Who did you think killed JonBenet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you know that you did not do a crime, and you get the sense that the PD is looking at you suspiciously as if you were the culprit and trying to get evidence to support that, you would also get a lawyer and stop talking to the PD without a lawyer present, too.

I think the Ramseys know they didn't do this. But it's hard to prove you didn't do something when everyone is eyeing you suspiciously and there are a few tidbits of info that look suspicious. I think the burden of proof is not only that the evidence supports the theory, but that other scenarios can also be disproven.

That's where the CBS show failed in my opinion. They haven't disproven an intruder scenario. The DNA evidence strongly points to an unknown intruder. Couple that with the later Ninja attack, and I can't rule that out as a reasonable possibility.

No problem, most people would not do this if their kid had been murdered and they wanted to find out who the killer was. You can get a lawyer and still cooperate. The Ramsey's wouldn't be interviewed by the police for four months.

That's not true. The Ramseys did cooperate at first. They even took multiple lie detector tests, and passed. But when their friend pointed out to them it

looked like the police were looking at them as suspects, they lawyered up.

They did one interview. The lie detector tests were given by their lawyers,not the police. Are you their publicist?

No. I don't know them at all and don't have anything to do with this case. Where do you get your inside information from? You don't think there's any reasonable doubt? I do.

The relevance of reasonable doubt is that it is the governing standard in a criminal trial. There was never a criminal trial.

[Anonymous]

That's right. There never was a criminal trial because they could NOT prove that anyone did it beyond a reasonable doubt. The DA knew they would lose the case. So I believe that means the Ramseys are considered innocent, according to the laws of the USA.

So why does CBS get to try this case in the court of public opinion and declare Burke guilty? Are they a governing body? I think there are some real issues there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people that haven't need to Google "JonBenet's neck." It'll pop up zoomed in pictures of her neck. The rope REALLY dug into her neck. Anyone who did that is a twisted son of a b-tch.

Wouldn't JB still have a pulse after being knocked in the head? Everything I've heard says she was struck in the head first and a few hours later strangled to death. I can't imagine the Ramsey's not seeking help for their child who still had a heartbeat and was breathing. Can anyone explain this to me? Why would Patsy and John garrote their child to death leaving terribly deep ligature marks when she had been severely knocked in the head but was still alive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people that haven't need to Google "JonBenet's neck." It'll pop up zoomed in pictures of her neck. The rope REALLY dug into her neck. Anyone who did that is a twisted son of a b-tch.

Wouldn't JB still have a pulse after being knocked in the head? Everything I've heard says she was struck in the head first and a few hours later strangled to death. I can't imagine the Ramsey's not seeking help for their child who still had a heartbeat and was breathing. Can anyone explain this to me? Why would Patsy and John garrote their child to death leaving terribly deep ligature marks when she had been severely knocked in the head but was still alive?

One possibility is that Burke was experimenting with her while she was "asleep."

It looks like the train track injuries happened post-mortem. Maybe he did other things to experiment with her while she was sleeping. Like stuff he learned in Boy Scouts.

[Anonymous]

Watch what Lin Wood says about the blow to the head:
http://www.tmz.com/2016/09/21/jonbenet-ramsey-cbs-lawsuit-documentary-burke-lawyer/

Seems there is a lot of misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's right. There never was a criminal trial because they could NOT prove that anyone did it beyond a reasonable doubt. The DA knew they would lose the case. So I believe that means the Ramseys are considered innocent, according to the laws of the USA.

So why does CBS get to try this case in the court of public opinion and declare Burke guilty? Are they a governing body? I think there are some real issues there.

The DAs sucked. Flying back that Karr creeper virtually first class? Exonerating anyone based on touch DNA, which has proven to be unreliable for forensic purposes.

The approaches that the DAs took have not stood the test of time.

No one said CBS is a governing body. But we do have freedom of press in the country, guaranteed by the first amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watch what Lin Wood says about the blow to the head:
http://www.tmz.com/2016/09/21/jonbenet-ramsey-cbs-lawsuit-documentary-burke-lawyer/

Seems there is a lot of misinformation.

According to Wood who represents Burke and Dr. Phil.

[Anonymous]

But freedom of speech does not give you the right to ruin someone's life with false allegations. That's why people have the right to sue for defamation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watch what Lin Wood says about the blow to the head:
http://www.tmz.com/2016/09/21/jonbenet-ramsey-cbs-lawsuit-documentary-burke-lawyer/

Seems there is a lot of misinformation.

According to Wood who represents Burke and Dr. Phil.

This was about the facts of when the blow happened in realtion to when the strangulation occurred. Do you think Lin Wood is passing on false information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But freedom of speech does not give you the right to ruin someone's life with false allegations. That's why people have the right to sue for defamation.

They sure can sue for defamation. They will keep threatening to do so. Maybe even get a nominal settlement, for the sake of it. That's it.

If you're looking for more, you will be disappointed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But freedom of speech does not give you the right to ruin someone's life with false allegations. That's why people have the right to sue for defamation.

The problem with this is if they go this avenue Burke better really and truly be innocent. Because cbs and those involved have the right to defend themselves and say they believed it true by bringing out TONS of evidence. Seriously, it's a can of worms I don't think Lin wants to open. It will only make things worse for Burke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's right. There never was a criminal trial because they could NOT prove that anyone did it beyond a reasonable doubt. The DA knew they would lose the case. So I believe that means the Ramseys are considered innocent, according to the laws of the USA.

So why does CBS get to try this case in the court of public opinion and declare Burke guilty? Are they a governing body? I think there are some real issues there.

The problem is that there is so much shadiness surrounding the investigation. The DA blocked the police at every turn. The Ramseys refused to cooperate. And, even though they were the primary suspects, the Ramseys were given police reports to study before their interview. Even with zero cooperation, the police were still able to get a grand jury to indict. But the DA refused to sign the indictment and pretended like the grand jury voted not to indict. And then, conveniently, nobody on the jury has been allowed to discuss anything about the case. Years later, Mary Lacy exonerates the Ramseys based on evidence whose relevance was grossly manipulated. In the meantime, all of the investigators still believe the Ramseys are guilty but are repeatedly blamed by the public for letting some mysterious intruder get away because of their shoddy police work.

I think the public has a right to demand answers. A lot of taxpayer dollars were lit on fire to protect these rich people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's right. There never was a criminal trial because they could NOT prove that anyone did it beyond a reasonable doubt. The DA knew they would lose the case. So I believe that means the Ramseys are considered innocent, according to the laws of the USA.

So why does CBS get to try this case in the court of public opinion and declare Burke guilty? Are they a governing body? I think there are some real issues there.

The problem is that there is so much shadiness surrounding the investigation. The DA blocked the police at every turn. The Ramseys refused to cooperate. And, even though they were the primary suspects, the Ramseys were given police reports to study before their interview. Even with zero cooperation, the police were still able to get a grand jury to indict. But the DA refused to sign the indictment and pretended like the grand jury voted not to indict. And then, conveniently, nobody on the jury has been allowed to discuss anything about the case. Years later, Mary Lacy exonerates the Ramseys based on evidence whose relevance was grossly manipulated. In the meantime, all of the investigators still believe the Ramseys are guilty but are repeatedly blamed by the public for letting some mysterious intruder get away because of their shoddy police work.

I think the public has a right to demand answers. A lot of taxpayer dollars were lit on fire to protect these rich people.

Totally agree. Also there were a ton of little kids 20 years ago who were terrified they would be raped and killed in their own home under their parents' noses because of what the Ramseys did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watch what Lin Wood says about the blow to the head:
http://www.tmz.com/2016/09/21/jonbenet-ramsey-cbs-lawsuit-documentary-burke-lawyer/

Seems there is a lot of misinformation.

This changes everything, if in fact true that the blow to the head came at the time of death. If it were true though wouldn't this be a more of a universal conclusion at this point of which came first- the head blow or the strangulation? And can one even get deep ligature marks on their body if they are already dead? Doesn't blood flow need to be occurring in order to bruised or have ligature marks on your body? Meaning JB had to be alive when she was strangled with the garrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watch what Lin Wood says about the blow to the head:
http://www.tmz.com/2016/09/21/jonbenet-ramsey-cbs-lawsuit-documentary-burke-lawyer/

Seems there is a lot of misinformation.

This changes everything, if in fact true that the blow to the head came at the time of death. If it were true though wouldn't this be a more of a universal conclusion at this point of which came first- the head blow or the strangulation? And can one even get deep ligature marks on their body if they are already dead? Doesn't blood flow need to be occurring in order to bruised or have ligature marks on your body? Meaning JB had to be alive when she was strangled with the garrote.

Lin Wood loses me when he calls the CBS panel "phony experts". They seemed pretty darned qualified to me.