Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[MurriFlower]

....the parents DNA should be found on JB and around the crime scene (it's their house)
regardless whether or not they had anything to do with her murder.....

Ha ha, their DNA is OK to be at the crime scene, but fibers from their clothes are incriminating according to RDI!!

 

[DeeDee249]

Ha ha, their DNA is OK to be at the crime scene, but fibers from their clothes are incriminating according to RDI!!

That is pretty misleading. It is one thing for their fibers to be on their daughter and in their house.
But to have their fibers on items which IDI believe were NOT from the home and were specific to the crime (the tape, garrote cord and knot) indicate the parents handled these things. And not just any fibers. Fibers from clothing they wore that day and evening.

 

[claudicici]

It always bothered me....the 23party,these visits,the friends being called that morning,their reactions after JB's death.What is it about these friends.....If RDI I am pretty sure some of them know something.Or maybe something happened with JB (an accident,kids playing) and they are all covering up.Or maybe one of them did it.I don't know!But everything seems to be about these people.The Ramsey's and the people around them(friends,housekeepers,Santa's).If IDI,not a stranger.
Maybe it IS like JMcr said........something about the "village" (small foreign faction?)
__________________
Madeleine,I brought this over from the other thread because as crazy as it sounds IMO it would make a lot of sense if somehow they were ALL involved.It would explain a lot about the behaviour of the players.Like you said in another thread I would love to know more about the "intervention" these very same people had with PR....

 

[MurriFlower]

That is pretty misleading. It is one thing for their fibers to be on their daughter and in their house.
But to have their fibers on items which IDI believe were NOT from the home and were specific to the crime (the tape, garrote cord and knot) indicate the parents handled these things. And not just any fibers. Fibers from clothing they wore that day and evening.

Now you are being misleading. The four fibers found on the tape can be sourced from either PR the previous evening, or transferred by JR or FW from PR that morning. The other fibers are mentioned only in interveiws, and despite RDI's assertion that cops do not tell lies, they have never been proved or evidence produced in court.

 

[DeeDee249]

Now you are being misleading. The four fibers found on the tape can be sourced from either PR the previous evening, or transferred by JR or FW from PR that morning. The other fibers are mentioned only in interveiws, and despite RDI's assertion that cops do not tell lies, they have never been proved or evidence produced in court.

How would Patsy's fibers get on the tape at all unless she put the tape on? Do you suggest Patsy handled the tape the day before? Thought the tape came in with the intruder. If the fibers were transferred from JR or FW THEIR fibers would have been on the tape, too and only Patsy's were.

 

[MurriFlower]

How would Patsy's fibers get on the tape at all unless she put the tape on? Do you suggest Patsy handled the tape the day before? Thought the tape came in with the intruder. If the fibers were transferred from JR or FW THEIR fibers would have been on the tape, too and only Patsy's were.

Both JR and FW handled the tape that morning, PR had the jacket on then. PR also put JBR to bed the previous night wearing the jacket. This is an example of how RDI continually question something that easily explained and then dismiss the DNA of an unknown male in three places relevant to the crime as innocent.

 

[DeeDee249]

Both JR and FW handled the tape that morning, PR had the jacket on then. PR also put JBR to bed the previous night wearing the jacket. This is an example of how RDI continually question something that easily explained and then dismiss the DNA of an unknown male in three places relevant to the crime as innocent.

Neither JR or FW handled the garrote knot. Patsy's fibers are entwined there too. (Not simply laying on top).

JR's fibers are inside her panties. Panties that she did not have on when she was alive or conscious. NO other panties like that were found in the house, and if Patsy had given them to JB previously the other 6 pairs to the set would have been somewhere in the house, either in her drawers or laundry. One of the points LE were trying to make when they questioned Patsy about the JB's panties was that every single pair had fecal staining EXCEPT the pair found on her body. What they were inferring was that JB had not worn those panties previously, in life. Those panties were new out of the package.

 

[MurriFlower]

Neither JR or FW handled the garrote knot. Patsy's fibers are entwined there too. (Not simply laying on top).

I think we've talked about this before! The fibers were on the tape, but have not been proved to have been on the garotte. :banghead:

 

[DeeDee249]

I think we've talked about this before! The fibers were on the tape, but have not been proved to have been on the garotte. :banghead:

LE reported them entwined in the garrote knot. Good enough for me.

 

[MurriFlower]

LE reported them entwined in the garrote knot. Good enough for me.

AND LE cleared the Ramseys. Not good enough for you!!

 

[DeeDee249]

AND LE cleared the Ramseys. Not good enough for you!!

No, it isn't. Because ONLY ML cleared the Rs. And she had an agenda. Like I said.

 

[MurriFlower]

No, it isn't. Because ONLY ML cleared the Rs. And she had an agenda. Like I said.

You THINK she had another agenda. I THINK she believed that the DNA evidence was convincing enough to exclude them.

But I ain't goin on that ol DNA roundabout agin!!

 

[DeeDee249]

You THINK she had another agenda. I THINK she believed that the DNA evidence was convincing enough to exclude them.

But I ain't goin on that ol DNA roundabout agin!!

Her agenda was well known. From her single days as MK, assistant DA to AH, she was committed to seeing PR cleared of the crime. She was a feminist (nothing wrong with that) and from day 1 wouldn't even consider a case against the Rs. And it wasn't the only case of parental misconduct in a child's death she refused to prosecute. (Midyette?)
Her agenda was always to exonerate the Rs, especially PR, at any cost.

 

[MurriFlower]

Her agenda was well known. From her single days as MK, assistant DA to AH, she was committed to seeing PR cleared of the crime. She was a feminist (nothing wrong with that) and from day 1 wouldn't even consider a case against the Rs. And it wasn't the only case of parental misconduct in a child's death she refused to prosecute. (Midyette?)
Her agenda was always to exonerate the Rs, especially PR, at any cost.

Prefer not to coment on other cases.

Have you considered that she just believed they were innocent? If she did believe that, she would hardly act like she thought they were guilty. I think they are too, so does that make me part of the conspiracy as well?

 

[DeeDee249]

Prefer not to coment on other cases.

Have you considered that she just believed they were innocent? If she did believe that, she would hardly act like she thought they were guilty. I think they are too, so does that make me part of the conspiracy as well?

I am sure she DID think they were innocent. And I am sure she wouldn't allow herself to even think anything else. Nor would she allow anyone working under her to consider them anything less than innocent.

That was part of the problem. People in her position need to be neutral as evidence is allowed to be gathered and evaluated. THEN you can form your opinions on innocence or guilt.

 

[MurriFlower]

I am sure she DID think they were innocent. And I am sure she wouldn't allow herself to even think anything else. Nor would she allow anyone working under her to consider them anything less than innocent.

That was part of the problem. People in her position need to be neutral as evidence is allowed to be gathered and evaluated. THEN you can form your opinions on innocence or guilt.

Funny that, I posted something pretty very similar to this on another thread, but that was BPD who were convinced they were guilty.

 

[DeeDee249]

Funny that, I posted something pretty very similar to this on another thread, but that was BPD who were convinced they were guilty.

Good reason for that, too. The BPD was actually PRESENT at the crime scene at the time JB was reported missing and later found dead. They got input first-hand from the FBI, who were there that morning and are far more expert in these matters than ML. They saw the actions of the parents, as well as the physical appearance of the home, JB's room, and her dead body, as well as the parents' reactions to it.
ML was never there. She relied on partial information, and much of if from the RST. She looked at reports. The BPD looked at the crime scene.

 

[claudicici]

I've been really trying to understand why the R's may have acted the way they did IF they were innocent.It's hard for me.I'm trying to consider their belief system and their social status.In light of that MAYBE I can begin to understand their arrogance.I can begin to understand why they lawyered up so quickly and were not cooperative.MAYBE it was their way of thinking "we are the R's ,how dare they even consider us suspects?"
I remember JR referring to the testament of Job in the bible and if they truly believe in such a story it could explain the "forgiving" and the seeming lack of interest to find justice for JB.....
I don't know....
....but I still think a key point in trying to figure out who did this is to figure out whether or not JB was molested prior to her death.I believe she was.
...and I believe her death was related to this.IMO it seems like someone who was trying to MAKE THIS STOP.Whether it was to stop JB from talking about it or out of a guilty conscience or to deal with trauma related to themselves,I believe someone sacrificed this little girl to make it STOP.

So whoever molested JB is the key to me to lead to the killer.
I keep thinking about PR when asked if she ever thought about if JR molested JB and she actually answered yes,during the time she was going away for cancer treatments but she dismissed it because her mom was sleeping in the same room with JB.
That is soooo troublesome to me.
There's just toooooo many things I "d have to dismiss to believe IDI.
I think I'll stay on the fence.

 

[sogren]

I keep thinking about PR when asked if she ever thought about if JR molested JB and she actually answered yes,during the time she was going away for cancer treatments but she dismissed it because her mom was sleeping in the same room with JB.

Wow! Where did she say that? Sorry if that's common knowledge here in the JB forums but I'm pretty new. That's amazing that she would actually admit that.

 

[claudicici]

...it was in an interview with "the enquirer"

http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm

During The ENQUIRER interview, Patsy admitted she considered and rejected the possibility that John was sexually abusing JonBenet. She openly admitted that during her struggle to defeat ovarian cancer between 1993 and 1994, John and Patsy's sex life suffered. She totally rejects the notion of John abusing JonBenet, but her reasoning is odd.

She said her mother "came to take care of the kids (when I had cancer). She slept in the other bed in JonBenet's room. I mean, if John was coming in to molest JonBenet, you know that's not going to happen 'cause Grandma was right there every night."