Comments
461 - 480 of 779 Comments Last updated Sep 22, 2013

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#490
Aug 23, 2013
 
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I am not side stepping and you misunderstand what I have stated. I don't think they ever considered removing the body. I think that was something out of the equation from the very beginning and given the extremely limited choices facing them, they chose the one that eventually became this case
Once they fake a kidnapping and get the authorities believing that someone other than a Ramsey committed this crime, anything else that may have been discovered, just as it remains today, leaves doubt as to WHO abused her.
There was more to cover up than just her death.
What may be absurd to one may not be to another and like I said, we can just agree to disagree
IMO, there was no intruder at all and if one had to hatch a plan to throw off the authorities as to the inside story of this family and that night, a kidnapping is not that absurd. How they did it was absurd, but as it turned out, successful in that it is still unsolved and nobody has had to face justice for that night
Oh, I understand what you’re saying. Yes, I disagree with you, but I disagree with grounds.

I don’t think this is a matter of “what may be absurd to one may not be to another.” A ransom note and dead body in the house are contradictory; they don’t belong together, it doesn’t make sense. In other words it’s absurd; to everyone. One may make absurd decisions and perform absurd acts, etc; but they’re still absurd.

Agree to disagree is fine, and no worries if you wish to bow out of this discussion, but I think I’m just going to carry on.

I am wondering about this,“Once they fake a kidnapping and get the authorities believing that someone other than a Ramsey committed this crime…”

This is another stumbling block for me. What crime? All we have is some explosive encounter (the head blow). At that point there was no crime – no murder by asphyxiation, no sexual molestation. So, what crime? This too is absurd, the idea that they committed murder to cover up an accident (or, something that they could have called an accident) and then faked a kidnapping to explain the (dead body in the house) murder that they committed to cover up an accident.


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#491
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Spice Pond wrote:
<quoted text>
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/1168...
You can find it in this article yourself if the wood dust from peckering hasn't blinded you. You might question my POST but since this is the article where I found the quoted data, I suggest you do your own research and look it up without my leading you to the exact spot.
There was never an attempt to FACTUALLY connect the bruise seen on JB to abuse; it was pointed out to show the possibility does exist since several doctors who are experts in the field say that JB WAS BEING MOLESTED PRIOR TO HER MURDER and one of them pointed out that such bruising can indicate a child being sexually abused! Or is it to be dismissed simply because there is no direct, factual connection?(I'll have to remember that at other times, like how -- according to another RDI -- when Patsy lied to John's ex-girlfriend when girlfriend was stalking him, it shows she's mentally unbalanced! Which by the way, I suggest he PROVE FACTUALLY that that incident can be connected to his claim that Patsy was mentally unbalanced and give a source for it.)
You're welcome (in advance).
You might argue that the bruise is consistent with abuse, but it is not evidence of abuse and it is also consistent with many, more innocent explanations.


AK
Spice Pond

Mobile, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#492
Aug 24, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
You might argue that the bruise is consistent with abuse, but it is not evidence of abuse and it is also consistent with many, more innocent explanations.

AK
I believe I never mentioned the word "evidence" in the discussion.

I used the word "supporting", when I said, "There is quite a bit of data supporting what I stated regarding the prior molestation inflicted upon JonBenet."

Later, I quoted Dr. Gardner's statement, "...Grab marks on the arms and inner thighs are also strongly SUGGESTIVE of sex abuse,..."

Finally, my last remark, "the POSSIBILITY does exist since several doctors who are experts in the field say that JB WAS BEING MOLESTED PRIOR TO HER MURDER and one of them pointed out that SUCH BRUISING CAN INDICATE a child being sexually abused!"

So if you're suggesting that I should have used the word "consistent" rather than "supporting", "indicate", "suggestive", or "possibility", then I'll agree your word could have been used, but I don't see that it describes what I was conveying any differently than the words I used. Especially since I NEVER used the word "evidence" and I was very careful NOT to use that word since I was aware that had I done so, it would have been made an issue.

Insofar as the bruise being consistent with many more innocent explanations, why should I have to point this out? I was talking about only one explanation of many. Even Dr. Gardner didn't find it necessary to point out his term, "suggestive", wasn't the ONLY explanation.

So I don't really understand why you found it necessary to emphasize something that should have been obvious.

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#494
Aug 24, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Legal__Eagle wrote:
What 6 year old hasn't had a bruise?
Dr. Gardner's statement is correct.
The photo of JBR is correct.
But from there on in - never the 'twain shall meet. If the two can be FACTUALLY connected to each other, I request the pond poster list that source instead of posting 'leading' information. TIA - no need for me to wait for that answer, LMAO!
Hi there LE

I don't know any child who hasn't had their share of bumps and bruises. In this case, first of all, wiki is an IDI website where many omissions can be found and misinformation can be found way more than plain information. I am unfortunately, all too familiar with the wiki and its founder

That is for starters

Second, bruising is just one of many indicators of many things and abuse is more likely indicated in a child's behavior when it involves BEDWETTING and other tell tale signs.

When the wiki is pulled out as a source after all these years as some sort of PROOF of anything, it needs to be corrected.

The wiki may be good for names and dates but not much more as far as true, unbiased information goes.

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#495
Aug 24, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I understand what you’re saying. Yes, I disagree with you, but I disagree with grounds.
I don’t think this is a matter of “what may be absurd to one may not be to another.” A ransom note and dead body in the house are contradictory; they don’t belong together, it doesn’t make sense. In other words it’s absurd; to everyone. One may make absurd decisions and perform absurd acts, etc; but they’re still absurd.
Agree to disagree is fine, and no worries if you wish to bow out of this discussion, but I think I’m just going to carry on.
I am wondering about this,“Once they fake a kidnapping and get the authorities believing that someone other than a Ramsey committed this crime…”
This is another stumbling block for me. What crime? All we have is some explosive encounter (the head blow). At that point there was no crime – no murder by asphyxiation, no sexual molestation. So, what crime? This too is absurd, the idea that they committed murder to cover up an accident (or, something that they could have called an accident) and then faked a kidnapping to explain the (dead body in the house) murder that they committed to cover up an accident.

AK
It's not a matter of bowing out of the discussion. It's a matter of refusal to accept all the possibilities; something you have chosen to do with a sweeping "it doesn't make sense" comment

What crime? The death of JBR is a crime no matter who did it. The cover up of something like this is also a crime no matter who did it.

If it was an accident that resulted in death, sort of like "child abuse leading to death", it certainly does explain the lengths that the Ramseys went to in order to protect another child whether you care to accept that possibility or not.

What makes "sense" after all these years may not have made sense during a time of real crisis and the future of a family. At times like these, things that make "sense" are what keeps the family out of jail/youth hostel, etc. and nobody can argue that the family did not go to jail and the person they protected has gone on to lead a life without bars!

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#496
Aug 24, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi there LE
I don't know any child who hasn't had their share of bumps and bruises. In this case, first of all, wiki is an IDI website where many omissions can be found and misinformation can be found way more than plain information. I am unfortunately, all too familiar with the wiki and its founder
That is for starters
Second, bruising is just one of many indicators of many things and abuse is more likely indicated in a child's behavior when it involves BEDWETTING and other tell tale signs.
When the wiki is pulled out as a source after all these years as some sort of PROOF of anything, it needs to be corrected.
The wiki may be good for names and dates but not much more as far as true, unbiased information goes.
Don't be fooled. Conversation was interspersed with actual quotes to give more weight to the conversation and tug on the nose ring of the conspiracy people. Nothing more, nothing less and certainly nothing new.

Even the part coming back on to defend it isn't new.
Readers 1
Writer 0
That is what happens with weak arguments, they need bolstering at every turn.

And you are correct on the wiki as well, good for some things and horrible for others. It could have been a great unofficial "source of sorts" if updated, but it is so out of date it hardly counts any more.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#497
Aug 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Spice Pond wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe I never mentioned the word "evidence" in the discussion.
I used the word "supporting", when I said, "There is quite a bit of data supporting what I stated regarding the prior molestation inflicted upon JonBenet."
Later, I quoted Dr. Gardner's statement, "...Grab marks on the arms and inner thighs are also strongly SUGGESTIVE of sex abuse,..."
Finally, my last remark, "the POSSIBILITY does exist since several doctors who are experts in the field say that JB WAS BEING MOLESTED PRIOR TO HER MURDER and one of them pointed out that SUCH BRUISING CAN INDICATE a child being sexually abused!"
So if you're suggesting that I should have used the word "consistent" rather than "supporting", "indicate", "suggestive", or "possibility", then I'll agree your word could have been used, but I don't see that it describes what I was conveying any differently than the words I used. Especially since I NEVER used the word "evidence" and I was very careful NOT to use that word since I was aware that had I done so, it would have been made an issue.
Insofar as the bruise being consistent with many more innocent explanations, why should I have to point this out? I was talking about only one explanation of many. Even Dr. Gardner didn't find it necessary to point out his term, "suggestive", wasn't the ONLY explanation.
So I don't really understand why you found it necessary to emphasize something that should have been obvious.
You’re using evidence to support your position. Dr. Gardner's statement is evidence.“Quite a bit of data” is evidence you use. However, evidence “of” and evidence “consistent with” are two different things. Jonbenet’s bruise is not evidence “of” abuse, it is merely “consistent with” abuse, but it is also consistent with many, more innocent explanations. IOW’s this bruise does not support your position because it is merely “consistent” with and not evidence “of.”


AK

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#498
Aug 24, 2013
 
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a matter of bowing out of the discussion. It's a matter of refusal to accept all the possibilities; something you have chosen to do with a sweeping "it doesn't make sense" comment
What crime? The death of JBR is a crime no matter who did it. The cover up of something like this is also a crime no matter who did it.
If it was an accident that resulted in death, sort of like "child abuse leading to death", it certainly does explain the lengths that the Ramseys went to in order to protect another child whether you care to accept that possibility or not.
What makes "sense" after all these years may not have made sense during a time of real crisis and the future of a family. At times like these, things that make "sense" are what keeps the family out of jail/youth hostel, etc. and nobody can argue that the family did not go to jail and the person they protected has gone on to lead a life without bars!
I think that you have it backwards. I am considering a multitude of possibilities and rejecting one on the grounds it contradicts (makes absurd) the need at hand. You on the other hand seem to be rejecting a multitude of possibilities and considering only one, the one that contradicts what was needed.

If this all began with the head blow, then AT THAT TIME there was no crime. Even if the blow was intentional, the end result was not and the head blow could have been explained away in a multitude of ways, none of which would include a murder, a sexual assault and a fake kidnapping!


AK

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#499
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

4

2

2

Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that you have it backwards. I am considering a multitude of possibilities and rejecting one on the grounds it contradicts (makes absurd) the need at hand. You on the other hand seem to be rejecting a multitude of possibilities and considering only one, the one that contradicts what was needed.
If this all began with the head blow, then AT THAT TIME there was no crime. Even if the blow was intentional, the end result was not and the head blow could have been explained away in a multitude of ways, none of which would include a murder, a sexual assault and a fake kidnapping!

AK
There is also the possibility, whether anyone chooses to entertain it or not that a head blow, accident or not, that resulted in a death gets far more attention than a tsk tsk from the authorities

The Ramseys were not going to allow that to happen to their other son Burke (IMO) and went to extreme lengths to keep him protected and out of the immediate picture.

You, not unlike myself, have rejected any possibility that would include the Ramseys in this incident/crime/accident, etc.

"Someone" left a ransom note ALONG with a body and while that doesn't make sense to YOU, "someone" did it. There is no reason to just assume it wasn't a Ramsey because it doesn't make sense to you.

What sense would it make for an intruder to leave a HANDWRITTEN note AND a body? It makes less sense for an intruder than for the Ramseys
Spice Pond

Mobile, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#500
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
There is also the possibility, whether anyone chooses to entertain it or not that a head blow, accident or not, that resulted in a death gets far more attention than a tsk tsk from the authorities
The Ramseys were not going to allow that to happen to their other son Burke (IMO) and went to extreme lengths to keep him protected and out of the immediate picture.
Most RDI's claim that the Ramseys did NOT go to extreme lengths to keep him protected and that is why they say there was no murderer on the loose.
Capricorn wrote:
You, not unlike myself, have rejected any possibility that would include the Ramseys in this incident/crime/accident, etc.
"Someone" left a ransom note ALONG with a body and while that doesn't make sense to YOU, "someone" did it. There is no reason to just assume it wasn't a Ramsey because it doesn't make sense to you.
What sense would it make for an intruder to leave a HANDWRITTEN note AND a body? It makes less sense for an intruder than for the Ramseys
It makes a lot of sense when thinking about it rationally. The intruder spent his idle time while awaiting the family's return, copying the ransom note from the draft he had with him (with a few revisions of his own since he hadn't drawn up the draft.)

And at the time he wrote the note, it didn't matter to him that he would be leaving the body since the crime was not a kidnapping at all. He was there for one reason only and it was not to kidnap JB.

IMO, he could have planned it to end in her death or he could have been there only to cover up the prior molestation.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#501
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

4

He wasn't there at all.

If you can PROVE otherwise, please post the EVIDENCE.

;)
"the Legal Eagle"
Spice Pond

Mobile, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#502
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Legal__Eagle wrote:
He wasn't there at all.
If you can PROVE otherwise, please post the EVIDENCE.
;)
"the Legal Eagle"
The person who wrote the ransom note had to have been there. And the only person NAMED AS THE WRITER OF THE RANSOM NOTE by at least 5 handwriting experts was John Mark Karr. Not one expert NAMED anyone else as being the writer IN THEIR EXPERT OPINION.

What evidence do YOU have that anyone else killed her? Just saying someone who lived there HAD TO HAVE KILLED HER, is ludicrous. You can watch different true crime shows time and again and see cases in which homes are entered and items are stolen where there is no PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of a break-in or of an intruder.

Just last night on CNN there was a story of a brutal killing of an entire family by a young punk who, with his partner, were caught leaving a murder scene. Later, police found that besides numerous auto and home burglaries, in one case in which there was no evidence of a home being entered, the punk stayed in the home for hours, going from room to room just to look at the occupants and watch them breathe as they slept. In fact, they found it was common for him to break in homes and just stay around for hours because he got some type satisfaction in doing it.

And Quintana Shotts Karr has stated when she was married to Karr, she found stacks of women's shoes, purses, and other female apparel in their basement. When she inquired about them Karr skirted around the issue, but the next time she went into the basement, all the items had been removed. It's obvious all the items weren't stolen from clotheslines so IMO this backs up Karr's claim that on numerous occasions he broke into homes without the residents' knowledge.

Simply because the bungling Boulder Police didn't find any physical evidence of someone breaking into the Ramsey home or even of an intruder having been there, it does NOT mean it didn't happen. And that is ALL you have to base your claim of someone already inside the house killing her.

Show me some physical evidence that ANYONE ALREADY INSIDE THE HOUSE that night killed her.

All any of you have is speculation and conjecture -- with NO HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to back you up.

Show me where there was a certified handwriting expert who NAMED Patsy as the writer of the note.

Show me where there was a certified HANDWRITING/LINGUISTICS EXPERT who identified and named Patsy Ramsey as the writer of the ransom note. You can't because none has. One such expert DID name John Mark Karr as the writer.

And finally, although many attempts have been made to show just WHERE Karr was that night thus giving him an iron-clad alibi, NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO SO. And THIS is the gold-standard when eliminating someone as a suspect -- the FIRST thing that investigators do when ascertaining IF A SUSPECT was the killer. With Karr, they've NEVER been able to eliminate him because of HAVING PROOF THAT HE WAS ELSEWHERE AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER.
soontobecut

Northcote, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#503
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

They don't have proof I was elsewhere at the time either
Just Wondering

Beckley, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#504
Aug 25, 2013
 
Spice Pond wrote:
<quoted text>
The person who wrote the ransom note had to have been there. And the only person NAMED AS THE WRITER OF THE RANSOM NOTE by at least 5 handwriting experts was John Mark Karr. Not one expert NAMED anyone else as being the writer IN THEIR EXPERT OPINION.
What evidence do YOU have that anyone else killed her? Just saying someone who lived there HAD TO HAVE KILLED HER, is ludicrous. You can watch different true crime shows time and again and see cases in which homes are entered and items are stolen where there is no PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of a break-in or of an intruder.
Just last night on CNN there was a story of a brutal killing of an entire family by a young punk who, with his partner, were caught leaving a murder scene. Later, police found that besides numerous auto and home burglaries, in one case in which there was no evidence of a home being entered, the punk stayed in the home for hours, going from room to room just to look at the occupants and watch them breathe as they slept. In fact, they found it was common for him to break in homes and just stay around for hours because he got some type satisfaction in doing it.
And Quintana Shotts Karr has stated when she was married to Karr, she found stacks of women's shoes, purses, and other female apparel in their basement. When she inquired about them Karr skirted around the issue, but the next time she went into the basement, all the items had been removed. It's obvious all the items weren't stolen from clotheslines so IMO this backs up Karr's claim that on numerous occasions he broke into homes without the residents' knowledge.
Simply because the bungling Boulder Police didn't find any physical evidence of someone breaking into the Ramsey home or even of an intruder having been there, it does NOT mean it didn't happen. And that is ALL you have to base your claim of someone already inside the house killing her.
Show me some physical evidence that ANYONE ALREADY INSIDE THE HOUSE that night killed her.
All any of you have is speculation and conjecture -- with NO HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to back you up.
Show me where there was a certified handwriting expert who NAMED Patsy as the writer of the note.
Show me where there was a certified HANDWRITING/LINGUISTICS EXPERT who identified and named Patsy Ramsey as the writer of the ransom note. You can't because none has. One such expert DID name John Mark Karr as the writer.
And finally, although many attempts have been made to show just WHERE Karr was that night thus giving him an iron-clad alibi, NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO SO. And THIS is the gold-standard when eliminating someone as a suspect -- the FIRST thing that investigators do when ascertaining IF A SUSPECT was the killer. With Karr, they've NEVER been able to eliminate him because of HAVING PROOF THAT HE WAS ELSEWHERE AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER.
Hasn't it been proven that Mr. Karr was completely unaware of certain things about the crime and the crime scene that the murderer would have known? If he was truly the perpetrator of the crime, why the misinformation? Why not FULLY confess and prove his "bragging rights"?

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#505
Aug 25, 2013
 
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
There is also the possibility, whether anyone chooses to entertain it or not that a head blow, accident or not, that resulted in a death gets far more attention than a tsk tsk from the authorities
The Ramseys were not going to allow that to happen to their other son Burke (IMO) and went to extreme lengths to keep him protected and out of the immediate picture.
You, not unlike myself, have rejected any possibility that would include the Ramseys in this incident/crime/accident, etc.
"Someone" left a ransom note ALONG with a body and while that doesn't make sense to YOU, "someone" did it. There is no reason to just assume it wasn't a Ramsey because it doesn't make sense to you.
What sense would it make for an intruder to leave a HANDWRITTEN note AND a body? It makes less sense for an intruder than for the Ramseys
It’s hard to imagine something that could have gotten more attention than what you’re proposing! Good grief. An accident means lying and not much more than that and no reason for Burke to be included in it.

I never said that it doesn’t make sense to me that someone would leave a ransom note and a dead body in the house. In fact, I’ve offered a few scenarios to explain such a thing. I am saying that it doesn’t make sense to leave a ransom note if you are trying to explain a dead body in the house.

I reject the Ramseys staging a fake kidnapping because it contradicts what the Ramseys or ANYONE in such a position would have been trying to do.

I’ve entertained and am willing to entertain all manner of explanation and possibility, but I tend to reject the absurd and those that are not supported by evidence or reason.


AK
Spice Pond

Mobile, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#506
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Hasn't it been proven that Mr. Karr was completely unaware of certain things about the crime and the crime scene that the murderer would have known? If he was truly the perpetrator of the crime, why the misinformation? Why not FULLY confess and prove his "bragging rights"?
To my knowledge, there was never any proof of his being unaware of certain things about the crime and crime scene. Can you be more specific? On the contrary, I believe he TOLD of SOME things that, at the time, had not been public knowledge.

He was challenged to give up information regarding things that could directly tie him to the crime but in looking at WHY he refused, it's easy to see that he avoids directly linking himself to the crime. Why would he give details that would mean the death chamber for him?

He confessed giving his claim that it was an accident. But he didn't want to risk being charged with an intentional, premeditated crime -- which I believe it was.

He's crazy alright, but not stupid!
Spice Pond

Mobile, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#507
Aug 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Karr told me that his one mistake in committing the crime was in leaving the ransom note. Not for the reasons one might think. But because, he said, it is the ONLY physical evidence LE has that connects him to the crime. And by "physical evidence", he's talking about the handwriting which has led to him.

In MY scenario, he left the ransom note after copying it from a draft given to him. And the purpose of the note was to chastise John Ramsey in ways that wouldn't give away WHO was chiding him nor WHY. And that is why IMO there has been such confusion and speculation about the note.

And yet Karr insists that he acted alone. To me, the ransom note is the evidence of his NOT having acted alone. HE did not carry around with him all the resentment toward John Ramsey which was reflected in the note, which is fairly clear. But it was important to his co-conspirator that the ransom note be left since it spoke to all his feelings about JR.

But Karr overlooks his own loose lips in speaking so frequently to anyone who would listen about his involvement. And remember his claim, "To be close to a 6-year-old, one has to have a connection in the family." (paraphrashing)

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#508
Aug 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Hasn't it been proven that Mr. Karr was completely unaware of certain things about the crime and the crime scene that the murderer would have known? If he was truly the perpetrator of the crime, why the misinformation? Why not FULLY confess and prove his "bragging rights"?
Yes and he got information wrong as well like he picked JBR up from school - untrue. And for those DNA lovers, his DNA was tested and it was not a match. The whole problem with JMK is that HE can't prove he was there any more than anyone else can. HE can't prove he knew the family ahead of time any more than anyone else can. Why is that? Because he didn't do it.

There aren't many who are still trying to ride the Karr train, but fortunate for you, the ones who do are here and will continue to perpetrate their conspiracy theory and post the same misinformation over and over again, thread after thread.

The pond poster brings up one of his wives found women's clothing in the basement alluding that is some kind of evidence of some kind, when he is currently living as a woman now, and those tendencies didn't happen overnight.

Everything the pond person is posting now has been posted over and over. There is nothing new, just the same old conspiracy over and over. Good luck with your decision to accept or reject it!

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#509
Aug 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Good point LE

Many men going through whatever JMK was going through with his gender and sexuality issues, have their own stash and supply of womens' clothing for themselves and that is not a crime, nor suspicious in his case. It's very common for cross dressers/pre gender ops, etc.

As for the DNA matching, while I think it is a red herring and a result of transfer, along with the fact that the DNA report is still secret to hide all the Ramsey DNA that was found IMO, had JMK done everything to JBR that he claimed, including oral sex, his DNA would have been found. It wasn't

The DNA, Gigax, Karr, Helgoth, White, and all the other names are nothing more than red herrings to throw out so that the Ramsey name is not thrown out in the "majority" of those who throw out these names as still viable suspects.

“YES”

Since: Mar 07

TWICE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#510
Aug 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
It’s hard to imagine something that could have gotten more attention than what you’re proposing! Good grief. An accident means lying and not much more than that and no reason for Burke to be included in it.
I never said that it doesn’t make sense to me that someone would leave a ransom note and a dead body in the house. In fact, I’ve offered a few scenarios to explain such a thing. I am saying that it doesn’t make sense to leave a ransom note if you are trying to explain a dead body in the house.
I reject the Ramseys staging a fake kidnapping because it contradicts what the Ramseys or ANYONE in such a position would have been trying to do.
I’ve entertained and am willing to entertain all manner of explanation and possibility, but I tend to reject the absurd and those that are not supported by evidence or reason.

AK
An "accident" would have still required an autopsy and the sexual abuse would have been discovered. What you also may be failing to realize is that since nobody knows for sure whether the head blow came first or the strangulation, it is pretty difficult to explain a cracked skull as an "accident". It is very difficult to crack the skull in an accident of a fall within the house and a small child of JBR's size would have had to have one helluva fall in that house to explain an "accident". Had they said that there was some sort of altercation with Burke and he did it out of anger, there would still be an autopsy with "discovery" of sexual abuse and Burke still would have been focused on with lots more than an interview, even as an "accident"

The ransom note AND a body gives the Ramseys an out as to why there was vaginal damage. The ransom note AND a body gives the crime scene a chance to be destroyed while the police are waiting for a ransom call. The ransom note AND a body precludes them from having to explain away an "accident" and protects the culprit; at least initially.

As it turned out, by the time the authorities realized that they had been duped, the crime scene was ruined and the Ramseys had lawyered up and threated to take Burke out of the country. Why would they feel the need to take Burke out of the country rather than be asked questions?

Now THAT is a good question that no explanation or answer sounds logical or INNOCENT to accept

They would have had to say that it happened as an accident out of anger

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

19 Users are viewing the JonBenet Ramsey Forum right now

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
"Mr Ramsey Listen Carefully!" New book released... 5 hr Spike 15
Before I Die 5 hr Guilty 6
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) 16 hr JTF 7,454
Note-odd detail? Wed Undrtheradar 221
I know what really happened to JoneBEnnet Tue Biz 69
Snow Prints? Tue Biz 34
Sid Wells mother complains (Mar '08) Mon candy 26
•••
•••