However, suspecting the Ramseys was neither a wild accusation nor a guess. It was a logical conclusion based on the evidence and precedent.
There WAS no evidence against them. That’s the problem with the media’s irresponsible insinuations about them. Just look at these thread. People just can;t stand the fact that their own self-righteous snap judgements might have been wrong.
The “drug” was allegedly chloroform. Does anyone know if that’s something that would necessarily be detected by a toxicology test?
Considering how they screwed things up so far I can hardly believe anything they say. So many fingers were put in the pie that I doubt anything could have been kept secret. :dubious:
I have to disagree on all counts.
The argument that there was no evidence of forced entry was bollocks. Media outlets in Boulder and eventually around the country loved to spread this canard. One major point they made was that there were “no footprints in the snow.” What they failed to mention is that, while there was snow cover on the Ramseys yard, there were significant portions of the yard lacking any snow cover, and it would have been easy for someone to approach the house without ever setting foot in snow.
The no forced entry bit is even more ridiculous. The early police report noted that a ground-level basement window was easily opened from the outside. The window’s lock had been broken accidentally by a family member some months before, and the window could no longer be properly secured. It was an easy access point for an intruder, and required no “forced entry.” On top of that, at least one door to the Ramsey home was unlocked, which again would mean you could get in with “no forced” entry.
Forced entry being even an issue is ludicrous to me. Most Americans do not properly lock down their homes at night, and most homes there is at least one way to get in without “forcible” entry of any kind.
Here is a link detailing the series of media attacks made against the Ramseys, many of which no doubt created this seed of “the Ramseys did it” in the public’s mind.
As the media circus grew and the Ramseys became an ever growing target, they did what any sane, rational human being would do. They hired a criminal lawyer to help them. They had suffered a serious tragedy, and unfortunately were under criminal suspicion, hiring a criminal lawyer was not only smart, it was just about necessary. Yet, the simple act of hiring a law is an instant “conviction” in the minds of many.
Furthermore, from all that I have seen, the Ramseys cooperated heavily with the police. And gave, voluntarily, multiple handwriting samples. From everything I have read, the handwriting samples bore no similarities to the handwriting on the ransom note.
There was, also, a pubic hair found on JonBenet’s body that did not belong to any male who lived in the Ramsey house. Why that wasn’t enough to immediately clear the Ramseys of suspicion, I do not know. I don’t know when the hair was tested, but considered the Ramseys all submitted their DNA around the time of the initial investigation, and the pubic hair has been in evidence since that time, if it wasn’t tested back then then the police were negligent. If it was tested, the results known, and the police continued to investigate the Ramseys, then the police were incompetent.
JonBenet was bound with duct tape and sexually assaulted. Then murdered with a garrote, the cord of the garrote and the duct tape used to bind her were never found. If someone inside the house had committed the murder, it stands to reason at least some duct tape would be found in the house, but there was none. It stands to reason the cord would have remained in the house. The other alternative is that the family member who murdered JonBenet hid the cord and duct tape and that police never found them. This is unlikely as I do not think there was ever any evidence that the Ramseys, any of them, were moving in and out of the house the night of the murder.
Finally, the fact that a garrote was used in my opinion has cleared the son from day one. A child his age simply would not know how to create or use a garrote, at least in my opinion.
I’m no JonBenet murder expert. However, the article I read at the crimelibrary.com, which is usually a fairly good source for information on famous crimes, says that the FBI found no meaningful similarities between the handwriting on the ransom note and Patsy Ramsey’s handwriting. Wikipedia says there were some, inconclusive handwriting similarities between the handwriting on the ransom note and Patsy Ramsey’s handwriting.
… the fresh set of paperback true-crime books, the slew of TV movies, the Loony Party conspiracy-pushing “Free John Karr” t-shirts, the JonBenet-themed Sudoku booklets…
Um, I think you have a naive sense of what “conclusion” means in this case.
Excellent links Zabali
Here is the part I still don’t understand about this case, and made me wonder about the Ramseys
If my little girl had been murdered, the first thing the homicide detecitive would have seen each and every morning would be me waking him up and handing him a cup of coffee. The last thing he would see each night would be me tucking him into bed.
Four months before they sat down to talk to the cops, and 18 before they did it a second time? :dubious:
Can any parent here tell me with a straight face that if your 6 year old was killed you would wait 4 months before you sat down with the cops?
If I was under suspicion would I take an FBI polygraph? Again in a New York minute as it would get the police off me and get them looking for the real killers.
Not saying the Ramsey’s did it, but I think they know more than they have let on.
Wouldn’t chloroform be detected in the lungs? Why did the autopsy find she was strangled, and hit on the head? Something is smelling more and more of tuna left in the sun. Again, I don’t believe the Ramseys did it, but I am finding it difficult to swallow the idea that this fellow is speaking truthfully when he says he did this thing. Once he is extradited, let us see if charges are actually filed, though even the DA says the case “needs work”.
Not surprising at all, if they had competent legal counsel.
A good lawyer would have warned the Ramseys early on of the tendency of police investigators to try to pin crimes on the most convenient target, and would have therefore warned them to be wary of police “investigation” (which seemed more designed to tie them to the crime than to find the killer).
And what would be the point of a polygraph? The implication in requesting one is that the Ramseys were suspects. Of course that’s insulting. Moreover, nothing good could come from the Ramseys submitting to a police polygraph. No lawyer worth his pound of flesh would recommend that his clients submit to a police-conducted polygraph.
I don’t know. That’s why I asked. My understanding is that chloroform dissipates pretty quickly.
Because she was. That doesn’t mean she also couldn’t have been chloroformed. maybe that’s one of the details which had been kept from the public.
I think it’s going to come down to the DNA. I can’t think all the law enforcement involved would hang themselves out in public this much if they didn’t know something more than what we’re hearing.
Here’s a link to the current crop of doubts about the confession. Whether or not he drugged her is only part of the problem. The confessed sexual assault may not have taken place and the suspect also claimed that he picked her up from school which wouldn’t have been possible as Jon Benet was on christmas break at the time. Also, Karr may have been in Alabama when the crime was committed.
Huh. that’s what some folks say wrt to that lacrosse team case.
I dunno about this - guy seems creepy enough. am reserving judgement though. very risky crime for an unknown intruder who was not familiar with the house.
I agree. There is no upside to taking a polygraph. They’re unreliable for one thing and for another, they can’t clear you. If you fail, then you’re "guilty, guilty guilty,’ and if you pass then the results were “inconclusive” or “don’t prove anything.” Even when the Ramseys did eventually take and pass a polygraph it made no dent on public opinion. There’s a huge double standard when it comes to how the public responds to polygraph results.
Probably to give the impression that she was out of it and didn’t know what was happening when he raped and murdered her. Lots of killers even when they confess, try to minimize what they’ve done somewhat. Didn’t the person that murdered Heidi Klass do the same thing?
Polly Klass was murdered, and there was no conclusive evidence (like semen or pubic hairs) found to prove that she had been raped, though digital penetration or the like was not ruled out.
Wasn’t one of Patsy’s paint brushes used as part of the garrotte? That always struck me as strange.
Interesting thing about this Karr guy, from one of the links upthread - he was in the IT industry in the mid-90s. Perhaps he gained inside information about the Ramseys through that connection? That $118k ransom is another weird fact.
From the statements he’s made & those photos of him & his ex-wife’s alibi & his obsession with the case (and that of Polly Klaas), this Karr guy strikes me as a major kook and possibly dangerous pedophile - but it doesn’t add up to “he done it”.
No, I’m pretty sure that knowing what happened that night will bring the case to a full conclusion. To me, at least. You may find it necessary to partake in all of the follow-on books and movies, but I won’t.
I’m no conspiracy nut, but fessie mentioned something that I fleetingly thought of. Maybe it’s a product of pop culture and cynicism, maybe it’s my inner writer cropping up.
Would it really be so difficult for someone to find out what a guy’s bonus is going to be? With identity theft, hacking, etc. would it really be so unbeleivable to see a guy gathering some info like this?
Now if we want to really have some fun, we could conjure up scenarios where he was in league with the CEO, the chief of police and maybe a judge or two in some sort of extortion racket. The only problem being that they hired the wrong guy to pull it off. Add to that the guy could have gotten some documents with Patsy’s (heh) handwriting and worked a forgery from there. (No, I don’t actually think this, but after 10 years of WAGs, what’s another?)