Suspects...

Judged:

1

1

1

pinker wrote:

I think it was easier for Patsy to explain the day after Christmas visit to Michigan as a secret or special visit from Santa than to tell her John was married before and cheated on Lucinda by having sex outside of the marriage so that family no longer is whole spending Christmas together.
It's likely JonBenet still believed in Santa Claus.

Judged:

2

2

2

Legal__Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>I believe that was from PMPT, and not sworn testimony, and it is hearsay twice removed. What do you find suspicious about it?

Judged:

1

1

1

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right, it's from PMPT. Sorry, took it from Miss Marple's site... If this is exactly the conversation that took place, then JBR seems to equate BM with Santa. If this is true and an IDI, then she either eerily foreshadows a secret visit gone bad or it's just a crazy coincidence. There are other coincidental indicators that keep bringing me back to BM.

Judged:

2

2

2

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>First, if JBR still believed in Santa, naturally she would equate him with Santa. It's also possible that Patsy asked BM to tell that to JBR in preparation for the Michigan trip. JBR, if she believed in Santa Claus, would ONLY equate BM with Santa.

That's what makes sense to me anyway

Judged:

4

3

3

Capricorn wrote:

Also, you should know and remember that the Miss Marple site is less than reliable on many issues.

Judged:

2

2

2

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
Absolutely makes sense to me too, but I compound it with the other coincidences and I begin to suspect his involvement. Then I consider the DNA evidence and I scratch my head...

Judged:

4

4

2

Ole South wrote:

<quoted text>Mama2, I believe that many of us, when considering the DNA evidence are prone to disregard it since there seems to be so many questions about its reliability.

I know that I do.

Judged:

2

2

2

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
The JB encyclo is her sight, correct? Is she known to post inaccuracies?

Judged:

2

2

2

Legal__Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>Actually Miss Marple is a "he". I think the site was very well done at the time but it hasn't been updated in years and with more information having been released over those years, it isn't as accurate as it could be.

I think we all appreciated him doing it at the time, and still do, we just realize some of the information is stale. The other drawback is he referenced internet posters all the time, and what one has to realize is he did that most likely to direct people to where a discussion on that subject could be found. Internet posters are by no stretch of the imagination sources.

Judged:

2

2

1

IgetmoneyDoe wrote:

Who IS ruled out??

Judged:

3

3

3

Henri McPhee wrote:

<quoted text>
The Ramsey children are ruled out by the Boulder cops. They have no other suspects apart form the Ramsey parents. The Boulder police are idiots.

Judged:

2

2

2

whocares811 wrote:

This is a reply mainly to Ole South and Lynette posts about a possible pedophile connection, but it is a question for everyone.
Now, this IS going to sound truly crazy, but in 1996-98 when the case was very active, the only way I could resolve the fact that there was compelling evidence for both the RDI and IDI theories in my own mind was that the murder was committed by one or more pedophile assocates (including Bill McR) of the Ramsey's, and then when something went wrong, Patsy wrote the ransom to cover either her involvement or to cover for whoever else did it. I KNOW that this is a really, REALLY crazy theory, but it would explain both the intruder evidence (or lack thereof) and the ransom note.
Now, I don't believe this theory -- it is just way too crazy -- but I just wondered if any other wacko (besides me, LOL) ever brought it up.
BTW, even though this theory is OBVIOUSLY crazy, the #1 thing wrong with the Ramsey's arranging some kind of "sick party" is that it happened Christmas night after a very busy day, and as the Ramseys were leaving the next morning.
(And I know I'm going to regret posting this!)

Judged:

2

2

2

aussiesheila wrote:

<quoted text>Hi whocares, yes there is 'any other wacko' out there and it's me. I posted my theory at Websleuths some years ago and have been ridiculed ever since. Unlike you, I actually believe it is essentially true, it's the only way all the evidence can be accounted for.

Judged:

2

2

2

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you mind posting your theory here? My suspicions put me in the "wacko" category too.

Judged:

3

3

3

DrSeussMd wrote:

Well, not JUST your suspicions (LOL) just kidding.
You are pretty much still all over the place, you agree with every IDI (no matter what they are posting) and fight every RDI (no matter what they are posting), yet you say you haven't made up your mind. You always want to argue minutiae whether it is relevant or not, and it seems you have it in for quite a few posters who don't walk your agenda line. I call that scattered, not whacko.
<quoted text>

Judged:

4

4

4

Ole South wrote:

<quoted text>
If I may intrude, I'd like to say that it's pretty obvious that Mama2 has decided that the perp was an intruder -- she just has not decided who that intruder is.
And, BTST, she's decided the perp is NOT one of the Ramseys. Period.
As for her having it in for quite a few posters, it appears that it's not because they don't walk the "agenda line" but more because their disagreements with her take on the aura of personal attacks. JMO