Compassion has nothing to do it. I do have compassion for parents who’ve lost their children. Shit, I have compassion for parents who *kill *their children. Doesn’t stop me from pointing out where you’re fucking wrong. You wouldn’t give a shit about contaminating the scene if you or your wife had killed your little girl either. In fact, it may actually help keep you or your wife out of jail. On the flip side, if you were innocent, you might care later when you spend the rest of life regretting that you may very well have inadvertently destroyed evidence that could have brought your daughter’s killer to justice.
I don’t blame John Ramsey for disturbing his daughter’s body. I think any grieving parent would have done the same. But it was a clusterfuck of an investigation from the get-go. That specific incident should never have been allowed to happen. By not treating the whole house as a crime scene and securing from the moment they arrived, the Boulder police in all likelihood doomed the investigation before it even began. And it left a lot of questions about the Ramseys and their daughter’s death unanswered.
Your claim that a single piece of evidence is the smoking gun is stupid beyond belief, Dio. You sound just like the media. Way to piss on any shred of credibility you might have garnered from the posts in which you don’t talk out your ass.
Actually, no. If you’d been paying attention, I’ve indicated that I believe the case will never be solved. I haven’t made up my mind about anything, but I am interested in the theories that have been put forth over the years.
On the other hand, it looks like you’ve already made up your mind.
And that word conclusive…doesn’t mean what you think it does.
…here’s what I don’t understand. You knew the answer to you question in the first instance: yet you left it open and hanging as if there was something suspicious about it. Then later in the page, you answer your question. The Ramsey’s searched the house because, IYRC, they were instructed to by the detectives.
Can I ask you: why did you ask the question and leave it hanging when you knew the answer? Can you clarify for me: you find it suspicious that they went searching through the house, and you find it suspicious that they didn’t search through the house? (until instructed by the police)
And pretty much the case against the Ramsey’s is full of “non-evidence” like this.
“Isn’t it suspicious that they lawyer-ed up?”
“She didn’t change clothes!”
“Patsy’s fibers were on the body.”
Last year on another message board somebody bought up the fiber claims and I challenged them to produce a cite. They initially linked to the wiki page that someone else has already posted here:
I then challenged them to produce a primary source: they linked to this transcript from 48 Hours:
Upon reading that cite: it became obvious that the wiki page had either “stitched together” several very different quotes to make a very new point, or it had made up the quotes all together. I’m not saying the evidence doesn’t exist: but if it does, then people should have no problem supplying that information. And if they can’t supply that information, then maybe they should stop treating it like it is fact.
We have been told in this thread there is a ton of evidence against the Ramseys, both circumstantial and otherwise. And yet, the evidence provided so far is exceptionally weak.
I don’t think that getting a lawyer in these circumstances is suspicious at all: and comparisons to a case such as the Walsh case are completely unfounded. The circumstances were different, the environment was different, the case was completely different. If you want to compare the actions of the Ramsey’s to other similar cases, you have to do a heck of a lot better than a “sample size of one.”
We have been presented with an analysis of the letter by Mark McClish: thankfully Larry Mudd has already linked to the skeptical read on the issue. McClish has no connection to the case, and among his many theories he holds the belief that if the number three comes up in conversation,its cause for a closer look. A cursory glance at his site show that he is using no scientific reasoning at all, and despite his time in law enforcement I see no reason to treat him as an authority.
I mean seriously, look at the quality of the case for guilt in this thread: “Patsy put on make up.” Is that really the best that people here can do?
On preview I note that someone has resorted to using Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor is not evidence, cannot be used in court, and to a certain extent, in the eye of the beholder. I look at exactly the same evidence as Lamar Mundane, and “applying the razor” I come to the conclusion it was obviously an intruder. So obviously Occam says they are innocent, correct?
If the note didn’t exist, I don’t think the intruder theory would be so doubted. I admit it’s a weird note, but whoever did this was a weird person. Look at that fruit burger who tried to confess - he wasn’t the perp, but it shows that people can be extremely strange and inexplicable.
I have to disagree. I do it all the time and my clothes are not wrinkled or such… A work outfit consisting of cotton stiffly ironed? Sure that looks messy the next day.
Velour, in my experience, does not wrinkle so easy. The same for sweaters. She was at a party, not working out. She was probably standing around, maybe a drink or snack. It’s not like she was working out in it. I can see her saying the night before: they look fine, I’ll wear them tomorrow.
I have not seen pictures of her that day. Was she all wrinkly and looking like she dressed in haste?
No, I don’t know the answer. I don’t understand why Ramsey (instead of an investigator) is searching through his house looking for evidence if they believe a crime has been committed. This especially doesn’t make any sense if the police suspected the Ramseys from word go, as **Dio **asserts.
I didn’t compare this case to the Walsh case. **Dio **claims that if you have a brain, you lawyer up immediately. I challenged that statement because I don’t think that is always or needs to be the case when a child goes missing. I certainly don’t think that John Walsh lacked a brain, and he certainly fared better in the media in spite of (or maybe because of) the fact that he didn’t lawyer up immediately. He was also a suspect at a certain point and as I understand it, lawyered up at that point, which is completely understandable.
The Ramseys got a whole lot of negative media attention because they were reportedly not as cooperative with the investigation as the perhaps should have been. Now, maybe this was an unfair characterization, but it sure didn’t help that access to the Ramseys went through their attorney almost immediately, as I recall. It doesn’t give the appearance of transparency and cooperation in bringing their daughter’s killer to justice.
However, the Ramseys were quite wealthy and I would expect that it’s normal for people of their means to appreciate the importance of good legal representation. I suspect they may have also been advised poorly which resulted in some frustration on the part of the investigators.
It’s all speculation though, is it not? Who really knows? Certainly not Dio, the Almighty Arbiter of Truth.
…but you do know the answer. You just gave the answer.
The reason why the Ramsey’s looked through the house was because a detective asked a friend of the Ramsey’s to take them through the house to look for anything unusual.
Are you splitting hairs over the definition of the “get go?” The decision to search the house was made by the police, not by the parents, so I can never understand exactly why the parents were faulted for this, or why it is seen as an indicator of guilt. Maybe you could explain it to me?
With all due respect, you very much did. If you did not mean to compare the two cases, why on earth would you mention it?
In the circumstances that the Ramsey’s found themselves in, would you not think getting a lawyer would be advisable?
Why would other cases matter? In this particular case, can you explain to me what was wrong with getting a lawyer?
Can you provide a cite that Walsh didn’t consult a lawyer at the start of the investigation, or is this just a guess? You claim he lawyered up when he came under suspicion, exactly like the Ramsey’s did. If you are using the Walsh case as a comparison, what you are telling me is that both Walsh and the Ramsey’s did exactly the same thing.
Your use of words puzzles me:
“as I understand it” “reportedly not as cooperative” “maybe this was an unfair characterization” “as I recall” “It doesn’t give the appearance of transparency and cooperation”
A heck of a lot of qualifiers you’ve put in there.
But lets be honest here: the negative media attention shouldn’t affect your view of the case, should it? Take an objective look at the facts, without applying either a media filter or you own filter, and what do you get?
Exactly. Nothing at all wrong with getting representation. As you yourself state: this is normal.
I don’t think they were poorly advised at all. If I was under investigation by the police for the murder of my child, I would obtain the services of a lawyer, and I would take the advice of that lawyer. Would you have done any differently?
I disagree with Dio’s opinion that the parents can be absolutely ruled out as suspects: but thats purely on a technical “they can’t be absolutely ruled out” level.
But I believe that apart from that, Dio is correct. The evidence of the break in and the DNA evidence make it extremely unlikely that the parents were involved IMHO. The evidence against the parents, according to what has been posted in this thread, are rumors, innuendo, arguments from incredulity and Occam’s razor. Hardly an airtight case: definitely not a “ton of evidence”, and when you are making accusations of murder on a public forum I really think you need something a little bit stronger than that.
That’s exactly why I said that Occam’s razor says the parents were probably involved, because that all seems so unlikely. But I would also expect more physical evidence against the parents, so that seems very strange.
Why? Why would they not just allow, but send Ramsey to do this? This is what I don’t understand. The only answer I have for this is sloppy investigative work. Does that bring down suspicion on the Ramseys? Not necessarily. But it allows Ramsey to cover tracks by further contaminating the scene and doing so with witnesses. That creates a problem later when attempting to determine whether evidence gathered was part of the crime or part of the contamination. One would have hoped that Ramsey realizing his daughter was dead would have left the scene in tact knowing that evidence would need to be collected. It’s easy to understand that he was grieving, though, as I said, but that doesn’t necessarily relieve any suspicion. All I’m saying is that Ramsey’s actions undermined the investigation right at the beginning. You can say that was the fault of the investigators (and I would agree), but it’s impossible to say that it wasn’t what useful for the Ramseys.
Thank you, but no I did not. I explained why I mentioned it.
As I understand it, Ramsey hired a criminal defense attorney hours after discovering JonBenet. What’s wrong is that they seem to have been getting advice that undermined their cooperation in the investigation and made them look like they had something to hide, which IMO is the very last thing you want to do in an investigation involving your daughter’s murder in your own house.
I recall they declined polygraphs initially, which I don’t have a problem with at all. Polygraphs are not admissible in court for a very good reason and IMHO its a crappy tool for a murder investigation due to its very potential to mislead. I understand they agreed to polygraphs later under their conditions for the purpose of relieving the negative media attention.
They interviewed with the media before they interviewed with police. It was reported that they were elusive in sitting down with police for interviews. That’s something that makes people go, “Huh?” My daughter’s dead at the hands of who knows and I’m going to be asked to leave the police station and let the police do their jobs. You need to ask me questions? What can I do to help you find my daughter’s killer? The Ramseys wouldn’t go in for interviews. They refused to be interviewed together. They demanded written questions submitted before the interview.
By the time they did start submitting to formal questioning, largely in response to negative media, they did it completely on their own terms refusing to be interviewed by FBI.
Nope. I can’t. Interesting that. If it had been reported that he lawyered up with a criminal defense attorney within hours of finding his son’s body, he might have fared just as poorly in the media. But I wasn’t comparing the Walsh case to the Ramsey case. I was challenging Dio’s assertion that anyone with a brain would lawyer up immediately upon finding their child murdered.
There’s a lot of information, data, speculation, leaking surrounding this case. It can be difficult to determine fact from fiction. There’s conflicting information; there’s lots of theorizing. A lot of what people believe is based on perception. I admit to that. I don’t know if everything I’ve read is true or even if I remember everything correctly, so I qualify my statements. Maybe **Dio **should take a lesson.
The media is my only access to the case, that includes books, news reports, websites, etc. The only thing that can be taken as fact to an outsider is the published autopsy report. The rest is all media reporting and armchair quarterbacking by people close to the case and crime sleuths. Why shouldn’t the negative media affect my view of the case? It certainly affected the Ramseys’ actions.
Well, I disagree with that. According to reports, Ramsey hired a criminal defense attorney within hours of finding JonBenet’s body. No, if had nothing to hide, I don’t think it would occur to me to do that. I must not have a brain. It seems to have bothered Fleet White, however.
This cannot be said enough. **Dio **refuses to believe that.
The only person who seems to think this is an airtight case is Dio. But there is a veritable mountain of evidence. None of it conclusively points to a killer; it only suggests possibilities. People have their suspicions and not everyone thinks its unlikely the parents were involved. There’s a lot of conflicting information out there about the case and a number of theories posed. I don’t agree with your assessment; the break-in theory is just as inconclusive as the others. The DNA evidence is inconclusive as well and there are accompanying questions the DNA does not answer. Even the fact that in cases like this is *very *likely to have been the parents in inconclusive.
There may very well have been more evidence. Fiber evidence, for instance. But since the body was contaminated by John Ramsey and other investigators at the scene, it’s impossible to know what clues the pristine scene may have given up.
Ramsey was asked to do another search of the house because he was freaking out and the police officer thought it would keep him busy while they waited for the kidnappers to contact them. It is not suspicious at all. In fact John Douglas mentions in his book, that true killers of children make it a point to have someone else find the body. Furthermore, as soon as they found the note and called the police, they began to call friends to come over to their house for support. People with a guilty conscience would not invite friends to watch them discover the body of their daughter.
Ramsey was a wealthy man and had a lot of lawyer friends. The first advice any lawyer would give a friend in almost any situation is hire a lawyer. The Ramsey’s were highly medicated and confused after what they went through. It makes sense that they did what their friends advised them to do. I do not see them hiring a lawyer as suspicious.
The Ramseys were going to go on plane trip as soon as they got up, most of Patsy’s clothes were probably packed. That is why she recycled her outfit, she just wanted something quick and easy so they could get up and go.
The note does not point to the parents. Parents are obsessed with their kids, especially if they have just mistakenly killed them. The note hardly mentions Jon Benet but is very angry toward John Ramsey.
Bill James has an interesting theory in his new crime book. An associate of John who hated him. He knew they were going to a party and broke in after they left. In the 4 hours he had to wait, he wrote the ransom note. Then he hid when they came back. Hit Jon Benet with a stun gun, killed her in the basement and hid the body so it would not be discovered until the ransom had been paid. He asked for the amount of John’s bonus because they could get that amount of money easily and quickly. He thought they would not call the cops and he could satisfy his anger at John by killing the person he loved most and showing his superior intelligence by conning him out of a large sum of money with the fake ranson note.
If someone was that premeditated, why would they write a ransom note using pen and paper from the house, and fashion a garotte using a paintbrush also found in the house? If they were going to kill JBR, wouldn’t they have brought along a murder weapon?
Most likely not. The people who were in the best position to know (coroner, her pediatrician) never made any such claims, it was only the “celebrity” types like Cyril Wecht who said there was. Her pediatrician would have been in deep legal trouble if he had any such suspicions and didn’t report them.
That’s exactly why I said that Occam’s razor says the parents were probably involved, because that all seems so unlikely. But I would also expect more physical evidence against the parents, so that seems very strange.