Patsy Ramsey, JonBenet's mother, dies

[King of New York]

hxxp://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/24/ramsey.death/index.html

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Patsy Ramsey, mother of slain 6-year-old JonBenet, died Saturday of ovarian cancer, her lawyer told CNN. She was 49.


She died about 3:30 a.m. at her father's house with her husband by her side, lawyer Lin Wood said. She was diagnosed with cancer in 1993 but was cancer-free for nine years until a relapse three years ago.
The unsolved killing of JonBenet in December 1996 put Patsy and John Ramsey, the girl's parents, in the spotlight.



A grand jury investigation into the death of the child beauty pageant winner ended without charges in 1999.


JonBenet's beaten and strangled body was found in the basement of the family home in Boulder, Colorado, the day after Christmas.


The Ramseys said an intruder committed the crime, but they remained the subject of suspicion and speculation.


"I think people realize now that this family was very much victims of that murder and have suffered greatly because of it in terms of the false accusations made against them," Wood said.


"But again, they have shown great dignity and courage to deal with the situation, a very difficult situation," he added.


"I think people will remember Patsy as being someone who was falsely accused in connection with the death of her daughter, when she should be remembered for being an incredibly loving mother, a wonderful wife, and a person who showed great courage in fighting a vicious disease over the last many years," Woodtold CNN.


"She should be an example to others who face cancer, that there can be a win, a victory, because she lived for over 10 years with the disease, and, I think, was able to accomplish a lot in her life and spend valuable time with her family and friends."


The Ramseys left Colorado and had a house in Charlevoix, Michigan, where John Ramsey unsuccessfully ran for office in 2004, and in Atlanta, Georgia.


-----

You know, the Ramsey Case was one of the few cases where I never could get a sense of who was telling the truth and who was lying. Usually in these high-profile cases, after the smoke clears you can get a pretty good sense of who is guilty or innocent, but I never could figure out whether the Ramseys were telling the truth or not.

If they were lying, I would guess that it is now even less likely that we'll ever know the truth. And if they were telling the truth, well, this just compounds the tragedy.

[MrBug708]

Interesting. I've always disliked parents who live vicariously through their kids and always thought she knew way more then was every made known

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Interesting. I've always disliked parents who live vicariously through their kids and always thought she knew way more then was every made known

I agree...I don't necessarily think she killed her, but I think she knew who did or witnessed something that she never admitted to. I feel the same way about the father...

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

That whole situation was odd, especially the "killer" knowing the exact of amount of the father's new bonus.

[stevew]

I didn't really follow the case too much, but I always thought someone in/close to the family did it.

[molson]

I doubt the family killed her, but I'm sure the beauty pageant crap made her a target for some pervert (who may have been a family friend).

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by molson

I doubt the family killed her, but I'm sure the beauty pageant crap made her a target for some pervert (who may have been a family friend).

but then why the bizzarre "ransom" note?

[Crapshoot]

I think the whole case, the sagas, and the legions of people-watchers following them was more than a little sad.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

but then why the bizzarre "ransom" note?

That's actually one of the reasons why I lean towards them not being involved. The ranson note, demanding the exact amount of the guy's bonus, leaving the body in the basement - if they parents were THAT sloppy trying to cover this up, surely there would have been physical evidence, etc. It seems like more the work of someone seriously mentally unstable who had some knowledge of the house and the bonus - like a handyman or a crazy uncle/cousin. Just a guess of course.

[st.cronin]

I forget all the details, but I believe the body of evidence pretty much exonerates the family, and points to a pair of (unkown) guys who are more or less career low-life criminals. I haven't read anything on this case in several years, though.

[cthomer5000]

very detailed look at the case, if anyone is interested...

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...y/index_1.html

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I think the whole case, the sagas, and the legions of people-watchers following them was more than a little sad.

i agree with this. take the michael jackson case and that lady, with her daughter, releasing doves as the verdicts were read. just incredible.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I forget all the details, but I believe the body of evidence pretty much exonerates the family, and points to a pair of (unkown) guys who are more or less career low-life criminals. I haven't read anything on this case in several years, though.

No, those were people the family pegged and there have never been anything on them.

Fact is, the Boulder police destroyed the crime scene so badly that it made a case against the Ramsey's impossible.

Virtually ever "expert" I've heard who is willing to discuss the case believes that one of the two parents did it, with the most likely parent being the mother.

[Edward64]

I'm like King, I don't have a good feel for who did it but I lean against the parents doing this.

Its hard for me to believe that both parents could have done this together.

One of the alternatives is that one parent killed the daughter. If this was the case, I believe the other spouse would get a sense/feel of this.

Being a parent, I can't believe if a spouse got the 'bad vibes' with the other spouse, they would stay married. One way or another, I figure the marriage would have broken up.

Hence, I tend to lean against either parent. But there was the theory of their son ...

If she truly was incorrectly vilified all this time, I wish her the best with her daughter in the afterlife.

[st.cronin]

The problem with the parents as a suspect has always been, what is the motive. Well, two problems, a complete lack of evidence, but also a total absence of motive. I think in this case suspicion falls on the parents because there are no other visible suspects.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by TroyF

No, those were people the family pegged and there have never been anything on them.

Fact is, the Boulder police destroyed the crime scene so badly that it made a case against the Ramsey's impossible.

Virtually ever "expert" I've heard who is willing to discuss the case believes that one of the two parents did it, with the most likely parent being the mother.

Hmmmm.....
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/met...ge_tab_newstab

Prosecutor: DNA clears JonBenet Ramsey's family

Associated Press
Published on: 07/09/08
Boulder, Colo. -- Prosecutors say new DNA tests have cleared JonBenet Ramsey's family in the 1996 killing of the 6-year-old beauty queen.
Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy said Wednesday the tests point to an "unexplained third party."

She says prosecutors don't consider any member of the Ramsey family to be a suspect.
JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, were long said to be under an "umbrella of suspicion" in the girl's slaying.
Lacy apologized to the family on Wednesday, saying, "To the extent that this office has added to the distress suffered by the Ramsey family at any time or to any degree, I offer my deepest apology."
John Ramsey, a software entrepreneur, has said in interviews he believes the case will be solved.
Patsy Ramsey died June 24, 2006 of ovarian cancer at the age of 49 in Atlanta, where the family moved after JonBenet's death.
Patsy Ramsey and JonBenet Ramsey are buried in Marietta.

[RomaGoth]

Anytime a child is harmed it is a tragedy, regardless of who is at fault IMO.

[molson]

I don't see how presence of a 3rd party's DNA necessarily exonerates anyone, but perhaps they wanted to close this thing out.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't see how presence of a 3rd party's DNA necessarily exonerates anyone, but perhaps they wanted to close this thing out.

Because it was on the murder weapon and under her fingernails. Pretty much guarentees it was not a family member that killed her. There was always a host of other evidence that pointed to a third party, much of it was over-looked and even destroyed early on by the police who where rabid to get the parents from the very begining.

[molson]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Because it was on the murder weapon and under her fingernails. Pretty much guarentees it was not a family member that killed her. There was always a host of other evidence that pointed to a third party, much of it was over-looked and even destroyed early on by the police who where rabid to get the parents from the very begining.

HYPOTHETICALLY she could have been prostituted out or molested before the murder by a third party.

The different DNA is nothing new (remember John Mark Karr not being a match after he confessed?) Maybe the PD wants to pull all remaining resources away from this.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Because it was on the murder weapon and under her fingernails. Pretty much guarentees it was not a family member that killed her. There was always a host of other evidence that pointed to a third party, much of it was over-looked and even destroyed early on by the police who where rabid to get the parents from the very begining.

Say what?

The family was given far more protections early on than any normal family. Hell, the father found the girl in the basement AFTER the police had conducted a search on the property. They were so scared of offending the Ramsey's they did everything in their power to avoid charging them with the crime.

In fact, the only reason it ever got to a grand jury was because of the negative PR the police had from people saying the police had treated them with kid gloves. Hell, they didn't even go to court to demand a handwriting test for Mrs. Ramsey until months after the murder.

I never said the family did it, I repeated what the experts I had heard said. If the DNA clears the family, I'm still not convinced they didn't know more than what they said. Little girls come up missing all the time. They get killed often. But it's pretty damn rare when a killer writes out a psychotic ransom note that includes not openly released information (such as, oh, I dunno, the fathers EXACT bonus figure), takes the kid to the basement, kills her there, then leaves no trace of anything, anywhere on the property.

Nobody will ever convince me that the Ramsey's don't know far more than what they ever let on.

I'm even skeptical of this DNA test. DNA testing existed when this case happened. The police took a ton of flak during the time this was going on, with most people begging them to charge the Ramsey's. I'm supposed to believe they didn't test the blood back then and release the results, which would have cleared the Ramsey's AND helped ease the media pressure on them?

Sorry. . .you'll have to excuse me if I'm just a tad bit skeptical of it being released now.

[digamma]

I played golf with Patsy Ramsey's father (JonBenet's grandfather) once. That's all.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by digamma

I played golf with Patsy Ramsey's father (JonBenet's grandfather) once. That's all.

I don't suppose he mentioned to you what his son-in-law's bonus was....

[molson]

Originally Posted by TroyF

(such as, oh, I dunno, the fathers EXACT bonus figure)

I never understood what the bonus thing was supposed to implicate or imply. If the father had anything to do with the ransom note - why would he use his exact bonus amount as a ransom? That sounds more like something that some crackpot would do to implicte the father. It certainly wouldn't be impossible for someone to come across that information, just like someone can get your social security number or otherwise steal your identity.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by digamma

I played golf with Patsy Ramsey's father (JonBenet's grandfather) once. That's all.

I suppose that is a step above playing golf with OJ.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by molson

I never understood what the bonus thing was supposed to implicate or imply. If the father had anything to do with the ransom note - why would he use his exact bonus amount as a ransom? That sounds more like something that some crackpot would do to implicte the father. It certainly wouldn't be impossible for someone to come across that information, just like someone can get your social security number or otherwise steal your identity.

OK Molson, you get a bonus from work. Tell me who you give that information to.

Your spouse? No question
Your kids? Maybe, but I doubt Jon Bonet would really understand
Your friends? I don't, but let's say you told one or two

Who else? Your boss and the payroll clerk know.

Kind of a limited group of potential killers, don't ya think? Unless he was walking around downtown Boulder screaming "I got a bonus from work and THIS is the exact amount!!!!!"

That information in the note screams to me that it was a VERY close family member or VERY close friend who did it. If the Ramsey's didn't know it, they'd damned well be telling the police everyone who knew what the bonus was and make sure they were checked out.

Or am I off base here. Do you guys who get bonuses tell everyone in the free world what it is? (in my case, my own co workers don't know my bonus. It's me, my father, my fiance and that's it)

The note is the single biggest thing that's always bothered me about this case. A typical crackpot doesn't leave a ransom note and then slaughter the girl in the basement. He doesn't have access to the family's personal informaion (including exactly when they'd have a shot at the kid, what the bonus was, the oulay of the house which would allow them to get away without leaving a trail, etc.

Now I find out they had DNA and didn't bother testing it until now? I know I'm not in law enforcement, but if you have that, is it all that hard to ask all of the close friends of the Ramsey's to come in for voluntary blood tests? And maybe see which ones don't.

Of course, this is all moot, because the Ramsey's refused to even talk to the police for months after it had happened, and then didn't give full infromation.

I don't fault them for getting a lawyer right away. In this day and age, it's not an unwise thing to do. I do fault them for not giving the police as much information as possible early on.

We'll never know who killed Jon Bonet, but I'd bet all of my will (you guys can fight over the $10 that'll bring in) that the parent knew/know exactly who murdered Jon Bonet.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Who goes around telling people the amount of his estate in his will?

[molson]

Originally Posted by TroyF

OK Molson, you get a bonus from work. Tell me who you give that information to.

Your spouse? No question
Your kids? Maybe, but I doubt Jon Bonet would really understand
Your friends? I don't, but let's say you told one or two

Who else? Your boss and the payroll clerk know.

Kind of a limited group of potential killers, don't ya think? Unless he was walking around downtown Boulder screaming "I got a bonus from work and THIS is the exact amount!!!!!"

.

It's a limited group, but I can think of a few more.

-Someone going through the family trash looking for credit card numbers
-A repairman who came across a letter informing the father of the raise that was left on the kitchen table.
-Anyone at the law firm, including support staff, could concievably come across that paperwork left on a desk or on a hard drive.

It's definitely most likely that whatever happened, it was someone close to the family. That's just basic crime statistics. But I don't think that, or the bonus, implicates the father personally. Can you picture him scrawling a ransom note and then thinking, "what number should I use...how about the exact number of my bonus!", or suggesting that number to a 3rd party writing the note?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

-Someone going through the family trash looking for credit card numbers

Just so we aren't always at odds...this was the first thing I thought of. It would seem like a lot of effort to go through the trash often enough to notice a bonus if it was a random crazy person, but someone close to the family could have heard about a bonus and then went looking for it. Using the exact bonus amount for a ransom seems like a particularly stupid idea both for the father to do, and for someone framing the father to do. I suppose it is so sufficiently stupid that you can't really pin it on anyone.

Edit: I take that back, a bonus would be a one-time amount probably indicated on a check...I was thinking of a general wage raise.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I don't suppose he mentioned to you what his son-in-law's bonus was....

Yes, he gave me the EXACT figure.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by molson

It's a limited group, but I can think of a few more.

-Someone going through the family trash looking for credit card numbers
-A repairman who came across a letter informing the father of the raise that was left on the kitchen table.
-Anyone at the law firm, including support staff, could concievably come across that paperwork left on a desk or on a hard drive.

It's definitely most likely that whatever happened, it was someone close to the family. That's just basic crime statistics. But I don't think that, or the bonus, implicates the father personally. Can you picture him scrawling a ransom note and then thinking, "what number should I use...how about the exact number of my bonus!", or suggesting that number to a 3rd party writing the note?

1) why would someone go through the family trash looking for crap? For what purpose? If the goal was to hold the girl for ransom and this was a planned thing, why would you look through the garbage for that info?

2) Finding all repairman who walked into the house on Christmas week isn't a real hard thing to do. It could have been narrowed down even further as most people don't leave that information lying around the house for multiple days.

3) If the support staff at the law firm knew his bonus, it was horribly run. That said, it's still not a huge group of people to investigate.

I can't explain why Ramsey would have wrote the exact bonus. But I also know that the group of people with access to that information would have been sparse. And I know that were I the father of a murdered girl, I'd damned well track down ANYONE who knew that number and found out what they knew. (and yes, this does include going to the police right away and letting them know everyone who might have had the information as opposed to refusing to talk to the police for months after the murder occured)

That note has never added up to me. To me, it rules out the random crackpot. This was a close, close friend in the inner circle of the Ramsey's. I fully believe they know exactly who killed their daughter.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I suppose that is a step above playing golf with OJ.

That guy is always too busy searching for the real killer.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by digamma

That guy is always too busy searching for the real killer.

Of course that's when he's not writing books on what would happen if he hypothetically did the crime.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by molson

I never understood what the bonus thing was supposed to implicate or imply. If the father had anything to do with the ransom note - why would he use his exact bonus amount as a ransom?

People do stupid things when they are under a lot of stress.

[st.cronin]

My opinion is that the ransom demand equalling a bonus does not prove anything either way. If you assume the father was involved, it would be evidence - if you assume somebody close to the family is involved, it would be evidence - but making no assumptions, it doesn't point me any particular direction. It could mean a lot of different things, or it could mean nothing at all.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

My opinion is that the ransom demand equalling a bonus does not prove anything either way. If you assume the father was involved, it would be evidence - if you assume somebody close to the family is involved, it would be evidence - but making no assumptions, it doesn't point me any particular direction. It could mean a lot of different things, or it could mean nothing at all.

How can it possibly mean nothing at all? The number was118,000 dollars. The ransom note was three pages long, not something a killer rushed for time would be writing.

How can it not be important to this case? It greatly reduces the chance this was a random act. Look, I don't knowwho did it. I fully believe the Ramsey's knew more than they let on. For a pretty balanced look at the case, go to this link:

http://www.justicejunction.com/innoc..._the_crime.htm

some bits:

The Ramsey’s took many, one of them in the comfortable, plush living room of a high-ranking member of the Boulder District Attorney’s Office. It has made me wonder: if I was a suspect in the murder of my daughter, would my handwriting sample be taken on a soft couch with a cup of coffee and a plate of cookies in front of me? Somehow, I doubt that would be the case. The bottom line is that the Ramsey’s were given preferential treatment because of their wealth and the lawyers that their money was bought with.


Detective Linda Arndt was at the Ramsey home at about 1:00 that afternoon. The time for the kidnappers to call was long past and Arndt was very suspicious that the Ramsey’s were not outwardly upset by the fact that the kidnapper hadn't’t called. At that moment in time, she had tried several times to get another officer over to help her control the situation. She then made one of the most crucial errors in this case. She suggested to John and Fleet White that they take a top to bottom tour of the home, to see if anything was amiss. Both men agreed to do so.
John jumped out of his chair and instead of going to the third floor, John and Patsy’s lavish bedroom suite, at the top of the house he ran down the stairs to the basement, Fleet right behind him. John had to have felt a frigid fear, but he did not show it. There was a broken basement window, that he told Fleet he had broken. There was a suitcase underneath the window that turned out to have a blanket and a child’s book inside. They turned the corner and John reached to open the door to a small room off the basement that the family referred to as the Wine Cellar. No wine was stored there; it had a few shelves and a bare bulb for light. John switched on the light and began screaming, ”Oh my God, oh my God!” He had found the lifeless body of his daughter wrapped in a blanket with her hands and neck attached loosely by a string with a stick made into a crude garrote that was deeply furrowed into the skin of her neck. Stray hair was found in the stick. There was a Barbie nightgown on the floor next to her. Fleet touched JonBenet’s bare foot and instinctively knew she was dead. Both men ran upstairs, yelling, ”She’s here! Call 911,please! She’s here!” John put his daughter on the hard floor of the foyer, and Patsy’s friends were helping her off the floor, where she had been weeping for several hours. Detective Arndt didn’t have a two way police radio and she was clearly in need of assistance. Arndt picked up JonBenet’s lifeless body and moved it near the Christmas tree.
When Patsy and her friends saw the lifeless JonBenet, Patsy threw herself over JonBenet’s body screaming hysterically, “Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead, please raise my baby!”

--------------------------------------------------------

No matter what your opinion is, there is no doubt the ineptitude of the Boulder Police Department, some of which was caused by the fear of the Ramsey's bank statement.

[bhlloy]

This is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but has anyone thought of investigating somebody within the police department?

The constant leaks whenever there was a useful fact or break in the case, unhelpful comments to the media, the refusal to turn evidence over or analyze it properly, the refusal to have independent authorities help etc... To me that goes beyond incompetence... looks like somebody with an agenda.

I agree with Troy, whatever your opinion on the parents, the PD made it completely impossible to ever get a verdict in this case.

[TroyF]

Just an FYI for the people here who don't live in CO. The way it's being reported here by the pundits is that Mary Lacy, the Boulder DA, is simply trying to save her legacy here. She's in a term limit position which ends this year and she's trying to save herself and those close to her by clearing the Ramsey's. They've had these DNA tests for quite sometime and thought the tests were pretty useless until recently.

She knows with this news being released, along with Patsy dead, this pretty much ends this case and saves what legacy she has left. (which isn't much, her term has been laced with scandals and ineptitude. Remember the CU football team rapists? Mary Lacy was the one in charge of that. She caught a university employee making an improper call with a cell phone. To date that's the only criminal conviction for anybody associated with the CU program at the time. This is despite multiple rape accusations and plenty of DNA evidence)

The real killer(s) of Jon Bonet will never be known. The case is over. I still firmly believe the family was involved in some way. So do most of the people who have spent time investigating the case. No matter, it's now up to your higher power to judge if you're religious, or will go unsolved if you're not.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by TroyF

So do most of the people who have spent time investigating the case.

I keep seeing you say this, yet I have numerous experienced investagors who have studied this case extensively that have said the exact opposite, not to mention a federal judge who poured over the evidence and said that it was more consistant with an intruder.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I keep seeing you say this, yet I have numerous experienced investagors who have studied this case extensively that have said the exact opposite, not to mention a federal judge who poured over the evidence and said that it was more consistant with an intruder.

Countless FBI profilers have been on shows in Colorado saying the most likely culprit with all of the evidence pointing to the family, specifically Patsy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Countless FBI profilers have been on shows in Colorado saying the most likely culprit with all of the evidence pointing to the family, specifically Patsy.

I haven't read as much about this as you have so I'm curious, what's your best guess of EXACTLY what happened. Let's say if you were exactly right, you'd win a million dollars or something. What do you think the best theory is? (I'm not offering you a million dollars).

[TroyF]

Just a quick link here: Peter Boyles with Caplas and Silverman, three Denver radio hosts. Boyles is the guy who has kept the Ramsey case alive for a long time and he's an unabashed person who believes the Ramsey's are involved. Caplas and Silverman are both lawyers (Silverman a former DA) Caplas is conservative, Silverman is a liberal.

It's an interesting listen to thier thoughts.

http://www.khow.com/cc-common/mainhe...rticle=3747424

[Huckleberry]

Troy -

You're one of my favorite posters but if you type Ramsey's when it should say Ramseys or Ramseys' one more time I'm going to have to virtual-pimp-slap your ass.

That is all.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by molson

I haven't read as much about this as you have so I'm curious, what's your best guess of EXACTLY what happened. Let's say if you were exactly right, you'd win a million dollars or something. What do you think the best theory is? (I'm not offering you a million dollars).

It's tough to speculate. I firmly believe the family was involved or know what happened. The parents, specifically Patsy were living their lives through the kid. There are many, many things that have always bothered me about the case.

1) The ransom note. Already went over. How in the hell does the "killer" know the exact amount of his bonus. Furthermore, why do you take the time to write a three page ransom note and then take the girl to the basement and kill her. How does that make sense in any meaningful way? The killer would have had to have had JonBonet under perfect control through this whole process. She was changed in an upstairs bathroom. The killer and her would have had to go to the basement without disturbing the sleeping parents. Why waste the time to write the ransom note, then go into a room in the basement and kill the child? Why even "play" with the child at that time if you were interested in cash?

2) The Ramseys actions. They were unbelievably calm during the early investigation. (when everyone thought it was a kidnapping) Patsy had her hair done up and her makeup on when the investigators arrived. They didn't seem to be bothered when the time for the supposed phone call came and went with nothing. They HAD NOT DID A COMPLETE SEARCH OF THE HOUSE until they were instructed by police to do so. And then when instructed, the father went right to the body. Think about that for a second. Forget all of the other psychology of how people should act in a case like this. Just tell me how if you as a parent woke up and couldn't find your kid, wouldn't turn the house upside down looking for the kid before you even bothered with the police. Ransom note or not, my house would be torn to the ground searching for my girl. The Ramsey's simply sat on the sofa and waited for the police.

3) The Ramseys spent a lot of time hiding behind a legal team. Patsy had a lawyer. John has a lawyer. Burke, JonBonet's brother, who was NINE YEARS old at the time had HIS OWN LAWYER. I understand giving yourself some protection, but a lawyer for each family member in the house within a couple of days of the murder? And not cooperating with the police to the point the governor of Colorado had to ask them to stop hiding behind their attorneys? Why do all of that if you have nothing to hide? Please don't give me the "they were worried about going to jail bit" because their first concern should have been finding out who in the hell killed their little girl.

So, I have 1 million dollars if I get it right? I'll leave the money to someone else. I don't know exactly what happened. I fully believe it was someone within the family, but we'll never know. The Boulder PD botched the investigation from the beginning. The Ramseys fought the PD and waited months to give police a full interview. (and the police, who someone said above was after the Ramseys from the start simply allowed that to happen without getting warrents to make them talk) By the time they gave the interview, crucial information could have been lost or forgotten. For that alone they deserve blame.

There has been DNA there from the start of the case. It's gets checked weekly against all the sex offender DNA on file. And with a database over 1.5 million, it still hasn't gotten a hit and likely never will.

I don't know exactly how it happened. . . but I do not believe for even a half second that a killer walked into the house, was so clinical that he wrote a 3 page ransom note, was calm enough to snatch a child and change her clothes in an upstairs bathroom while her parents were sleeping two doors away (while not leaving fingerprints or a loose hair anywhere either) and then was irrational enough to decide to take the girl into the wine cellar and kill her before leaving out the window again.

It doesn't add up. Never has for me and never will.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Troy -

You're one of my favorite posters but if you type Ramsey's when it should say Ramseys or Ramseys' one more time I'm going to have to virtual-pimp-slap your ass.

That is all.

All I can do is hang my head in shame. Some journalism major I am.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by TroyF

All I can do is hang my head in shame. Some journalism major I am.

Considering the quality of writing in your average newspaper article, I think it would be more accurate to blame your major than to believe you failed to live up to it.

[molson]

When the father dies, and his inheritance is secure, maybe the son will write a tell-all book. He's what, 21 now?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by molson

When the father dies, and his inheritance is secure, maybe the son will write a tell-all book. He's what, 21 now?

Maybe he'll write an "If I Did It" book, too,

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Maybe he'll write an "If I Did It" book, too,

That just reminds me of one of my favorite SNL sketches

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/95/95bnflonnbc.phtml

SI

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Maybe he'll write an "If I Did It" book, too,

My dad has always been completely convinced that it was the brother who did it...