JonBenet Ramsey Update

[cappuccina]

I agree with you Tom; Burke was small and slender for his age, and not a "jock".

Severl forensic experts agreed that the force of the blows as well as planned coverup of the crime were very "adult" in nature....(intensity of the blows and the type of coverup staged, etc.).

Burke went back to school almost imediately; there is no way this would have happend if he had committed this crime.

If you look back on who was consistently kept on a very "short leash", however, after the murder that would be Patsy. Her husband did most of the talking, and he was ALWAYS with her when she wsa talking to the media or the police, until the time they subpoenaed her alone, and that is when she "blew up" at the police and threw tantrums when she did not like what they were asking her...

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Michael,

As I mentioned before, I personally consider that a possibility, but a less than likely one. My reasons for this are that the blows to JonBenet's head were made with more force than a slight boy of 10 would be likely to muster. Also, he went back in school relatively quickly, and I wonder if his parents would have allowed this if Burke possessed much or any knowledge of the murder.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Good Michael]

It seems to me that Burke was the dingo and the only way to ensure that there'd be at least one child in the family that could grow up and lead a normal life, was for the mother dingo to write a really bad ransom note.

Cheers,

Mike

[cappuccina]

In the Ramsey case, Patsy was the dingo; that's the problem...

[Irelandsown37]

To be 'pro-intruder' is to be 'pro-Ramsey'.

To Ally,

As usual you are projecting your contrarian/juvenile methods onto me, as I see you do to many others. I provided the counter-argument right at the start of this thread -- which nobody attempted to dispute or to debate or to debunk -- and then I did not want to subsequently add/repeat what Roy had put so well, and what I had already written.

The problem is that a) nobody reads them, and b) nobody wants to read them. Certain people want crime mysteries to be unsolved and as bizarre as possible.

Now to everybody else,

There is an Australian case which I think is relevant here in examining the unsolved Ramsey murder.

In Aug 1980, a young mother of two, named Lindy Chamberlain, had her baby snatched, and almost certainly killed, by a dingo [wild dog] whilst vacationing at a famous tourist spot in the Australian outback.

The remains of the poor child were never found.

Within two years Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of murdering her baby girl [her pastor husband was also convicted as an accessory after the fact] and she went to prison for life -- again pregnant, so her new baby was removed from her immediately after birth in the prison hospital.

I am sorry to say that the reaction of many Austrlians was jubiliation at the conviction. Lindy was a national pariah.

I was in a pub [bar] when the verdict was announced and the explosion of ecstatic cheering, from males and females, was as shameful and sickening a sight as I have ever witnessed.

Right from the moment the tragedy burst upon the nation, the Chamberlains were maligned as sinister, religious fruitcakes [they were Seventh Day Adventists] who came across as cold and callous [to make a 'Spin Doctor' pass out, Lindy used a mummified dingo paw to peel an orange on TV -- to show how dangerous these cuddly canines really were] and whatever their claims of innocence, or that of their fellow campers, forensic evidence does not lie.

Right ...?

In their family car was found not only human blood, but specifically fetal blood. The child's surviving garments had apparently been cut by scissors, not by an animal's fangs.

In fact everything the jury was told, who came under considerable social pressure to find the couple guilty, was wrong.

Dingo's teeth, in fact, are just like razors and the incriminating baby's blood in the car turned out to be, I kid you not, sound deadener, an artificial substance.

The prosecution also made great hay of Lindy's claim that her child, Azaria, was wearing a matinee jacket -- when none was found. Therefore, she was a liar who had -- for no known motive -- cut her child's throat!

In 1987, a British tourist died near the area, Ayer's Rock, where the baby was taken. Near his body was found, to much of the nation's drop-jaw shock, the very matinee jacket. Soon after, Lindy Chamberlain was released from prison [a pretty good movie was made of this travesty of justice starring, of all people, Meryl Streep] before even being found to have no case to answer.

It is quite simply one of the most disgraceful episodes in Australia's history. Most people you meet today would agree, yet there are those hold-outs, based on prejudice and not evidence, who still grumble that the 'bitch' got away with it!

A Royal Commission established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Lindy Chamberlain had been the victim of a grotesque 'legal' witch-hunt and convicted on the shoddiest of shoddy forensics.

What is more, experienced Aboriginal trackers had testified, from day one, that they could clearly see the dingo tracks, dragging an object, and leading away from the family tent into the hinterland -- but then what would 'they' know?

The Chamberlain case is a compelling warning and should make us realise that caution can be a virtue; about both what we think we 'know' concerning contemporaneous murder mysteries and about throwing around heinous accusations against [still] living people in a public forum.

Surely even you know what I meant, but I will spell it out anyway...
pro-Ramsey - as in they did it.
pro-intruder - I'll leave you to figure this part out.

[Ally]

What a crock. Your excuse for not discussing the Ramsey case is you don't want to repeat anything then you trot out the Chamberlain case which is trotted out by every "intruder done it" theorist as some sort of proof that anyone who thinks the Ramseys were involved are brain dead and the victims of mass hysteria.

I am guessing you know absolutely nothing about the Ramsey case, which is why you are completely incapable of discussing it rationally or in sticking to the facts of it.

[Jonathan H]

To be 'pro-intruder' is to be 'pro-Ramsey'.

To Ally,

As usual you are projecting your contrarian/juvenile methods onto me, as I see you do to many others. I provided the counter-argument right at the start of this thread -- which nobody attempted to dispute or to debate or to debunk -- and then I did not want to subsequently add/repeat what Roy had put so well, and what I had already written.

The problem is that a) nobody reads them, and b) nobody wants to read them. Certain people want crime mysteries to be unsolved and as bizarre as possible.

Now to everybody else,

There is an Australian case which I think is relevant here in examining the unsolved Ramsey murder.

In Aug 1980, a young mother of two, named Lindy Chamberlain, had her baby snatched, and almost certainly killed, by a dingo [wild dog] whilst vacationing at a famous tourist spot in the Australian outback.

The remains of the poor child were never found.

Within two years Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of murdering her baby girl [her pastor husband was also convicted as an accessory after the fact] and she went to prison for life -- again pregnant, so her new baby was removed from her immediately after birth in the prison hospital.

I am sorry to say that the reaction of many Austrlians was jubiliation at the conviction. Lindy was a national pariah.

I was in a pub [bar] when the verdict was announced and the explosion of ecstatic cheering, from males and females, was as shameful and sickening a sight as I have ever witnessed.

Right from the moment the tragedy burst upon the nation, the Chamberlains were maligned as sinister, religious fruitcakes [they were Seventh Day Adventists] who came across as cold and callous [to make a 'Spin Doctor' pass out, Lindy used a mummified dingo paw to peel an orange on TV -- to show how dangerous these cuddly canines really were] and whatever their claims of innocence, or that of their fellow campers, forensic evidence does not lie.

Right ...?

In their family car was found not only human blood, but specifically fetal blood. The child's surviving garments had apparently been cut by scissors, not by an animal's fangs.

In fact everything the jury was told, who came under considerable social pressure to find the couple guilty, was wrong.

Dingo's teeth, in fact, are just like razors and the incriminating baby's blood in the car turned out to be, I kid you not, sound deadener, an artificial substance.

The prosecution also made great hay of Lindy's claim that her child, Azaria, was wearing a matinee jacket -- when none was found. Therefore, she was a liar who had -- for no known motive -- cut her child's throat!

In 1987, a British tourist died near the area, Ayer's Rock, where the baby was taken. Near his body was found, to much of the nation's drop-jaw shock, the very matinee jacket. Soon after, Lindy Chamberlain was released from prison [a pretty good movie was made of this travesty of justice starring, of all people, Meryl Streep] before even being found to have no case to answer.

It is quite simply one of the most disgraceful episodes in Australia's history. Most people you meet today would agree, yet there are those hold-outs, based on prejudice and not evidence, who still grumble that the 'bitch' got away with it!

A Royal Commission established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Lindy Chamberlain had been the victim of a grotesque 'legal' witch-hunt and convicted on the shoddiest of shoddy forensics.

What is more, experienced Aboriginal trackers had testified, from day one, that they could clearly see the dingo tracks, dragging an object, and leading away from the family tent into the hinterland -- but then what would 'they' know?

The Chamberlain case is a compelling warning and should make us realise that caution can be a virtue; about both what we think we 'know' concerning contemporaneous murder mysteries and about throwing around heinous accusations against [still] living people in a public forum.

[Irelandsown37]

I thought the idea of a forum was so that everyone can post their points of view/opinions without fear of being ostracized by others.

Let's face it... there are two differing camps on this horrific crime - the pro-intruder camp & the pro-Ramsey camp.

[Ally]

I have no problem being called mean-spirited or even mistaken. However, in order to call someone mistaken, it is incumbent upon you to provide examples and counter arguments that show where precisely they are mistaken.

The only person behaving in a juvenile fashion on this thread is yourself. I have provided evidence and reasons why the DNA does not necessarily point to her killer.

One thing is clear from your behavior. You have no interest or no ability to argue this case rationally. You haven't provided a single piece of rational argument on it. All you have done is hurl insults, turn red in the face and stomp your feet saying "I'm right, Imright Imright!". I think someone needs a nap.

[Jonathan H]

As usual, certain people here dish it out with abandon but cannot take it in return.

They cannot take people who stand their ground -- and hurl it right back -- reacting with juvenile indignation that they themelves could be accused of being thoroughly mean-spirited and, dare it be said, mistaken.

[cappuccina]

For rizzle? I've hardly said two words on this thread and in fact stated that I preferred NOT to get too involved in the discussion lest you and Roy get upset and start slinging arrows. All you've done since is prove me 100% correct. While I'm obviously the supreme omnipotent expert in the Ripper case, and in all matters relating to sweet, sweet lovin', I do not hold myself out as the ultimate expert in the Ramsey case. I leave that title to the man who personally investigated the homicide and concluded beyond a doubt that the murder was certainly an insider and most likely Patsy Ramsey.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

"Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental disorder that is characterized by holding one or more non-bizarre delusions in the absence of any other significant psychopathology..." (Wiki)

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, I find you arrogant and pompous. You talk like an omnipotent expert about the Ramsey case.

For rizzle? I've hardly said two words on this thread and in fact stated that I preferred NOT to get too involved in the discussion lest you and Roy get upset and start slinging arrows. All you've done since is prove me 100% correct. While I'm obviously the supreme omnipotent expert in the Ripper case, and in all matters relating to sweet, sweet lovin', I do not hold myself out as the ultimate expert in the Ramsey case. I leave that title to the man who personally investigated the homicide and concluded beyond a doubt that the murder was certainly an insider and most likely Patsy Ramsey.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Jonathan!

I find it most likely, thinking about the conditions, timing and the sum of money, that someone in the Ramsey family did it.

What it comes to the DNA, the points made by Ally possibly out-rule the possibility of an outsider.

However, it someone can present definite circumstantial evidence, I am ready to change my mind.

But I'd rather believe someone not called by the Ramseys or their counterpart.

All the best
Jukka

[Ally]

Nitpick to death? Is that what you call shredding your arguments down to their base components and exposing their every flaw?

If you look back over the course of this debate, which is frankly the only one I can recall having with you, so forgive me that you are that forgettable, you will find that the sole person on here who has made childish nitpicks, refused to provide any sort of logical rebuttal and thrown a tantrum, has been you.

But I can understand that logical debate is not your forte, and you prefer just slinging mud at others, hoping it sticks. You have done nothing but attack the personalities of others, rather than their arguments, which doesn't say much for either your personality or your arguments. Glass houses. Stones. Etc.

[Jonathan H]

To Ally,

What I have found is that when I make an argument or counter-argument with you, it is you who is actually juvenile because what you do is nitpick to death -- liike a child determined to annoy a parent -- until you have baxcked yourself ino a corner to concede that you are mistaken.

At that point you disappear from the debate.

But it's not a crime to be disagreeable.

Tom, I find you arrogant and pompous. You talk like an omnipotent expert about the Ramsey case. Look, pal, you are contributing -- in an admittedly tiny way -- to a grotesque witch-hunt against real people and real suffering.

To everybody else:

It is like a mental disease.

People who are intelligent and well-informed but so dominated by a contrarian flaw in their personality that they think they are objective when they are not, and then accuse others of what they themselves do.

They will of course, predictably, use these words against me amd say this is an unconscious self-portrait, and so on, and so on.

Therefore, it is up to the readers to make up their minds as to who is trying to be an adult, and who is not.