Not that I give a shit--but the Ramsey's still could be guilty.

Note that no drugs were found in her system but yet the supposed killer, Karr says he drugged her:

John Mark Karr, 41, was arrested Wednesday, a day after he began teaching second grade in Bangkok, District Attorney Mary Lacy told reporters in Colorado. JonBenet was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her family's home in Boulder, Colo., on Dec. 26, 1996.

Karr told investigators he drugged and had sex with the child beauty queen before accidentally killing her, said a senior Thai police officer, who was briefed about the interview.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J/JONBENET_RAMSEY?SITE=FLPAP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-08-17-09-48-53





http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet1.html

A negative drug screen in a situation like this means very little.

On Christmas Eve. His story has more holes than Katherine Harris's knickers after a GOP Twister party.

for someone who deosn't give a shit.

BTW, like that leap of logic there. If A not true then QZ3 must be.

...

That is what the media said.. He may be one of those nuts that confess to crimes for attention, but he does have a record of child sexual and pornography abuse. That ought to tell us something about pornography.

He was a substitute teacher so he may have met Jon B at school. Or he may have decorated their house for Christmas as a temporary worker. He was probably having a hard time working as a teacher. He couldn't with his sex record, so that is probably why he was overseas. He may have worked for a bookkeeper that kept books for Ramsey's company and that is how he would know they had $118,000 bonus. He could have been hidden there when they come home and heard them say something about a bonus. He used their tablet to write the ransom note, so you know from that that he prowled around so he could have seen a bank deposit. He wasn't in a hurry when he wrote it, in fact he rewrote it, so he probably was hidden in their basement.

I remember a neighbor said she saw a flashlight beam in the kitchen area about 2 in the morning in the Ramsey's house that night, when it was on TV so much about ten years ago.

If he did do it, they should study him. They say the way people turn out is half due to their dna and half due to their experiences.

Child sexual killers are very rare. It seems there is a lot of them because it is on TV so much when they find one.

They make a big deal about a spider webb being on the basement window, but a spider can build a web in a few hours. Some people who work in a house will unlock a window or door and slip back later.

NEVER EVER SHOULD HE BE RELEASED if he is guilty.

And his ex wife (who loathes him, apparently), states they were living in Alabama wit5h their children when Jon Benet was killed. She says he was there that Christmas. She now has lawyer and has stopped speaking to the press, but her lawyer says she is gathering evidence to present to the proper authorities.

Somebody killed Jon-Benet, but it doesn't look like Karr.

:spank:

:)

I promise to be a good MSM bot from now on!

Actually, it's more hypocrisy than irony.

I spent the last two days at work making the same points you do in this thread and my coworkers didn't listen either.

Some people love tabloid journalism.

I really feel it was an "inside job," but let's make believe it wasn't. It wasn't Karr, unless -- like your namesake, he had a transporter!

Why else are they going to such lengths to convict this guy?

we find out that is not true..and his x wife says he was with she and her children that christmas day..all day..

this sounds like bogus bullshit to me..and now the media pundits are back tracking ..a little cya going on now!!

as always..

fly

asking a lot of people close to the case a lot of questions. I don't know.

:headbang:
rocknation

dead Iraqi's last month??

this is such bullshit i couldn't watch yesterday i just shut it all down..i am so sick of this bullshit and Americans who buy into it!

desperate housewife mentality..entertainment instead of real news..

the real news is * lied and attacked a nation that we now occupy and last month 3,400+ iraqi's are dead ..in one month..

..and prior to little lord pissy pants illegal war of murder..over 50% of
Iraqi citizens were under the age of 15..so where is the outrage for all the children our nation has murdered in Iraq??

fly

Not to mention they are..."those" people.

:sarcasm:

Or she may not want her children to be known to have a sexual predator murderer for a father.

Stick to the facts and stop helping the msm.

Seriously, I know none of us know exactly what's going on, but we aren't just making stuff up, either.

This IS no child support. He jumped bail on a misdemeanor charge in 1001. No one has seen him since. She divorced him in either 2000 orr 2001, as SOON as he was arrested on child porn charges. She cooperated fully with the cops then, and asked for and was granted a protective order and full custody without visitation rights.

What do his kids have to do with any of this??? They already know their dad is a scumbag.

apparently has been bouncing around since then, intermittently employed, I suspect it's not entirely likely that he kept up on child support payments through the years.

So ativan could have been involved as well- and its got a fairly short half life to boot.

it saves a lot of trouble. i think this guy is a kook with a capital k.

""Karr told investigators he drugged and had sex with the child beauty queen before""

for gawds sakes he assaulted and raped the child!!! there was no sex!!!!

this is SICK!!!!
'having sex' has a connotation of consent. 6 years olds don't do that.

Apparently she had her hymen because they say she didn't have sex, but it looked like a wooden handle had been used somewhere.

in his coffin regardless of what his wife says. HOW could anyone do what he supposedly did w/o someone hearing him? The room JB was left in is not easy to find in the house.

Where the expensive homes let people go through and look at each room. You pay $10 a ticket and it is interesting. He or some pedophile could have been to that and a little girl's room is easy to recognize.

It's a solid alibi, and she has zero reason to protect him, and every reason to want to see him burn.

I am not convinced at all that he is the killer and I won't be unless there is DNA or some other forensic evidence to prove it. People make false confessions all of the time. His ex-wife gives him an alibi that he was in Alabama at the time. He is known to have been obsessed with the case and that is why he could provide details about it. Her autopsy report was online for chrissakes so anyone could have determined what happened to her. He is more likely a very sick, deranged individual, probably an active pedophile that fanatasized that he killed her so much that he wishes he did and may have even convinced himself that he did.

So far all I've read is confession which doesn't impress me and email correspondance with a biased filmmaker who is convinced that the Ramseys were innocent. Show me some real evidence but until then I'll still believe that it was someone in the house that injured her and then there was a cover-up.

The garotte and ransom note were all created within the house. Why would an intruder write a 3 page ransom note (with a first draft)after he was in the house? It doesn't make any sense. You don't get away with these types of crimes without decreasing your risks. Did he write it before he went upstairs to kidnap her or after her dead body was in the basement? And if it is such an after thought to write it then why 3 pages? And how is he a "group of individuals?"

Show me the evidence.

A very nasty place to stay regardless of his guilt or innocence in the Ramsey case, according to the pundits.

arrest warrant. He wasn't arrested as a result of any pending charges or investigations in Thailand.

The "Thailand child porn charges" reported by the MSM were as mythical as the "DNA match" reports.

I guess she would do that regardless, but still the guy sure does look like an accomplice.

And we can't assume that she would just lie to cover him. It was Christmas time. Generally people remember where they were, who they were with and often have contact with others. It can be verified in some way I am sure. They certainly haven't explained how he knew jonbenet, how someone in Alabama killed someone in Colorado, or anything explaining his involvement.

The storyline they are presenting is very odd. He planned to kidnap her but somehow decided to rape her there before they left. Then he accidentally kills her (which is absurd when she had a garotte around her neck and died from strangulation. What could he have expected to have happened?) but instead of just fleeing he decides to write a 3 page ransom note (even having a first draft)? I am skeptical and I don't understand why more people aren't.

Just not sure who.

This is our law enforcement at work and like it or not their actions affect everyone one of us. For the record, they would have arrested Mickey Mouse if he would have confessed to the Ramsey murder.

ding ding...guess a number between 1 and 1 million...dude guesses 118,000 or whatever that exact dollar amount was, which also coincidentally matched the fathers bonus.

P-U to high heaven....my thoughts have ALWAYS been it was a family member, but not the mother or father.

...And the ex-wife said she thought they were in Alabama or Georgia, she couldn't remember.

That is not the storyline anyone is presenting. He didn't say he raped her. He said he wanted to kidnap her and the plan didn't work out, so he killed her "accidentally." A more likely scenario would be that he planned to kidnap her (and thus had a note already written) but the child fought and screamed and so he had to silence her. It seems an awful lot like a copycat crime of the Polly Klaas case that happened in 1993, one that this fellow was apparently obsessed with.

I won't be surprised if he is guilty. But even if he's just a flake, there is still no evidence that the Ramseys did it.

IF this guy did it, I think he wanted to kidnap her & the plan went awry.

I agree also that there is not enough real evidence against the Ramseys.

Who in this country todays trusts the media--you have to look behind the scenes. Police departments can be corrupt--they're not necessarily truthful. All the info out of Thailand is suspect. Karr does have an unsavory record and appears to be a mess but that does not incriminate him. He has to be placed at the scene.

We need more information.

She divorced him as soon as he was arrested on child porn charges, asked for a peotective order, and asked for and was granted full custody with NO visitation rights for John Karr. Not exactly someone who sounds like they have a good relationship with their ex.

I have a great relationship with me ex, but I wouldn't lie to give her an alibi for murder.

Sorry, but that's the American way (allegedly).

He could have been in the Ramsey house at 2 and the crime wouldn't take over 20 minutes, maybe, so he could have left and drove fast to his wife's house, but that is a wild guess, because I don't know how many hours it would take to get to his wife's home. But I am confused whether it happened on Christmas eve night or Christmas night now. I know they had pictures of them opening presents...... I suspect it happened the night of Christmas...probably late at night.

I also think Colonel Custard was in on it.

He lived 30 miles away from where the Ramseys lived in Georgia, before the murder took place (in Colorado).

But still he could have met John by being a substitute teacher. He said he took her home from school, but then the press said that wasn't true. It was a rumor.

I shouldn't decide guilt or innocence. I just think the Ramseys were skewered by the Media. They will probably have a lawsuit if the Ramsey's are proven innocent. Someone ought to sue them just to shut them up. I would like for them to find the killer for other little girls out there he could victimize and to clear the Ramseys.

He certainly didn't live there then. THIRTY MILES? Alabama is farther away than that.

Where are you getting this info from???

verified, London foiled bombing plot is slowly coming apart also...

maybe it's just because i really detest them for putting their six year old child in makeup and making her go to those pageants.

to me that is just so wrong because it ingrains in the child that their self worth derives only from their appearance.

.. has more holes than Rumsfeld's war plans. He might have been involved, but I'm betting he was not a lone killer.

His "confession" is loaded with weasel-words.

Folks, people confess to crimes they did not commit ALL THE TIME.

I'm not buying it until a jury says so, and maybe not even then.

The media distorted it to where Mr. Ramsey wanted a little woman.

JonB looks happy doing those contests. To me it would be like dressing up in your mother's clothes as a child. They sunk a lot of money in those clothes, but they could afford it. I didn't see that much wrong with it. Well to do doting parents showing off their kids. I think if JonB didn't have fun doing it, they would not make her do it. It seemed it was more Patsy into that than him.

But the sick thing is there probably are pedophiles at those contests. But come to think of it they probably go to children's Christmas plays too.

A child can be proud of their looks and their brains too. My daughters are really bright, but when they were in school they were more into clothes, how they looked and boys, even with me trying to tell them their mind and intellect would get them there faster than anything else. Most young people don't really understand until they are in their late thirties, even if you tell them.

And the truth is, most pedophiles target kids who look neglected or from parents who don't have any community support. So the whole idea that these kids, of generally locally influentical parents, would be logical pedophile targets is pretty ludicrous. They may hang around and that should definitely be part of a security strategy, but I would bet most wouldn't have the guts to snatch one of those kids. I think what's been done to this little girl has been a disgrace, I can't believe some of the comments I've read on DU about her.

JB "won" her first at the age of 11 months. Must have been an early talker is all I can figure.

I still find that mind-boggling that they would do that following the brutal murder of their child, even if you're not satisfied with the direction of investigation at that point.

They saw that the police were focusing on them, so they called their friend who was a lawyer.

More people should protect themselves. You don't have to let them search your home or car. You should know anything you say can later be used against you in court, even if you are innocent. You don't have to answer their questions. Just say you want a lawyer.

A lot of people think they have to please the police, but when they are focusing on you, you need to get a lawyer and fast. You aren't going to convince the police that you are innocent. You just need to shut up and get a lawyer.

That is part of our rights.

details.

THey didn't have a sit down with investigators for a long time... and then, THEY got to steer the questioning.

Almost all children who are murdered are killed by a parent or very close family member. As Marc Klass said, he gladly submitted to samples, polygraphs, questioning, EVERYTHING imemdiately... because he knew he was logically the primary suspect, and wanted to help the police with any info that may help, and with clearing himself so they could move on to the real suspect....

Obviously I don't have a clue what's going on with this case, but I did hear this tidbit this morning - that the Thai police were saying he didn't say he drugged her. So I don't know. I do know they'll need new physical evidence to try him, anything short of that won't survive a reasonable doubt challenge. My biggest doubt is his ex, she wouldn't say he was with her if he wasn't. We'll have to see if there's a forgotten Christmas scenario in there somewhere.

Read that report. What parent would kill their child this way? What - if this guy is falsely confessing, there can't be any other suspect? A grand jury already exonerated the parents. Fuck this.

The op brought up a good point, it COULD still be the Ramseys.

Also, grand juries don't determine innocence or guilt.

a person(s). There wasn't even enough evidence to bring them to trial, much less still assume that they are in the realm of suspicion. It's incredible to me how public groupthink can work - how belief feeds on belief - until it's simply irreversable.

They also don't make assumptions about who is or is not a suspect.

Until the crime is solved and/or their innocence is established, they cannot be eliminated.

why even raise the question of guilt or innocence?

The op didn't raise the question, it had already been asked years ago.

innocence - it's the fault of the institutions, in this case the judicial system, for not telling us what we want to hear. How typical of us. We can't accept the blame for our errors of judgment - it's always the fault of some nebulous institution of beings. This entire fiasco is terrible and many lives have been negatively impacted by this vile, vicious public lynching by the public and the media. May you all go to hell.

Your hyperbole is unwarranted and, frankly, quite embarrassing.

Attacking your fellow DUers because you have issues about the Ramsey case is unproductive and unworthy of liberals.

Iow, get a grip.

and like I said in another thread, it won't matter if this guy produces a videotape of the crime, there are people here who will never back off from the unfounded belief that her parents killed her, despite the fact that it makes no logical sense (no history of physical or sexual abuse, she was doted on and well taken care of), there is no evidence whatsoever, DNA cleared them both in 2003 and found DNA of an unidentified male. But it will never matter. To some people, their pride is more important than the truth.

There are also people here who make up their own facts, you know, like declaring DNA cleared the Ramseys.




What does "logical sense" have to do with the facts of this case?




To others, rumours and hyperbole are more important than the truth.

the MSM didn't shout this from the rooftops, naturally, since they were the ones desperate to convict them. you really have to be a simpleton to believe the Ramseys were involved. it's clear the police had an agenda to convict them and did not do their jobs.

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_228201643.html

In 2003, U.S. District Judge Julie Carnes in Atlanta concluded that the evidence she reviewed suggested an intruder killed JonBenet. That opinion came with the judge's decision to dismiss a libel and slander lawsuit against the Ramseys by a freelance journalist, who the Ramseys had named as a suspect in their daughter's murder. The Boulder district attorney at the time said she agreed with Carnes' declaration.

The couple wrote a book, "The Death of Innocence," which was published in 2000.

They later left Colorado and had residences in Atlanta and in Michigan, where John Ramsey unsuccessfully ran for a state House seat in 2004. The Ramseys discussed their daughter's death during the campaign.

"We can't just hold our breath and hope the killer will be found and then go on with our lives," Patsy Ramsey said in 2004. "We have to move ahead now. We can't let evil win."

A 2005 CBS News 48 Hours report found that DNA evidence ruled out the parents as suspects and investigators were no longer focusing on the Ramsey family.

http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/features/leader/display.var.884068.0.the_killing_of_little_miss_sunburst.php

As technology advanced, hopes were pinned on the case being solved using DNA evidence. Although the scene of the crime had been trampled over - or cleaned by 'helpful' friends - a tiny pin prick of JonBenet's blood had been found on her underwear mixed with the DNA of a Caucasian male. In December 2003, a DNA profile was extracted. No one in the Ramsey family was a match.

Even better, stick to the facts of the case instead of patronizing tabloids and helping them spread disinformation.

I guess it must be difficult for someone who calls people who post the facts in these threads " people who so vehemently defend pedophiles" to understand why some of us are trying to stop the rumour-mongers.


You seem to be extremely emotionally invested in this case.

That must be why you think a tv news magazine has the power to clear the Ramseys.

with both of you

to indict, as you point out... but there is also enough other evidence to clear in this case. that comes down from law enforcement, not grand juries and in this case, law enforcement was willing to do anything to pin this on the parents.

The Ramseys haven't been cleared because there isn't enough evidence to rule out their involvement.

Just like I said, the left has it's own tabloid news sources.

lala? hey now...

had said. Now they say he didn't actually say he drugged her. And the "picked her up at school" bit seemed to come from the investigator not Karr. From CBS's site:

Lt. Gen. Suwat Tumrongsiskul of the Thai immigration police changed some details Friday of the account he had given of what Karr told investigators. In a telephone interview Thursday with The Associated Press, Suwat quoted Karr as saying he had sexually assaulted the girl and given her drugs. He also told reporters before a news conference Thursday that Karr had claimed to have picked up JonBenet at her school.

On Friday, Suwat confirmed to the AP his account of the sexual assault. But asked Friday if Karr gave the girl drugs, Suwat said the suspect described the encounter with JonBenet Ramsey as "a blur."

"It may have been drugs, or it may have been something else because (Karr said) it was a blur, blur," Suwat said.

Suwat also said Friday his statement about the girl being picked up from school was based on a documentary he had seen and not the interrogation. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/18/national/main1909650.shtml

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/16.html

Ramsey attorney Lin Wood called Thomas's move to keep the deposition private "the height of hypocrisy: This is a man who has written a book accusing my clients of murder. Steve Thomas does not want the public to know the truth. When truth comes out, the people who were attacking the Ramseys want to run from the truth. Wood said that the Ramseys wanted "everything put on the table and the murder file made public."

Following those instructions, Wood subpoenaed files held by Thomas that related to the investigation, including police reports.

Attorneys for Thomas assert that "their client's deposition is confidential based on sections of the confidentiality order entered by U.S. District Court Judge Julie E. Carnes in Atlanta."

Attorney Wood later told the Daily Camera, "It is my clear belief that when the public learns about his testimony, they will realize Steve Thomas ... would have been fired in 1997, probably prosecuted, without question disgraced and would not have been in a position to write a book and make hundreds of thousand of dollars."

He has been charged with NO crime, either in Thailand or the US, and is only being deported, not extradited. There si a huge legal difference there.

Their were pubic hairs in her underwear and skin under her fingernails with DNA that didn't match the Dad or Mom.

Sorry, I just don't think they had anything to do with it.

And is a reason why there wasn't anything substantial with which they could even indict the parents. It's just ardent, rabid, irrational belief of many in the American public.

There is no motive. There is no evidence. There is, however, a great deal more evidence pointing to someone inside the police department than there is toward the Ramseys.

Having no DNA match alone doesn't prove or disprove ANYONE'S theory.

if i scratch someone, the pieces of skin tissue, tiny, found under my nails would not only show that it was foreign to me, but that it was acquired in a specific way. in other words, if I simply dipped my hands in skin tissue, the evidence would show that the tissue found under my nails was acquired in a way not consistent with scratching.

secondly, to think that any one of us has foreign pubic hair and body fluids simply laying around on our panties is absurd. honestly, if it was that common, then it would not be important. even the bizarre Duke rape case, in which several people either raped or had sex with the alleged victim, yielded a single specimen and not fully enough to form a complete profile.

You missed my point... but I think you understood my point.

;)

the brother did it. Pushed aside while little sister gained all the glory and attention of the parents. Mom knew he did it and covered up the crime. Of course I don't have a clue if the brother did it or not but it was the first thought that went through my pea sized brain when this all happened ten years ago.

placed pieces of skin under the little girl's finger nails, and some very specific dna materials in her panties? oh, and he was under 10 at the time.

and if mom covered up the crime, how then did mom go about getting this other dna evidence found under the child's fingernails and insider her panties?

You must be privy to the inside scoop. In other wards you don't know shit the same as me.

giggle

does that come with a gift bag by chance?

I saw a lot of case disinfo listed here and again, as it did before, the nagging question I have is why the police went to such lengths to incriminate the family leaking information they new to be false?

For example, the "visiting of a porno shop" by the father, without ever naming the shop or the date? Or the leaking of the "handwriting match" nonsense, when it was not true? It is one thing to suspect someone so much that in private, comments are stated based on one's own "gut" or something like that. But to actually point to evidence that did not exist would suggest to me that someone should have been looking at the police, not at the Ramsey's.

My gut has always pointed me in the direction of motive. If the parent's had molested her, there would be evidence of past abuse. There was none, as her own doctor and the coroner both attested to. The DNA evidence found on the child is not from a family member. Yet the police refused to scream this from the roof tops. Instead, they quietly let that part of the investigation simply go quietly into the night.

So the parents did not in the past molest her, at least not in any visible way and foreign DNA was found in her panties. Next, the child was strangled in a very bizarre way, using a rope and a piece of wood to slowly tighten it. This to me suggests that the person who killed the child was getting off on strangling her not on raping her. If the killer wanted to simply strangle the child, then the killer would have simply tightened the rope quickly or used their hands. But the slow turning of the stick would suggest a sexual fixation on the murder itself. That was never looked at by the police.

The note does not match the writing of any family member. The "missing footprint" that should have been there but was not is a total disinfo leak. There was no snow on their driveway, per pictures shown widely at the time. Yet the police kept insisting that there should have been a footprint.

The police claimed that she was found in some odd secret room. Not so, like with any mansion, the size of the place is of course considerable, there was no "secret room." The window to the basement was broken before Christmas. Yet again, the police did not leak these pieces of information, only information that was not true. Again, it is not that they simply speculated to journos, but they actually cited evidence that was not true or present. And when they did cite something truthful, like "there was no footprint" for example, they left out easily explainable reasons, such as "there was no snow on their driveway."

These are but a few examples. But consider that John had two grown children from a previous marriage, and a son from his second with Patsy. All three of the children were analyzed by experts and found all of them to be normal, that is "not abused" kids.

Yes, some of us find it odd that a little girl would be in pageants, but in certain money circles, that is the same thing as going to the right kind of school or joining the right kind of fraternity.

The parents did not appear to have a motive either. If it were a sexual thing, then okay. But there is 0 evidence to support that. So what motive could they have?

Now look at the actions of the police. What motive could they have had? Although this is not remotely my specialty, I have always believed that someone in that police department knows damn well what happened and acted to cover it up by planting false information in the press, tampering with evidence, and so forth.

Just my two cents. I know everyone has said that the police were simply incompetent, but incompetence and actual lying about non-existent evidence are two different things.

I have thought for a long time that the family's attorney's should have demanded that each officer provide DNA evidence. That is how convinced I am. But again, this is not my specialty and so my 2 cents is worth hardly a penny.

Claiming one of the cops is the killer, eh?

Oh boy.

Can you say "hypocrite", children?

I knew you could.

;)

we need a Mr. Rogers smilie

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

there is so much mythology around this story it's just impossible to know what to believe.

I agree with you that it has never been shown that the family members had a motive. That stops me too. In cases I'm familiar with, where the family member WAS the killer, there were a lot of clues to that. I'm just not convinced in this case. It's so hard to get around all the hype and disinformation put forth in the media.

As for the police, they could have cast the doubts just to get themselves off the hook for incompetence,
couldn't they?--since this thing was so magnified. They didn't necessarily have to be covering up for the criminal, they might have been covering up the fact that they blew it so badly.

have overstepped their bounds in effort to make themselves look competent, they continued obstructing the case.

John & Patsy refused to be interviewed seperately. Ever. Successfully. WHY? J & P hired the best criminal defense att'ys (ONE FOR EACH. WEIRD.) the day after the murder, and hired a PR firm as well. WHY? J & P "looked all over the house" for the child but forgot the room she was in? Huh? There's more but these facts are enough, imo. btw, he ransom letter analysis was inconclusive re: Patsy's writing.

Had J or P killed her I do not believe they'd have gone these long 10 years without one turning the other in...or at least divorcing.

I think Burke did it. Accidentally. They covered it up. Then it all makes sense. To me, as a parent, their actions were in no way justifiable but they are understandable.

I ran into John Ramsey on Grand Cayman a year after JonBenet died. He was staying at the Marriot w/ Patsy, and I recognized him immediately. They's come in on a private plane Sunday night and left Wednesday morning. The next week they issued a press release which announced that due to the investigation & their expenses, they had no assets or cash left whatsoever. LMAO.

p.s. the police & DA did an atrocious job. No argument there.

what about the DNA--it didn't match anybody at the house right? I just can't remember the details that far back.

Seems to me much harder to cover up an accident by creating a violent strangling death than to just call it an accident. If you were traumatized by the accidental death of your beloved child, would you be capable of doing all that? When children are killed in play it isn't blamed on a 9-year-old usually. Wouldn't they just have wanted their son to have therapy and recover from such a horrible experience? I just don't get the point of trying to cover up an accident by such means--far more traumatic for the whole family. Maybe they weren't the best parents, but do we have any evidence that they could have been temporarily insane enough to hatch a Hollywood plot like that? I'm receptive to any evidence pointing to the fact that they were both complete nutjobs. :shrug:

We DO know that families who value the image of perfection will do anything to protect their own. Look at the Bush family.

Fibers from Patsy's boots were found on the duct tape, on the sticky side which was attached to JB's skin. Their story does not add up from start to finish.

to protect their own."

Damn good point.

have planted some DNA (knowing that of course they'd look for it)? It would be easy to pick some up fibers with duct tape.

I'm guess I'm just not getting why this would be "protection" of a son. So much easier to deal with an accident. So hard to create an elaborate set-up, especially if you are traumatized, which they would be in the case of accident. I don't see how they'd have come up with that scheme on the spur of the moment. Cold-bloodedly strangling their daughter's dead body and cracking her skull? YUK. I can't imagine even the most demented of indulgent parents doing that "for their son."

Families who value the image of perfection are a dime a dozen in this country. I understand how many of them would work behind the scenes to cover up scandal or crimes, just like the Bushies. I get that and don't disagree, but is what has happened to the Ramseys a cover-up? Surely they would know they would all be implicated in a crime. I mean, you wouldn't stage a crime to keep things QUIET? As for the urge to overprotect their children --parents who do that excessively are a dime a dozen. I'm surrounded by them. Affluent parents who get into all sorts of "stage mom (and Dad)" stuff, from sports such as ice-dancing and gymnastics to soccer and Little League and hockey. I see alot of obsessive, incredibly indulgent parents who would fly to the moon for their children. But that doesn't mean they are completely insane. Would they be nuts enough to stage a murder? Is there ANY other evidence to think that the Ramseys were THAT messed up?

I don't mean to be argumentative. Just throwing stuff out...I really wasnt able to pay attention to this case at the time, so I'm sure I'm missing some of the details. But it seems to me just on the surface of it here, that 'Who Killed JonBenet' is still very much an open question. My main interest is in how the legal system works or doesnt work in this country. I have seen some shocking things. Just trying to analyze this as an objective investigator would, starting from "What do we really KNOW for sure?"

I don't think anyone in the "inside circle" necessarily murdered Jon-Benet... but I think one of them killed her.

lent to them because the company bought his software company or something... not sure, but i remember something like that about the plane.

he's still a much better liar than the Ramseys.
How anybody who saw their long interviews through the
years could believe a word out of their mouths is beyond me.

:think: