Who did you think killed JonBenet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When JB started screaming, maybe the salvage yard guy hit her in the head since he previously told his co-worker he wanted to know what it was like to crack someone's skull. And then he and Santa, who may have not really have wanted her hurt, argued over why he did that. Maybe that's when salvage yard guy took off, leaving Santa to deal with JB alone. And maybe he couldn't physically handle getting her out alone the distance it would take and took a while to think about his options and felt he had no choice then but to finish her off so she wouldn't identify him. It probably then took him a while to go around the house finding the materials he needed. And Santa would know the house and where he could hide for a while if he needed to.

Is there evidence that ties the salvage guy and Santa together? Could they have known each other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ramseys also took and passed multiple lie detector tests. That was stated on Thurday's Dr. Phil show.

What I would've done if I were the Ramseys would be to go ahead and allow myself to be interviewed. Seems like that make ight help with finding the killer.

This is by far the strongest evidence against them. No innocent parent doesn't talk to the police for four months in their child's murder investigation.

Evidence? It's suspicious but not actual evidence.

Please, this isn't a trial. While not admissible, it most certainly is strong circumstantial evidence of their involvement.

Even outside of a trial, evidence is proof of guilt. It's certainly suspicious, but not evidence/proof. Neither is wearing the same clothes, etc.

Please tell me you aren't a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ramseys also took and passed multiple lie detector tests. That was stated on Thurday's Dr. Phil show.

What I would've done if I were the Ramseys would be to go ahead and allow myself to be interviewed. Seems like that might help with finding the killer.

This is by far the strongest evidence against them. No innocent parent doesn't talk to the police for four months in their child's murder investigation.

They did cooperate with police at first and then saw what narrow vision the police department had and got their own lawyers. I would have done the same thing. It's incredible what incompetent police departments can do to bungle a case and ultimately jeopardize your freedom, even if you're innocent. The media and public also play a role. I think the Ramseys followed the advice of their attorney friend who said get their own attorneys early on. I don't know why they waited a few months to finally do the formal interview with police. But, I don't think this is indicative of guilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ramseys also took and passed multiple lie detector tests. That was stated on Thurday's Dr. Phil show.

What I would've done if I were the Ramseys would be to go ahead and allow myself to be interviewed. Seems like that make ight help with finding the killer.

This is by far the strongest evidence against them. No innocent parent doesn't talk to the police for four months in their child's murder investigation.

Evidence? It's suspicious but not actual evidence.

Please, this isn't a trial. While not admissible, it most certainly is strong circumstantial evidence of their involvement.

Even outside of a trial, evidence is proof of guilt. It's certainly suspicious, but not evidence/proof. Neither is wearing the same clothes, etc.

Please tell me you aren't a lawyer.

Sorry, is English not your first language? Evidence = proof here in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ramseys also took and passed multiple lie detector tests. That was stated on Thurday's Dr. Phil show.

What I would've done if I were the Ramseys would be to go ahead and allow myself to be interviewed. Seems like that might help with finding the killer.

This is by far the strongest evidence against them. No innocent parent doesn't talk to the police for four months in their child's murder investigation.

They did cooperate with police at first and then saw what narrow vision the police department had and got their own lawyers. I would have done the same thing. It's incredible what incompetent police departments can do to bungle a case and ultimately jeopardize your freedom, even if you're innocent. The media and public also play a role. I think the Ramseys followed the advice of their attorney friend who said get their own attorneys early on. I don't know why they waited a few months to finally do the formal interview with police. But, I don't think this is indicative of guilt.

Yes. Police are always framing innocent prominent rich people. It's the worst!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ramseys also took and passed multiple lie detector tests. That was stated on Thurday's Dr. Phil show.

What I would've done if I were the Ramseys would be to go ahead and allow myself to be interviewed. Seems like that make ight help with finding the killer.

This is by far the strongest evidence against them. No innocent parent doesn't talk to the police for four months in their child's murder investigation.

Evidence? It's suspicious but not actual evidence.

Please, this isn't a trial. While not admissible, it most certainly is strong circumstantial evidence of their involvement.

Even outside of a trial, evidence is proof of guilt. It's certainly suspicious, but not evidence/proof. Neither is wearing the same clothes, etc.

Please tell me you aren't a lawyer.

Sorry, is English not your first language? Evidence = proof here in the US.

Not only is English by first language, but I'm also a practicing litigator. You have no clue what you are talking about -- perhaps consult a dictionary. Evidence is he available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The fact that the Ramseys refused to participate in the police investigation of their daughter's death for the vital first few months of the investigation is indeed circumstantial evidence of their involvement in her death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ramseys also took and passed multiple lie detector tests. That was stated on Thurday's Dr. Phil show.

What I would've done if I were the Ramseys would be to go ahead and allow myself to be interviewed. Seems like that make ight help with finding the killer.

This is by far the strongest evidence against them. No innocent parent doesn't talk to the police for four months in their child's murder investigation.

Evidence? It's suspicious but not actual evidence.

Please, this isn't a trial. While not admissible, it most certainly is strong circumstantial evidence of their involvement.

Even outside of a trial, evidence is proof of guilt. It's certainly suspicious, but not evidence/proof. Neither is wearing the same clothes, etc.

Please tell me you aren't a lawyer.

Sorry, is English not your first language? Evidence = proof here in the US.

Not only is English by first language, but I'm also a practicing litigator. You have no clue what you are talking about -- perhaps consult a dictionary. Evidence is he available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The fact that the Ramseys refused to participate in the police investigation of their daughter's death for the vital first few months of the investigation is indeed circumstantial evidence of their involvement in her death.

Let's see - definition:

noun
3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

LOL. Not participating with police (whom they thought were against them from day 1) is not in any way a fact or proof. Guess you don't win many cases, bub.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ramseys also took and passed multiple lie detector tests. That was stated on Thurday's Dr. Phil show.

What I would've done if I were the Ramseys would be to go ahead and allow myself to be interviewed. Seems like that make ight help with finding the killer.

This is by far the strongest evidence against them. No innocent parent doesn't talk to the police for four months in their child's murder investigation.

Evidence? It's suspicious but not actual evidence.

Please, this isn't a trial. While not admissible, it most certainly is strong circumstantial evidence of their involvement.

Even outside of a trial, evidence is proof of guilt. It's certainly suspicious, but not evidence/proof. Neither is wearing the same clothes, etc.

Please tell me you aren't a lawyer.

Sorry, is English not your first language? Evidence = proof here in the US.

Not only is English by first language, but I'm also a practicing litigator. You have no clue what you are talking about -- perhaps consult a dictionary. Evidence is he available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The fact that the Ramseys refused to participate in the police investigation of their daughter's death for the vital first few months of the investigation is indeed circumstantial evidence of their involvement in her death.

Let's see - definition:

noun
3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

LOL. Not participating with police (whom they thought were against them from day 1) is not in any way a fact or proof. Guess you don't win many cases, bub.

You are hopelessly ignorant. Yes, not all evidence is admissible in a trial, however, it is still evidence. However, this is not a trial, this is a dcum thread and thus, it does not matter whether or not any particular evidence would be admissible. You should stick with your day job, whatever that is.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone think Beth Holloway asked John about that night? Or his new wife or older children?

Do people ask him about it that know him? I am sure the poster who knew the family personally is long gone from this thread but honest question. Did or do people ask those close to them or do they naturally leave the subject alone out of respect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ramseys also took and passed multiple lie detector tests. That was stated on Thurday's Dr. Phil show.

What I would've done if I were the Ramseys would be to go ahead and allow myself to be interviewed. Seems like that might help with finding the killer.

This is by far the strongest evidence against them. No innocent parent doesn't talk to the police for four months in their child's murder investigation.

They did cooperate with police at first and then saw what narrow vision the police department had and got their own lawyers. I would have done the same thing. It's incredible what incompetent police departments can do to bungle a case and ultimately jeopardize your freedom, even if you're innocent. The media and public also play a role. I think the Ramseys followed the advice of their attorney friend who said get their own attorneys early on. I don't know why they waited a few months to finally do the formal interview with police. But, I don't think this is indicative of guilt.

Yes. Police are always framing innocent prominent rich people. It's the worst!

I didn't say anything about police framing. The police force was totally incompetent when it came to investigating this crime, but they didn't frame the Ramseys. Framing is like when Mark Fuhrman apparently planted the glove in the OJ case. I do think the real killer framed the Ramseys but not the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ramseys also took and passed multiple lie detector tests. That was stated on Thurday's Dr. Phil show.

What I would've done if I were the Ramseys would be to go ahead and allow myself to be interviewed. Seems like that might help with finding the killer.

This is by far the strongest evidence against them. No innocent parent doesn't talk to the police for four months in their child's murder investigation.

They talked to police for hours right after the crime. But they realized right away how stupid and bias the police were. That is why they followed their lawyers advice. Linda A said the first police detective said she had the case all figured out by looking at John that first day. That is stupid and bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ramseys also took and passed multiple lie detector tests. That was stated on Thurday's Dr. Phil show.

What I would've done if I were the Ramseys would be to go ahead and allow myself to be interviewed. Seems like that make ight help with finding the killer.

This is by far the strongest evidence against them. No innocent parent doesn't talk to the police for four months in their child's murder investigation.

Evidence? It's suspicious but not actual evidence.

Please, this isn't a trial. While not admissible, it most certainly is strong circumstantial evidence of their involvement.

Even outside of a trial, evidence is proof of guilt. It's certainly suspicious, but not evidence/proof. Neither is wearing the same clothes, etc.

Please tell me you aren't a lawyer.

Sorry, is English not your first language? Evidence = proof here in the US.

Not only is English by first language, but I'm also a practicing litigator. You have no clue what you are talking about -- perhaps consult a dictionary. Evidence is he available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The fact that the Ramseys refused to participate in the police investigation of their daughter's death for the vital first few months of the investigation is indeed circumstantial evidence of their involvement in her death.

Let's see - definition:

noun
3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

LOL. Not participating with police (whom they thought were against them from day 1) is not in any way a fact or proof. Guess you don't win many cases, bub.

You are hopelessly ignorant. Yes, not all evidence is admissible in a trial, however, it is still evidence. However, this is not a trial, this is a dcum thread and thus, it does not matter whether or not any particular evidence would be admissible. You should stick with your day job, whatever that is.

Nope. And this "evidence" wouldn't be admissible because it really doesn't mean anything. The police were obviously getting off track so who can blame them.

Your poor starving kids.

[Anonymous]

The series is very sanitized. Jonbenet had gone to the doctor 66 times for bladder infections in her short life. She was sexualized Her dad probably killed her and all the rest is a cover up. Finding the body in the house and the un disturbed window are the main clues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The series is very sanitized. Jonbenet had gone to the doctor 66 times for bladder infections in her short life. She was sexualized Her dad probably killed her and all the rest is a cover up. Finding the body in the house and the un disturbed window are the main clues.

That is not true. She went for chronic sinus infections, ear infections and she was a mouth breather.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When JB started screaming, maybe the salvage yard guy hit her in the head since he previously told his co-worker he wanted to know what it was like to crack someone's skull. And then he and Santa, who may have not really have wanted her hurt, argued over why he did that. Maybe that's when salvage yard guy took off, leaving Santa to deal with JB alone. And maybe he couldn't physically handle getting her out alone the distance it would take and took a while to think about his options and felt he had no choice then but to finish her off so she wouldn't identify him. It probably then took him a while to go around the house finding the materials he needed. And Santa would know the house and where he could hide for a while if he needed to.

Is there evidence that ties the salvage guy and Santa together? Could they have known each other?

I think you are right that those two could have been working together. We will never know because the police did not dig deep into anyone other than the Ramseys.