Posted on 07/09/2008 12:49:51 PM PDT by blu
Most of the facts you posted are not even true.
Just one example, the window was big enough for an adult to go thru.
Go ahead then, give me some more that are untrue. List them, until you've hit more than 50 percent, and tell me why they're wrong.
And just as a point of interest, how long have you been following this case and how many of the facts I listed were you even aware of? Just curious.
There was a suitcase set sitting under that very same window.
You mean the suitcase that wasn't mentioned by John Ramsay until months after JonBenet's murder?
Wow, you really are uninformed.
The suitcase was clearly shown in photos taken the day she was found.
Well I am not going to go thru your post pointing out all the myths you listed. I don’t have the time, and frankly I doubt you would believe it!
Just one point on the window,
Look at this video. See, you were so wrong about the window.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KkcRBbTpmM
Gosh, I wonder why.
I ennumerated many facts and asked you numerous questions, and all you can do is point me to CNN and Youtube. Where do you get your information, from Ramsey apologist whackjob websites? Frankly, you're just predisposed towards the mysterious intruder theory.
And you still haven't answered the most important question: How does discovery of the same DNA on a different part of her clothing CLEAR the Ramsays? Try to answer that one on your own, without resorting to a link.
I have no idea what loony site you get that drivel, but it isn't logical. All these supposed Internet sleuths have been denied their theories.
It does matter that DNA from an unknown male was found on clothes. Make that more than one article of clothing.
I suppose you are one of the many who think OJ is not guilty. After all, what did the DA have?
Why just some DNA! What did that prove?
Will you admit you were wrong about the window?
Cause you clearly were. Now you just need to admit it and move on.
Ok, I’ll take the bait. How do you know that it sounded just like Patsy? Did you know her?
You don’t know much about it either. The “no footprints” in the snow was debunked in around 1998. There was no snow in quite a few areas around the house. The local media went back and reviewed the tapes and noted this. The original reports were wrong. I’d say that unknown male DNA on her is also evidence pointing to someone other than the Ramseys. Not saying that it was certainly not there, but there remains reasonable doubt. Very sad.
From what I’ve read, the most commonly accepted theory is that it was an accident. JonBenet wet her bed (there was evidence of this) and perhaps her mom was super stressed out (around the holidays, leaving for out of town the early next a.m.) and snapped. Hit JonBenet’s head against a bath tub or toilet (apparently the injury to the head was not consistent with a flash light - which was originally suspected - or other similar object).
The note certainly was very suspicious for serveral very good reasons: The amount of ransom; the way it was written looked like how I'd imagine someone would try to cover something up; that it was written on the Ramsey's notepad with their pen; that a practice note was written, etc.
I read that in the a.m. Patsy was wearing the same clothes that she had on the evening before. If true, this is a huge red flag! Also, they apparently had a falling out with the friends who they had dinner with the night of her death, and who also was with them when the body was found. Not evidence in itself, but it all makes you wonder. Without the foreign DNA it would be virtually impossible for me to believe it was someone else. FWIW, foreign DNA was found on her long ago. I believe on her underwear and her body. Regardless of all of the facts and conjecture, it's a horrible thing all the way around.
Not so quick on the handwriting. The opinions of experts varied greatly.
Well?? Who is it?
Don’t know anything about garroting, and I really don’t want to. I’ve never read any such thing about the Pediatrician’s opinion. In fact, I’ve read the exact opposite.
Hard to argue with your logic, but I did read that the type of skull injury that she had was not caused by a flash light. They said it was more consistent with her head being hit against a tub or toilet.
Ready for an answer? It doesn't! But it certainly pushes into the reasonable doubt category...
I read the same thing about what Patsy was wearing. Not sure if it’s true or not, but it certainly makes her look more guilty if it’s true (absent other information anyway).
I was led to believe that he testified both ways.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.