Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Patsy's wiki page doubles down on her big claim to faim describing her as a beauty pageant winner, Miss West Virginia. Her wiki page and Jon Benet's wiki page describe Jon Benet as a beauty pageant winner. Patsy's sister was a Miss West Virginia.

Most of America found that behavior to be very odd.

Patsy was more than 10 years younger than her husband John, on his 2nd marriage. Again this is not typical behavior of most Americans, especially in the 1990s.

Patsy appeared to be a vain woman, capable of covering up family secrets.

John's "awe shucks" persona doesn't work. He ran a business that was a Lockheed Martin company. Seems like moving to Boulder was a mistake for the Ramsey's who were from the South.

+1. The aww shucks act doesn't pass muster. John is clearly a ruthless business exec in a ruthless industry.

Anonymous wrote:John's story just doesn't add up. He broke the basement window himself weeks or months ago. He thought someone repaired it. So is that how the intruder entered the house?

I don't get how the kids were using the room as a toy train room and play room with a broken window. Did the parents never go to the room? Patsy supposedly had paint supplies nearby.

Wouldn't it be cold with a broken window?

Anonymous wrote:Patsy's wiki page doubles down on her big claim to faim describing her as a beauty pageant winner, Miss West Virginia. Her wiki page and Jon Benet's wiki page describe Jon Benet as a beauty pageant winner. Patsy's sister was a Miss West Virginia.

Most of America found that behavior to be very odd.

Patsy was more than 10 years younger than her husband John, on his 2nd marriage. Again this is not typical behavior of most Americans, especially in the 1990s.

Patsy appeared to be a vain woman, capable of covering up family secrets.

John's "awe shucks" persona doesn't work. He ran a business that was a Lockheed Martin company. Seems like moving to Boulder was a mistake for the Ramsey's who were from the South.

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Burke's boot print in the basement next to the body? Was it determined whether it was fresh?

Then there is the 911 call. Parents said Burke was asleep, but on the tape: John says "we're not talking to you" then Patsy says "what have you done, god help us"
Burke replies "what did you find"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I swear the crime podcast and scam documentary apparatus have fried people’s minds. Everything isn’t some vast conspiracy. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain someone in her family killed that girl.

Yes. And we'll never know how or why.

So why is John asking for DNA to be tested if he knows?

Because he wants there to be reasonable doubt for Burke's sake. Even though experts have said the vanishingly small amount of DNA likely came from the manufacturing process, and may not have come from one person. JB touches it, then it's under her nails and transfers to her long johns waist band when she touches it.

Nobody is coming after Burke. There’s no need for John to kick the hornet’s nest for “reasonable doubt”.

Sure there is. Imagine you're not far from death yourself and this will hang over your boy for the rest of his life. Also his accusing Boulder PD of not pursuing the DNA evidence is false. They even went to Asia to visit the manufacturing plant where the underwear was made, but were prevented from taking DNA samples. John knows this. Why is he pushing misinformation? Because the tiny fragments of DNA were the only thing that created reasonable doubt, in the face of all the evidence indicating there was no intruder.

Whatever. The DA already apologized to the family and exonerated the parents.

And the next DA said she was wrong to do that, not her place. So, whatever right back to you.

Explain the unidentified male DNA on 2 pieces of her clothing.

Manufacturing touch transfer. Explain the evidence for lack of an intruder.

False. It was on both long john and underwear. Not likely both were made by the same manufacturer and touched by the same person.

Henry Lee explained this. She touched the underwear then the waistband of her long johns, thereby transferring it.
Now, zero evidence for an intruder. Go.

There was an unlocked door and no alarm set. Anyone could have walked in and out. And, no “she” didn’t touch it. An unknown man pulled both of them down and then back up. How odd.

Right, an intruder hung out for a long period of time, torturing a kid, finding a secret room in the basement, then drafting a lengthy ransom note. Even though Patsy never went to sleep that night. Makes perfect sense, sure.

The same DNA was under her fingernails, so yes she did touch them. But keep making up facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I swear the crime podcast and scam documentary apparatus have fried people’s minds. Everything isn’t some vast conspiracy. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain someone in her family killed that girl.

Yes. And we'll never know how or why.

So why is John asking for DNA to be tested if he knows?

Because he wants there to be reasonable doubt for Burke's sake. Even though experts have said the vanishingly small amount of DNA likely came from the manufacturing process, and may not have come from one person. JB touches it, then it's under her nails and transfers to her long johns waist band when she touches it.

Nobody is coming after Burke. There’s no need for John to kick the hornet’s nest for “reasonable doubt”.

Sure there is. Imagine you're not far from death yourself and this will hang over your boy for the rest of his life. Also his accusing Boulder PD of not pursuing the DNA evidence is false. They even went to Asia to visit the manufacturing plant where the underwear was made, but were prevented from taking DNA samples. John knows this. Why is he pushing misinformation? Because the tiny fragments of DNA were the only thing that created reasonable doubt, in the face of all the evidence indicating there was no intruder.

Whatever. The DA already apologized to the family and exonerated the parents.

And the next DA said she was wrong to do that, not her place. So, whatever right back to you.

Explain the unidentified male DNA on 2 pieces of her clothing.

Manufacturing touch transfer. Explain the evidence for lack of an intruder.

False. It was on both long john and underwear. Not likely both were made by the same manufacturer and touched by the same person.

Henry Lee explained this. She touched the underwear then the waistband of her long johns, thereby transferring it.
Now, zero evidence for an intruder. Go.

There was an unlocked door and no alarm set. Anyone could have walked in and out. And, no “she” didn’t touch it. An unknown man pulled both of them down and then back up. How odd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I swear the crime podcast and scam documentary apparatus have fried people’s minds. Everything isn’t some vast conspiracy. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain someone in her family killed that girl.

Yes. And we'll never know how or why.

So why is John asking for DNA to be tested if he knows?

Because he wants there to be reasonable doubt for Burke's sake. Even though experts have said the vanishingly small amount of DNA likely came from the manufacturing process, and may not have come from one person. JB touches it, then it's under her nails and transfers to her long johns waist band when she touches it.

Nobody is coming after Burke. There’s no need for John to kick the hornet’s nest for “reasonable doubt”.

Sure there is. Imagine you're not far from death yourself and this will hang over your boy for the rest of his life. Also his accusing Boulder PD of not pursuing the DNA evidence is false. They even went to Asia to visit the manufacturing plant where the underwear was made, but were prevented from taking DNA samples. John knows this. Why is he pushing misinformation? Because the tiny fragments of DNA were the only thing that created reasonable doubt, in the face of all the evidence indicating there was no intruder.

Whatever. The DA already apologized to the family and exonerated the parents.

And the next DA said she was wrong to do that, not her place. So, whatever right back to you.

Explain the unidentified male DNA on 2 pieces of her clothing.

Manufacturing touch transfer. Explain the evidence for lack of an intruder.

False. It was on both long john and underwear. Not likely both were made by the same manufacturer and touched by the same person.

Henry Lee explained this. She touched the underwear then the waistband of her long johns, thereby transferring it.
Now, zero evidence for an intruder. Go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I swear the crime podcast and scam documentary apparatus have fried people’s minds. Everything isn’t some vast conspiracy. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain someone in her family killed that girl.

Yes. And we'll never know how or why.

So why is John asking for DNA to be tested if he knows?

Because he wants there to be reasonable doubt for Burke's sake. Even though experts have said the vanishingly small amount of DNA likely came from the manufacturing process, and may not have come from one person. JB touches it, then it's under her nails and transfers to her long johns waist band when she touches it.

Nobody is coming after Burke. There’s no need for John to kick the hornet’s nest for “reasonable doubt”.

Sure there is. Imagine you're not far from death yourself and this will hang over your boy for the rest of his life. Also his accusing Boulder PD of not pursuing the DNA evidence is false. They even went to Asia to visit the manufacturing plant where the underwear was made, but were prevented from taking DNA samples. John knows this. Why is he pushing misinformation? Because the tiny fragments of DNA were the only thing that created reasonable doubt, in the face of all the evidence indicating there was no intruder.

Whatever. The DA already apologized to the family and exonerated the parents.

And the next DA said she was wrong to do that, not her place. So, whatever right back to you.

Explain the unidentified male DNA on 2 pieces of her clothing.

Manufacturing touch transfer. Explain the evidence for lack of an intruder.

False. It was on both long john and underwear. Not likely both were made by the same manufacturer and touched by the same person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I swear the crime podcast and scam documentary apparatus have fried people’s minds. Everything isn’t some vast conspiracy. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain someone in her family killed that girl.

Yes. And we'll never know how or why.

So why is John asking for DNA to be tested if he knows?

Because he wants there to be reasonable doubt for Burke's sake. Even though experts have said the vanishingly small amount of DNA likely came from the manufacturing process, and may not have come from one person. JB touches it, then it's under her nails and transfers to her long johns waist band when she touches it.

Nobody is coming after Burke. There’s no need for John to kick the hornet’s nest for “reasonable doubt”.

Sure there is. Imagine you're not far from death yourself and this will hang over your boy for the rest of his life. Also his accusing Boulder PD of not pursuing the DNA evidence is false. They even went to Asia to visit the manufacturing plant where the underwear was made, but were prevented from taking DNA samples. John knows this. Why is he pushing misinformation? Because the tiny fragments of DNA were the only thing that created reasonable doubt, in the face of all the evidence indicating there was no intruder.

Whatever. The DA already apologized to the family and exonerated the parents.

And the next DA said she was wrong to do that, not her place. So, whatever right back to you.

Explain the unidentified male DNA on 2 pieces of her clothing.

Manufacturing touch transfer. Explain the evidence for lack of an intruder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I swear the crime podcast and scam documentary apparatus have fried people’s minds. Everything isn’t some vast conspiracy. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain someone in her family killed that girl.

Yes. And we'll never know how or why.

So why is John asking for DNA to be tested if he knows?

Because he wants there to be reasonable doubt for Burke's sake. Even though experts have said the vanishingly small amount of DNA likely came from the manufacturing process, and may not have come from one person. JB touches it, then it's under her nails and transfers to her long johns waist band when she touches it.

Nobody is coming after Burke. There’s no need for John to kick the hornet’s nest for “reasonable doubt”.

Sure there is. Imagine you're not far from death yourself and this will hang over your boy for the rest of his life. Also his accusing Boulder PD of not pursuing the DNA evidence is false. They even went to Asia to visit the manufacturing plant where the underwear was made, but were prevented from taking DNA samples. John knows this. Why is he pushing misinformation? Because the tiny fragments of DNA were the only thing that created reasonable doubt, in the face of all the evidence indicating there was no intruder.

Whatever. The DA already apologized to the family and exonerated the parents.

And the next DA said she was wrong to do that, not her place. So, whatever right back to you.

Explain the unidentified male DNA on 2 pieces of her clothing.

Anonymous wrote:Was Burke an IVF baby?