underwear like a child putting a Band-Aid on a dead sibling, why did he hide the package? Doesn't that suggest staging, rather than simply covering her up?

 

[Frigga]

Most folks will remember pleasant things

precious few 9 year old boys will remember something as hideous as having their own sister murdered.

The brain is a wonderous machine.

Anyway why are we arguing this? In view of the fact the GJ indicted the Parents NOT Burke?

The GJ couldn't indict Burke- that means nothing- no one could according to the laws in Colorado. Maybe I'm not understanding your point?