The "Touch DNA" is worthless.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#744 Sep 10, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Blame goes both ways on this one. True story.
..
AK
There is a lot of blame to go around. It starts with the Ramseys, the BPD, Hunter, the lawyers, the reporters, Smit, Tracey, and worst of all, the internet posters who have tried and in some cases, still try to contact the people involved in the case trying to pretend they are detectives with the real players involved.

The propaganda is abundant in this case and the citizens who are internet posters are partially responsible for the crime not being solved. They made it a circus with their self touting "skills" and interference in a real case.

That is my opinion. It's one thing to discuss the case on the internet but quite another to attempt to actually solve it yourself and pestering the people involved

JMHO
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#745 Sep 10, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Morning AK
LOL, feel free not to discuss it but the point of the discussion was to really dispel the myth that the Ramseys were too naïve to realize that they would have to be eliminated FIRST before the authorities can move on to anyone else. I am disputing that theory due to the reality that the Ramseys lived right here on earth and MUST know that they should have/would have been the prime suspects and should have/would have cooperated IF they had nothing to hide
Obviously, if the Ramseys believed that the BPD also knew that there was an intruder, then you are stating that the BPD intentionally planned to "pin" the murder on them, knowing full well that they were innocent?
That's reaching really far, even for Boulder
In the early days IF the Ramseys didn't believe they should be suspects based on the circumstances, then you are accusing them of being BEYOND naïve and just plain stupid
So what you ask?
Their actions are the crux of the whole case so it is a reason for discussion and differing opinions but if it is silly for you, then feel free not to discuss it further and we can just have differing opinions to which we both are entitled rather than to frustrate you further
I am not commenting on this post. Forgive me for trying this route, but I need some instruction here.

I have tried to post four posts within the past day, and they do not show up on this forum. Am I being blocked? Does anyone have any idea on how to resolve this issue?

Thanks for any aid given.:)

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#746 Sep 10, 2013
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not commenting on this post. Forgive me for trying this route, but I need some instruction here.
I have tried to post four posts within the past day, and they do not show up on this forum. Am I being blocked? Does anyone have any idea on how to resolve this issue?
Thanks for any aid given.:)
This post came through without a problem. If your posts contained links, sometimes they won't post.

If you have a continuing problem, you may have to contact topix directly

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#747 Sep 10, 2013
With all due respect, but what’s my point, LOL? I am not sure we can discuss this (although I would still like to try) on the same level if you seriously don’t see a difference in interviewing the parents separately the day of, the day after, or 2 days after the crime as opposed to 4 months later after they have had time to discuss it among themselves, go on CNN, meet with their attorneys, have their attorneys prep them for the police interviews to iron out any little coinkydinks in their stories. So I might have to ask what your point is in deflecting the subject from the ridiculous to the sublime? We certainly don’t “have” to discuss it, but to attempt to parallel the requested interviews with the actual ones, and indicate there wasn’t a difference is kind of like playing make believe.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, they needed to be interviewed separately and as we all know, they WERE interviewed separately. So, what’s your point?
Ah, but it entirely changes the frame-of-reference of the interviewer and their approach to asking/rewording/re-asking specific questions. Would you ask the same questions - in the same manner - of an alleged shoplifter as you would an alleged drug trafficker? How about an accident witness vs an alleged kidnapper, or an accident witness vs a person of interest in a securities fraud. A sequential timeline changes dependent on the questions asked and the manner in which they are asked.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The “sequential timeline of events leading up to” had been established early on that first day before the body was even discovered, and discovery of the body didn’t change that.
I absolutely disagree. They aren’t even on the same playing field in the same ballpark. How can you compare the two? Once you lose the original window of opportunity and the element of surprise, the rest is as they say – History!
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The four month delay before a formal sit down – a delay which BOTH parties are to blame for – should have played to BPD’s advantage.
...
AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#748 Sep 10, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Morning AK
LOL, feel free not to discuss it but the point of the discussion was to really dispel the myth that the Ramseys were too naïve to realize that they would have to be eliminated FIRST before the authorities can move on to anyone else. I am disputing that theory due to the reality that the Ramseys lived right here on earth and MUST know that they should have/would have been the prime suspects and should have/would have cooperated IF they had nothing to hide
Obviously, if the Ramseys believed that the BPD also knew that there was an intruder, then you are stating that the BPD intentionally planned to "pin" the murder on them, knowing full well that they were innocent?
That's reaching really far, even for Boulder
In the early days IF the Ramseys didn't believe they should be suspects based on the circumstances, then you are accusing them of being BEYOND naïve and just plain stupid
So what you ask?
Their actions are the crux of the whole case so it is a reason for discussion and differing opinions but if it is silly for you, then feel free not to discuss it further and we can just have differing opinions to which we both are entitled rather than to frustrate you further
I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

If the Ramseys believed – in the first day or two, at least – that BPD believed that there was an intruder then they would have no reason to believe – in the first day or two, at least - that BPD suspected them.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#749 Sep 10, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
With all due respect, but what’s my point, LOL? I am not sure we can discuss this (although I would still like to try) on the same level if you seriously don’t see a difference in interviewing the parents separately the day of, the day after, or 2 days after the crime as opposed to 4 months later after they have had time to discuss it among themselves, go on CNN, meet with their attorneys, have their attorneys prep them for the police interviews to iron out any little coinkydinks in their stories. So I might have to ask what your point is in deflecting the subject from the ridiculous to the sublime? We certainly don’t “have” to discuss it, but to attempt to parallel the requested interviews with the actual ones, and indicate there wasn’t a difference is kind of like playing make believe.
<quoted text>
Ah, but it entirely changes the frame-of-reference of the interviewer and their approach to asking/rewording/re-asking specific questions. Would you ask the same questions - in the same manner - of an alleged shoplifter as you would an alleged drug trafficker? How about an accident witness vs an alleged kidnapper, or an accident witness vs a person of interest in a securities fraud. A sequential timeline changes dependent on the questions asked and the manner in which they are asked.
<quoted text>
I absolutely disagree. They aren’t even on the same playing field in the same ballpark. How can you compare the two? Once you lose the original window of opportunity and the element of surprise, the rest is as they say – History!
<quoted text>
The sequential time line as you call it, was established before the body was even discovered. Subsequent interviews, etc may not have proceeded ideally – with blame for this going to both sides - but they did proceed. The fact that they did not proceed as you and some would have liked is not indicative of Ramsey guilt or involvement in any crime.

This is how the four moth delay could have played to BPD’s advantage. Those four months gave BPD the opportunity to investigate the family, their friends, associates, etc and to spend time investigating the crime scene and neighborhood, it allowed time for results from forensic tests to be delivered and so on; all this should have aided BPD in developing and refining various lines of questioning once they were able to formally sit down with the Ramseys.

As to what we should make of their lawyer’s demands – paired interviews, for example – the focus should really be on what actually transpired – separate interviews.
...

AK

Since: May 11

AOL

#750 Sep 10, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
With all due respect, but what’s my point, LOL? I am not sure we can discuss this (although I would still like to try) on the same level if you seriously don’t see a difference in interviewing the parents separately the day of, the day after, or 2 days after the crime as opposed to 4 months later after they have had time to discuss it among themselves, go on CNN, meet with their attorneys, have their attorneys prep them for the police interviews to iron out any little coinkydinks in their stories. So I might have to ask what your point is in deflecting the subject from the ridiculous to the sublime? We certainly don’t “have” to discuss it, but to attempt to parallel the requested interviews with the actual ones, and indicate there wasn’t a difference is kind of like playing make believe.
<quoted text>
Ah, but it entirely changes the frame-of-reference of the interviewer and their approach to asking/rewording/re-asking specific questions. Would you ask the same questions - in the same manner - of an alleged shoplifter as you would an alleged drug trafficker? How about an accident witness vs an alleged kidnapper, or an accident witness vs a person of interest in a securities fraud. A sequential timeline changes dependent on the questions asked and the manner in which they are asked.
<quoted text>
I absolutely disagree. They aren’t even on the same playing field in the same ballpark. How can you compare the two? Once you lose the original window of opportunity and the element of surprise, the rest is as they say – History!
<quoted text>
Don't you want to just scream sometimes? Innocent people ask questions, go into shock, NEED to know WHO did this..there is NOTHING normal about leaving a child of your's dead under a christmas tree while you vamoose to another state! If the Van Dams did that,..OMG!
Innocent victims of a crime want answers and they want the police to get those answers. The Ramseys wanted the police to go away and forget about it. All the discussions with IDI is like talking to Jodi Arias.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#751 Sep 11, 2013
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you want to just scream sometimes? Innocent people ask questions, go into shock, NEED to know WHO did this..there is NOTHING normal about leaving a child of your's dead under a christmas tree while you vamoose to another state! If the Van Dams did that,..OMG!
Innocent victims of a crime want answers and they want the police to get those answers. The Ramseys wanted the police to go away and forget about it. All the discussions with IDI is like talking to Jodi Arias.
Were they supposed to pack the body up and take it with them? You do realize that they were essentially evicted from their home, it being a crime scene and all that; right? And, you know that they didn’t “vamoose to another state,” they went to the Fernie’s.

And, please don’t tell us that innocent people only ever behave one way and one way only. That’s beyond naïve.

And, what’s the sense of asking questions or seeking help from someone you may believe to be incompetent and wrongly obsessed? How do you convince such a person or entity that they are wrong? You don’t; you can’t.

Regardless, it all comes back to the same thing – the Ramseys did cooperate, they just didn’t do it in as fully, completely or timely or what-have-you manner as some believe that they should have; this ‘failure” made them look guilty. But, both sides are to blame for what transpired.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#752 Sep 11, 2013
I actually understand and even agree with RDI on many aspects of this specific discussion, although I know it may not seem that way. However, it seems to me that even if the Ramseys had moved into BPD headquarters and had spent every second and minute of every day and night eating and sleeping with investigators, doing “whatever it takes,” 24/7, for years on end, we’d still end up where we are now with a crime unresolved and unsolved.
...

AK

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#753 Sep 11, 2013
Then why wouldn’t they go in as asked for interviews without making a major production about it? They had already retained counsel who would accompany them to protect their civil rights, why refuse? It all goes to timing and intent. Who doesn’t cooperate from the get go, or even bother to ask who killed their child, unless they already know? They were asked on the 26th to go in on the 27th and they made an excuse, and again the same thing the next day. Then they go to Atlanta for the funeral and then on CNN.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I’m not sure what the point is behind all the discussion about at what point the Ramseys realized that they were suspects.
I think it’s just as likely that since the Ramseys knew that an intruder had come into their home they also believed, at least in the first few days, that BPD also knew that an intruder had come into their home. So, why would they be suspects?
Then why wouldn’t they sit down with police the next day? Actions speak louder than words.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, whether they were suspects or not, they should have understood the need to provide certain things for comparison to evidence from the crime scene; but, there is nothing about this need that is indicative of suspicion on anyone’s part.
Because it changes the intent of their actions. For example, you are posting here and have your own opinions about this case just like other posters here. To find out later that you had been hired by the Ramseys to cloud public opinion by posting here, would change your intent as to why you were here.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
However you look at it, it is quite plausible that in the early DAYS the Ramseys did not realize that they should be or would be considered suspects. So what? I don’t really understand why this is being discussed so much? What difference does it make at WHEN they realized that they were suspects?
...
AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#754 Sep 11, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Were they supposed to pack the body up and take it with them? You do realize that they were essentially evicted from their home, it being a crime scene and all that; right? And, you know that they didn’t “vamoose to another state,” they went to the Fernie’s.
And, please don’t tell us that innocent people only ever behave one way and one way only. That’s beyond naïve.
And, what’s the sense of asking questions or seeking help from someone you may believe to be incompetent and wrongly obsessed? How do you convince such a person or entity that they are wrong? You don’t; you can’t.
Regardless, it all comes back to the same thing – the Ramseys did cooperate, they just didn’t do it in as fully, completely or timely or what-have-you manner as some believe that they should have; this ‘failure” made them look guilty. But, both sides are to blame for what transpired.
...
AK
Mornin' AK,

The problem with your first sentence is that they were prepared to leave way before they were being "evicted" (something that should have happened to the "visitors" as soon as police arrived but that is another topic. They went to Fernies only after they realized that they could not leave just yet so that rationale isn't quite accurate

Your second paragraph is your opinion based on "myth" when you use the words "incompetent" and "wrongly obsessed", which is ASSUMING based on the RST rhetoric that this was the case. That is wrong. The BPD had a job to do and if you feel they were incompetent and wrongly "OBSESSED" that is a very strong word and not Unbiased; deliberate on your part or not. That is a Ramsey description of their feelings and not necessarily a fact.

We will have to just disagree on the Ramsey level of cooperation. Interviews after four months are just not as legitimate, especially when interviewing both suspects together but you can feel that they did all they could do to cooperate. Most people, other than yourself, believe they could have and should have done a lot more. The bashing of the BPD as to "blame" is not a legitimate reason for the Ramseys to stop caring about the investigation.

I think it is naïve to believe that the Ramseys cooperated fully, completely and certainly NOT timely.

This was their daughter for crying out loud! Blaming everyone else for the Ramsey's lack of cooperation is just wrong.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#755 Sep 11, 2013
There is no blame on BOTH sides for them not going in for separate interviews on the 27th or 28th like they were asked to do. You made my point for me, by stating in another post that they didn't consider themselves suspects at that time. So why not go?
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The sequential time line as you call it, was established before the body was even discovered. Subsequent interviews, etc may not have proceeded ideally – with blame for this going to both sides - but they did proceed. The fact that they did not proceed as you and some would have liked is not indicative of Ramsey guilt or involvement in any crime.
AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#756 Sep 11, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
I actually understand and even agree with RDI on many aspects of this specific discussion, although I know it may not seem that way. However, it seems to me that even if the Ramseys had moved into BPD headquarters and had spent every second and minute of every day and night eating and sleeping with investigators, doing “whatever it takes,” 24/7, for years on end, we’d still end up where we are now with a crime unresolved and unsolved.
...
AK
It's quite possible that you are absolutely correct that we may still end up where we are now with a crime unresolved but had they done the "right" thing, the discussion would be MUCH different.

At least the discussion would NOT include what bad people the Ramseys were for not caring whether the case was solved or not along with other complaints about their behavior and self centered whining.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#757 Sep 11, 2013
We will certainly never know that, LOL, because the true way they acted was a direct opposite!
Anti-K wrote:
I actually understand and even agree with RDI on many aspects of this specific discussion, although I know it may not seem that way. However, it seems to me that even if the Ramseys had moved into BPD headquarters and had spent every second and minute of every day and night eating and sleeping with investigators, doing “whatever it takes,” 24/7, for years on end, we’d still end up where we are now with a crime unresolved and unsolved.
...
AK

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#758 Sep 11, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
I actually understand and even agree with RDI on many aspects of this specific discussion, although I know it may not seem that way. However, it seems to me that even if the Ramseys had moved into BPD headquarters and had spent every second and minute of every day and night eating and sleeping with investigators, doing “whatever it takes,” 24/7, for years on end, we’d still end up where we are now with a crime unresolved and unsolved.
...
AK
The Ramseys had over 2 years to make their stories match, to make sure every dot connected, to make sure their fabrication of events was cohesive. They had to know what information the investigation had and what questions the police wanted answers to before they would speak with them. They didn't have the personal alone time needed directly after the death as they kept themselves surrounded by a blockade of people. The first interview given after 4 months doesn't count because of the ridiculous demand they only be interviewed together.

Had normal procedures been followed with the protocol of interviewing them seperate as suspects AND OR victims the case would not be open today. I have no clue about Canada but in the US standard police procedures were created and developed to prevent such travesties. The Boulder DA had his beak in where it didn't belong and preverted justice for this dead little girl to benefit the family, a fmaily that had the means to afford such inapropriate 'control' of the DA's actions. It's obvious why, the family laundry was filthy with incest and childhood mental illness. Given the family pathology it's surprising there was only one murder and it hadn't happened sooner.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#759 Sep 11, 2013
Yes I do, LOL.
I was thinking more of an amoeba although at times they could be synonomous.

I could not have left until my child's body had been removed. If I had to sit in my car with the engine on to stay warm for 8 hours, at the house, I would have. They were asked to leave the structure (house), not the property.
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you want to just scream sometimes? Innocent people ask questions, go into shock, NEED to know WHO did this..there is NOTHING normal about leaving a child of your's dead under a christmas tree while you vamoose to another state! If the Van Dams did that,..OMG!
Innocent victims of a crime want answers and they want the police to get those answers. The Ramseys wanted the police to go away and forget about it. All the discussions with IDI is like talking to Jodi Arias.
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#760 Sep 11, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Yes I do, LOL.
I was thinking more of an amoeba although at times they could be synonomous.
I could not have left until my child's body had been removed. If I had to sit in my car with the engine on to stay warm for 8 hours, at the house, I would have. They were asked to leave the structure (house), not the property.
<quoted text>
As a parent, they would have had to drag me off of my child's body, and literally carry me out the door if they wanted me to leave.

Then again, as a Christian, I would know her soul was with God.

IF Patsy and John were truly Christians, that might play into why they left so easily and why they wanted to return to Atlanta quickly. There was nothing they could do now for Jonbenet, her soul had departed, only her body remained. They wanted to be with their families that could hold and comfort them at that time and who also loved Jonbenet. I am in no way convinced an intruder killed their child. But I just felt the need to explain how a Christian might react in that situation.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#761 Sep 11, 2013
Good points and I guess now the question remains as to whether the emotions of a parent or Christian dictated their actions.

To me that would be very hard to separate had this really been the shock from an intruder action. Since I don't believe there was an intruder, they had all night to adjust to the Christian aspect of being asked to leave their child's body laying on the floor.

As a parent, I still couldn't have left my child laying there. I could only have left after she had been physically removed from the scene.(The operative word here is 'she'). Once 'she' was taken into evidence, so to speak, I would have no alternatives remaining except to leave and be with my family. MY family - not someone else's family.
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
As a parent, they would have had to drag me off of my child's body, and literally carry me out the door if they wanted me to leave.
Then again, as a Christian, I would know her soul was with God.
IF Patsy and John were truly Christians, that might play into why they left so easily and why they wanted to return to Atlanta quickly. There was nothing they could do now for Jonbenet, her soul had departed, only her body remained. They wanted to be with their families that could hold and comfort them at that time and who also loved Jonbenet. I am in no way convinced an intruder killed their child. But I just felt the need to explain how a Christian might react in that situation.
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#762 Sep 11, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Good points and I guess now the question remains as to whether the emotions of a parent or Christian dictated their actions.
To me that would be very hard to separate had this really been the shock from an intruder action. Since I don't believe there was an intruder, they had all night to adjust to the Christian aspect of being asked to leave their child's body laying on the floor.
As a parent, I still couldn't have left my child laying there. I could only have left after she had been physically removed from the scene.(The operative word here is 'she'). Once 'she' was taken into evidence, so to speak, I would have no alternatives remaining except to leave and be with my family. MY family - not someone else's family.
<quoted text>
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. As a Christian, I still would have had to be dragged away. And good luck to whomever tried to do the dragging.

I cannot reconcile the Ramseys actions with their faith. If they are innocent, they surely did not give that perception to the public or the police. "Let not your good be evil spoken of", should have been a quote from the Bible that they took more seriously. Seems to me, cooperation with the BPD would have been the first thing that, as Christians, they would have wanted to do.

If you step back, write down the evidence in the case, look at it logically without suppositions, it seems ludicrous to even think that the Ramseys weren't involved in one way or the other in the death of their child.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#763 Sep 11, 2013
It would have been to me as well, because as a Christian, I would have been thinking about the danger to others if a killer was really running loose out there. I wouldn’t have been so self-centered to only think of myself, and my loss to the extent of excluding the safety of the community.
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems to me, cooperation with the BPD would have been the first thing that, as Christians, they would have wanted to do.
Absolutely 1000% in agreement with you here.
Just Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If you step back, write down the evidence in the case, look at it logically without suppositions, it seems ludicrous to even think that the Ramseys weren't involved in one way or the other in the death of their child.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Burke Ramsey- INNOCENT victim of BORG (Apr '16) 5 min Anonymous 135
News JonBenet Ramsey's Ransom Note Was 'Clearly Stag... (Sep '16) 8 min Anonymous 56
Girl faked sleeping after murder rampage 17 min Anonymous 1
License to Rant 28 min KCinNYC 54
Q&A Paula Woodword (Oct '16) 1 hr KCinNYC 53
Flashlight (May '11) 4 hr Jeena 170
Burke is Quite the Scapegoat 5 hr Anonymous 36
More from around the web