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.

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.

Also, was the garrote tested for fingerprints?

What if she did die accidently but neither parent nor an intruder were present? And they were either intoxicated or under the influence and felt they would be blamed for not watching their child or for her injury thus not calling 9-11 maybe keeping vigil over her over night in hopes she would wake up (thus leaving fibers on her, the larger underwear, etc...) freaking out when she didn't and staging the scene. Technically they would not have killed her and could pass lie detector tests.

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.

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.

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.

Evidence? It's suspicious but not actual evidence.

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.

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.

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

Dr Phil is represented by the same attorney as the Ramseys, Lin Wood. The lie detector tests were administered by experts that their attorney hand-picked. They would not let the FBI conduct the tests.

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

It's so tough that cops hate rich white people.

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

Anonymous wrote:So a woman who never even spanked her kids suddenly goes completely nuts one night and whacks her daughter's head so hard she passes out, then she brutally strangles and sexually assaults her daughter. No way.

I don't think the Ramseys were involved. It seems so out of character. Their brains don't even go there. To have no security system with their wealth seems naive, and also for JR to have known about the broken window, but not repaired it right away suggests he just didn't think his family was at risk for crime. Maybe he was a bit too lax, trusting and gullible. My ILs are like that.

So a woman who never even spanked her kids suddenly goes completely nuts one night and whacks her daughter's head so hard she passes out, then she brutally strangles and sexually assaults her daughter. No way.

I think all the evidence was contaminated at the time. TLC showed how McReynolds, Gary O, and Hegloth all were very suspicious but none could be tied to the scene. No fingerprints (gloves), can't prove who wrote the note, no dna. I don't understand how they didn't find any of McReynolds beard hairs from when he was there on the 12/23.

Anonymous wrote:None if makes any mother f'ing sense.

The only plausibly implausible scenario is that an evil genius showed up and orchestrated the most perfectly wonderful unsolvable crime. Maybe this person wrote mystery novels.

I tend to think a lot of stuff that the Internet discussions of this crime focus on are red herrings. There is literally no scenario that makes sense. Something important is missing or perhaps the crime was committed with a motive of framing so there were intentional red herrings. There would have been easier ways to attempt to frame John (think of the drug planting story in CA) that wouldn't involve murdering a child so I tend to be skeptical of that as well.

The profile of this crime is a sadistic murder of a young child with sexual elements. This is one of the rarest crimes and typically only committed by people who have serious psychopathic criminal tendencies. This is not really a crime that fits the profile of something one would do accidentally, because they could, to frame someone, or because they messed up trying to get ransom. On the other hand, the circumstances of her being in the house and the tight timeline don't really fit either. I have no idea what happened, except that I find it extremely hard to believe an accident was involved and certainly not one involving a 9 year old boy. If one of the parents did it, I have to assume because of a few things it was a premeditated attack on JonBenet. This is hard to believe for a few reasons (despite careful scrutiny over the past 20 years, they don't appear to have the criminal characteristics associated with a crime of this nature) but with no alternative suspect or theory, the possibility can't be ruled out. I think that's about all that can be said though. The investigators who are "sure" they did it or "theorize" it was an accident have nothing more to go off than speculation about circumstantial evidence that doesn't add up. If they had any real evidence the case could have been closed by now against people who were obviously in the house at the time. Only thing that can roll the ball forward at this point would be to get a hit against the DNA evidence. It would either exclude that person on the basis of an alibi and thus strengthen the case against the people known to be in the home at the time, or identify a murderer.

Wow the three possible intruders on the tlc show are creepy.