Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was living in Denver during that time, and I still can't shake my initial reaction to the breaking news story that day....this awful thing had happened and both parents hired independent attorneys to protect them within 24 hours. The morning after when I read that I turned to my SO and said..."well, they had something to do with it, otherwise why would their first action be hiring attorneys?"
Nothing I've read since has made me shake that initial impression.
...they had something to do with it, otherwise why would their first action be hiring attorneys?
Probably because, as so many people on this thread have been quick to point out, immediate family members are considered to be primary suspects. It doesn't mean they were guilty, just legally astute.
Probably because, as so many people on this thread have been quick to point out, immediate family members are considered to be primary suspects. It doesn't mean they were guilty, just legally astute.
To the great unwashed, "legally astute" can look mighty guilty. Especially when the Ramsey case was compared to the Klaas case, which happened not much prior and the parents took a completely different approach - they did not lawyer up, they made them selves completely available to LE; while the Ramseys, it could be argued, hindered the investigation.
I am not saying the Ramseys were involved...I honestly don't know. But compared to many other parents of murdered children, their actions certainly made them look, if not suspicious, unsympathetic, from day one.
I don't think there is anything wrong with hiring a lawyer. The problem I have with the Ramseys is that they didn't give interviews to the police until March or April 1997 which gives them plenty of time to get their story straight. Also, Marc Klaas (who was divorced from Polly's mom) was middle class, and the Ramseys were upper class, which may explain why they got a lawyer, and he didn't. Marc probably wouldn't have gotten a lawyer until it came to the point where it was essential, because he didn't have the disposable income that the Ramseys had. I am just speculating here but, I do believe the Ramseys' social class is a reason why they got lawyers pretty quickly over other parents of murdered children, who are middle and working class.
Didn't you know, almost everyone in prison is "innocent". They we're framed, or put there because they are black, or poor, or had a lousy attorney, everyone is a victim in prison. Even the ones who admit their crimes have a story about what "really" happened, and it is always someone else's fault how they went bad.
Yes, I did know.
I am talking about innocents on death row that were found, through scientific evidence, like DNA, that they did NOT do it.
When DNA analysis was discovered England went through their prison system and set free those who were wrongly convicted. The government paid for it, because it is such a slight on a society when the innocent are convicted. What did we do? Our system fights tooth and nail to prevent the guy found innocent to get out of jail- and he must find the means to pay for the testing, etc. Even when we are forced to let him out, they often do not expunge the crime from the guy's record and it follows him through life. Where is the justice?
Truth is, there is a certain element of corruption in our system that people don't like to admit. There is such pressure for the police to solve the crime that innocent people are blamed. I saw some special on tv which featured how abysmally poor our coroner system is in the U.S. Some of these people have no training at all. Some are the local mortician. Some just rubber stamp what the cops tell them to.
When these things happen, I don't blame the police because they are the field workers. The decisions to push into conviction are caused from pressures on high. The police probably see someone bending rules next to them getting ahead in the system, which is an incentive for them all to do this.
Then, there are other cases, like OJ.
Last edited by goldengrain; 04-04-2011 at 06:59 AM..
I've always felt that the parents or the son had something to do with it. I think it was an accident but there are too many coincidence not to rule them out. The letter written in the house with their paper and pen and specifically stated an odd random amount which was Ramsey's current raise or bonus. Then there was the father finding the body and "knew" where it was. It was snowing then and there was no footprints coming from the broken basement window. Those are the only things I remember from the crime that I can think of now that was odd to me at the time. I'm not quite sure who did it but it was one of those 3 that accidentally killed her.
The only thing that bothered me was why they "staged" her body to make it look like it was sexual crime.
I disagree, I don't think it was a family member. But I do think it had something to do with being in pagents. And I don't think it was a male who killed her. Maybe a jealous Mother, whose daughter kept being beat by Jon Benet...and staged the whole thing. It was calculated, and planned. Someone who wanted to hurt that family, out of jealousy.
how can you say that? you need to read the whole 2.5 page thread. the poster lays out in stunning detail , using scientific methods from three different branches, just how she's the only one who fits the profile to have written it.
what kind of "kidnapper" writes this amazingly long kidnap note, kills the child and then leaves her body in the basement? the whole note was an attempt to throw the police off the trail.
you need to read further, you don't see it because you don't want to believe it.
at least read the whole post, skim a few of the verbiage parts if you must, but look at the evidence.
Hi, I joined the forum after reading 9 pages of this thread.
I looked at the link to the handwriting summation and it is just too general to make any real determination. Then when the poster starts about a real kidnapper writing a ransom note not using certain phrases or that the writer had to see certain movies so it could not be an outside source is just an opinion and not necessarily reality at all. I have not read any books on this case so i am not sure where the paper and pen were located but it isnt unrealistic for a nervous killer to take a few extra minutes to write a bogus note. Why they would do this is another matter but these people are obviously not completely stable so for us to make guesses as to motivation...could be many reasons.
Now here is another thing that is strange and related to the above quote. If the Ramseys took the time to stage the murder and write the note why leave the body in the basement at all? At that point they had control of the situation and could have taken hours to move the body and could have even reported the kid missing much later and in fact this is what many of the peole involved in similar cases actually do.
The police did make a few mistakes and putting the family on the defensive straight away i think was also a mistake.
I noticed this topic was on Page 4 so I wanted to start the discussion up again:
I used to think an intruder killed JonBenet but I am really starting to believe a family member is at fault. The Ramseys were cleared after touch DNA was found on JonBenet's long johns and under her fingernails that belonged to an unknown person. The touch DNA has only been reported to be found in two spots, but wouldn't it be all over JonBenet and the garrote, etc if it were from the killer? Isn't it possible that JonBenet got someone's touch DNA under her fingernails prior to her murder, and she touched her long johns, transferring the unknown DNA? How do we know that the Touch DNA belonged to JBR's murderer?
I don't think the forensic evidence has any empirical validity, after the antics of the keystone cops in Boulder. From what I have heard it was a cluster f***, from the beginning. There were so many mistakes made, and assumptions, because if there had not been so many mistakes, there would have been an arrest made. There was a body found, and evidence in the home. This should have been a case that was solved.
I won't make a guess of who committed the crime, but I do know this investigation was a disaster. The crime scene was not processed correctly, the FBI should have been called in on thisin the beginning.
The interogations focused on the family. I don't blame that family for getting a lawyer, if the investigation had not been such a disaster, there would have been evidence, rather than just trying to bully the family into a confession.
My opinion is that her murderer was close to her, and knew the family, and had been in the home, it was not a random killing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
