I think the first thing that convinced me was the situation surrounding the crime - - a little girl found dead in the basement. We didn't know everything that had happened to her but... we knew she was missing for hours and then found in the basement.

Why in the basement? If a parent was going to stage a kidnapping, they would take the body away. If a parents was going to stage an interrupted burglary, the body would have been.... maybe on the first floor with evidence of someone going through the Ramsey valuables. If it was to be an accident, why not drop that body down the stairs?

I couldn't make any case for bringing the child to the basement.

Some said she ws taken to the basement to be punished - - why? If I am going to raise my voice or spank my kids, their room is just fine.

Some say she was taken to the basement to be molested - a repeated thing. But that isn't right either - if a parent was going to do that, they would have a nice soft surface ready - - but I don't think a parent who molests their kids worries too much about that - - kids who have been molested have written about being molested in their own beds or taken to the parents' beds. I had never heard of a parent taking a kid to a moldy and cluttered basement for that activity - - they just do it in a more comfortable place.

That is one big thing that loomed in my mind early on.

I knew right away there would be a media frenzy about parental involvement, particularly once the pageantry stuff emerged.

If the parents really wanted to kill their daughter there are so many subtle ways of doing it: boating accident would be perfect, they even have those photos of her with a lifejacket on.

I have been around for a lot of Christmases - the time before can be hectic and tense - but Christmas Day - after the gifts have been opened and the main meal handled - it is a time to relax, a giant sigh. Even if there is company in the house or a trip home ahead, it is still a time of relief.

I had a hard time imagining a parent spending a nice day with family and friends, having the day end, experiencing "the sigh" and seeing the kids tucked in their beds - - then going to bed and - - "Gee, I don't know what it feels like to use a garotte to choke the life out of a living being - - - guess I shouldn't pass up on an opportunity to experience something new. I'll go get the kid."

Just didn't seem logical to me.

Much easier to think it was some sickpuppy (like Tuitt in the Stephanie Crowe murder)

1) The case kept disintegrating: The "best evidence" kept collapsing in on itself. The "experts" on the case (e.g. ST) turned out to be incompetents, charlatans, frauds, and liars. When tests of a theory fail again and again and again, and when the testers of the theory are discovered to be incompetents, charlatans, frauds, and liars, it's time to come up with a different theory (and new testers).

2) The evidence presented in Schiller's book (not the book itself, but the ransom note, the circumstances of the crime, etc.) made it quite clear that this crime was committed by a very cold, calculating type of person --- a personality type very different from Patsy and John.

Patsy and John have asked ST: What in our background causes you to think that we are even capable of doing such a thing? This is something that ST has never answered --- I believe because there isn't anything. So the question should be: What in ST's background (and the background of all the other incompetents, charlatans, frauds, and liars) causes them to think that either Patsy or John are capable of doing such a thing? In my opinion, anyone who has investigated this case who still thinks that one of the elder Ramseys is responsible should do some serious introspective thinking.

Think of these actors who get paid to endorse some insurance scheme or health plan or something. The famous actor is there to sell a product, he is a paid spokesman. He probably doesn't really believe in the product and probably would not buy it at all. Its the same with the major players in the parents did it camp. They are 'on a certain team' and are doing what right for the team. They want their side to win; they personally want to win. They are not there to weigh the evidence, they are there to marshall the evidence in a light most favorable to their views.
For whatever reason, the case early-on became a "The Parents Did It" case. Once that was it, thats the goal.

At the time I wondered, why on earth would a law enforcement agency release such potentially damaging evidence without having the test results.

I didn't start to seriously study JonBenet's case until two years ago when I found this forum and started reading the documents and the books written about the case. Even then, I had a difficult time forcing myself to read DOI because there was still a lingering doubt.

After comparing the various perspectives from PMPT, ITJBR. WLJ and DOI, it became apparent certain facts were being twisted for ulterior purposes. Prior to reading the books listed above, I had done extensive research on all types of killers and nothing I had discovered pointed toward the parents--still--I delved into all the JonBenet books with an open mind, open to have the authors prove to me that the RDI.

They didn't.

Neither did the BPD or Kane prove to me the parents are guilty. In fact, they've proved to me how slanted and inept their investigation had been.

Rainsong

Second was the picture of the house and the Christmas decorations---you could tell the family loved Christmas.

Then the news reports that John Ramsey was a wealthy computer guru, and his wife a former Miss West Virginia.....and lastly, that JBR was a former little Miss Colorado. I never once thought the family was involved, because like Don says, an intact functional family doesn't simply kill their little girl on Christmas Day. I did think perhaps JBR was targeted because of her high visibility in the pagaents.....and it was a kidnapping gone bad by someone high on drugs. As more details about the family came out, if there was a link to someone, it seemed more likely to be JAR, because of his age and attendance at the University---initially I thought he was being set up......or he came across someone at some point in time, that knew enough about the family to target them.

Recently an 18 year old cheerleader flew to Hawaii and a matter of hours later she wound up naked on the cement below the ninth floor balcony of the hotel room of two young men. Now I do NOT know what happened in that case and I do NOT want to turn this thread into a discussion of that case. I only want to point out that many have criticized the police and medical examiners office there and have noted that their conclusions seem to be decidely in favor of what would be good for the travel and tourism industry.

I think that at some point in the investigation of the JBR murder a certain "Chamber of Commerce-type attitude" developed as the cops realized that a zillion reporters were showing up. Somewhere the case became a 'there is no killer loose' because we don't want there to be a killer loose. After all, how many times had there been other serious events of any type and the cops had the Mayor go on local television to make a statement? Its obvious that most of the cops made a knee-jerk decision that the parents were guilty, but I think they stayed with that notion for a different purpose.

Yes, I too first thought it was a sex offender of some sort. Thats the usual assumption. And most of the time its a quite accurate one and therefore a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. Even without obvious signs of rape or grotesque posing of the corpse, the initial thoughts are always of some pervert.

I think it is only later, after the autopsy report, that it became a distinct possibility that the sexual activity might be too minimal to make the motive for the crime sexual. (Sure, some say that for certain people the strangulation was the sexual pleasure, but I'm limiting the use of the term 'sexual').

Never have I really felt there was any sort of parental involvement in the crime or in any sort of alleged cover-up.

In my opinion, one of the causes of this case being so horribly bungled is this type of blind, misguided trust in appointed authority. People in positions of authority get used to not having to answer to anyone.

Who says it's only the police officers that are actually assigned to a case that get to ask questions? Don't the parents of a murdered child have any rights to ask whether or not the case is being competently managed?

Police officers are public SERVANTS. They work for the citizens that hire them. Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey have every right to ask whatever questions they want of Thomas.

Clem wrote - "I thought it was for Mr. Thomas to be asking the questions, not the Ramseys."

Clem - Thomas had his opportunity to question the Ramseys in 1997 - it didn't get him far. We have the transcript of that interview and he didn't ask the right questions (I know hindsight is 20/20 but he really was untrained in that area and didn't do well.)

When the Ramseys met Thomas on Larry King Live, it was a totally different situation and the Ramseys had every right to ask Steve Thomas that question.

My next post will be part of that interview - the transcript. Note how Thomas doesn't have the answers - - he can't make his case at all. He just had a theory and insisted that it be made public.

THOMAS: You were home that night, and apparently...

P. RAMSEY: Tell me what happened.

THOMAS: You can't say for certainty -- you were in the house, right?

P. RAMSEY: Yes, I most certainly was. Answer my question, please.

KING: He certainly wasn't there, so he can't know for certain.

J. RAMSEY: He has a theory. He has accused Pasty of murder.

KING: He has to have a theory, all right.

J. RAMSEY: What is the theory?

THOMAS: And you've heard the theory.

J. RAMSEY: I have not heard the theory.

THOMAS: I offered a hypothesis.

J. RAMSEY: Answer my question.

THOMAS: I'm trying to, John.

KING: Your theory is?

THOMAS: My theory is that Patsy, in a violent confrontation with her daughter...

KING: Accidentally killed her?

THOMAS: No, not -- accidental, I hypothesize, in the sense that it lacked motive, not unlike...

KING: No motive.

THOMAS: Accidental in that sense. Excuse me, John, did you have something else?

J. RAMSEY: I've got lots else, but go ahead.

THOMAS: At that point, instead of making a right turn, she made a left turn and covered this up. It's
not unlike 11,000 other children that have been murdered in this country or killed feloniously by
parents in the last 20 years. I don't see this as that remarkable a case, other than what it became.

KING: If it's this pat as you say -- and the way you make it, it's kind of pat -- why has no action
been taken against this couple?

J. RAMSEY: Because his theory is contradicted irrefutably by the forensic evidence.

THOMAS: Is that right, John? Now why don't you tell us this convoluted, sex crime, pedophile
kidnapper?

J. RAMSEY: Would you allow me to answer the question please, Steve?

We have had some of the world's best forensics experts look at evidence. They have told us that
JonBenet was strangled to death. The last act that this creature did to our daughter was a vicious
blow to the head. That is irrefutable.

THOMAS: That's not consistent with...

J. RAMSEY: That's not consistent with your theory, and that's my point.

THOMAS: Right, but you're suggesting, if I am hearing you correctly -- and let me ask you, why will
you not take the FBI polygraph?

P. RAMSEY: Don't change the subject, Steve. Come on.

J. RAMSEY: OK, dealing with the topic at hand. We're dealing with big issues here. You have accused
us of murder.

THOMAS: Let's hear your theory. I'm waiting.

P. RAMSEY: We're waiting for you to finish. Tell me exactly step by step how you envision...

THOMAS: I wasn't there.

P. RAMSEY: You must have conjured something in your head for you to come out and call me a
murderer of my child. I want to hear one through 10. When did I write this ransom note? Before or
after I killed JonBenet?

THOMAS: You tell me: You wrote the ransom note.

P. RAMSEY: No, you're the one theorizing here, you tell me.

THOMAS: You were in the house that night.

And John, you can't say for certain.

KING: It's circumstantial.

THOMAS: Yes. And John, you can't say for certain who did or did not kill JonBenet, because you have
said you were asleep. You cannot say for certain because you weren't there.

J. RAMSEY: I want to hear your theory, Steve. Let me ask you this: Are you prepared to state that
Patsy killed JonBenet, that I covered it up, and that you can prove that in a court of law? Are you
prepared to say that tonight?

THOMAS: I've written a book, and I stand by my book.

KING: And your book said that.

THOMAS: My book stands on its own. I haven't heard this "pedophile, kidnapper, murderer" theory.

KING: So you mean their theory?

J. RAMSEY: They are all options.

P. RAMSEY: So you will not say in a court of law...

THOMAS: Certainly we considered options in this case.

KING: When you're a detective -- this fascinates me -- do you guess as to motive when you're
looking into a crime? Like, why was this child killed for what purpose?

THOMAS: Certainly.

KING: And in this case, you came to a conclusion it was sort of in a rage.

THOMAS: Yes, I don't think that there was premeditation to this child being killed.

(CROSSTALK)

You're still not answering my question.

J. RAMSEY: What in our background did you find -- and our background has been investigated for 3
1/2 years. What in our background did you find that would show that we were capable of this horrible
crime?

THOMAS: You play right into it. I don't show that there is a motive in this case. I don't suggest that.

J. RAMSEY: Answer the question. What did you find in our background that would demonstrate that
we are capable of this crime?

THOMAS: I gave you a pass, John. Unless you want to say otherwise, I don't think you were
involved.

P. RAMSEY: We, he said "we."

J. RAMSEY: I'm asking about, you accused Patsy of murder, me of complicity.

P. RAMSEY: What in my past...

J. RAMSEY: What in Patsy's past did you find?

P. RAMSEY: ... have you seen that has ever indicated that I would be capable of doing something like
this? Those 11,000 parents that you state, did they have a past?

THOMAS: I'll ask you a question right back. You suggest this great conspiracy...

P. RAMSEY: I don't want a question right back. I want...

(CROSSTALK)

THOMAS: Certainly. You suggest this great conspiracy involving...

J. RAMSEY; Answer...

KING: All right, let me get a break. Let me get a break, and we'll have to have more direct questions
and answers.

P. RAMSEY: He never answers the question.

KING: All right, we'll be right back with Steve Thomas and the Ramseys.

Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Is the key to this, what your saying, the note? That's the whole key?

THOMAS: Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I've heard Patsy Ramsey say on national television that
even own experts cannot eliminate her as the author of the note. And a follow-up question to that
there is people who rate higher on that scale who are potential suspects -- and I'd ask you who, who
are these people?

J. RAMSEY: None of your business, Steve, because you're no longer a police detective.

THOMAS: Let me ask you this...

(CROSSTALK)

THOMAS: I'm asking you why you're not going to the Boulder Police Department. KING: Your
contention is it is based on your belief she wrote the note?

THOMAS: Primarily.

KING: So two plus two equals four.

THOMAS: Primarily. Yes, sir.

J. RAMSEY: Answer my question: What in Patsy's background did you find that would cause you to
believe that she could commit this horrible act?

THOMAS: Well, I'll pose this and...

J. RAMSEY: Answer the question, please.

KING: Let him try -- go ahead.

THOMAS: I can't get three words out.

J. RAMSEY: Answer the question.

THOMAS: Let me pose this: Why, then, absent this great conspiracy that you suggest, would these
pediatric experts come in...

J. RAMSEY: Please, answer the question, Steve.

KING: All right.

THOMAS: Fair is fair.

J. RAMSEY: Can I ask a question and have the answer?

KING: I know, but someone could not have a background and still do something violent.

J. RAMSEY: Very, very unlikely.

KING: You mean if a person commits violence, they have committed it before.

J. RAMSEY: In a court...

THOMAS: According to your theory.

P. RAMSEY: Most probably.

J. RAMSEY: Abused situation, in virtually all the cases, there is a history of abuse that's known by
the parents, by the authorities, by the social service agencies.

KING: Was a thorough investigation done of the Ramseys and their children?

THOMAS: Yes, absolutely. KING: And?

THOMAS: And why would pediatric medical experts that the Boulder Police Department brought into
this case swear out, via affidavit, that JonBenet had been subjected to prior vaginal trauma.

J. RAMSEY: You're lying. You're lying, Steve. That is a lie.

KING: Wait a minute. You're saying they didn't say that?

J. RAMSEY: Our pediatrician, who saw JonBenet a dozen times each year for the past three years
before this happened, has sworn and testified in public that he saw no evidence of sexual abuse.

KING: And what was evidence your pediatrician saw?

THOMAS: Well, my pediatrician, pediatric experts that were brought into this case, a blue ribbon
medical panel.

J. RAMSEY: Who are they, Steve? Can I ask you who they are?

KING: Said? Said?

THOMAS: Said that this little girl, prior to the night she died, had been subjected to previous vaginal
trauma.

P. RAMSEY: That is a lie.

J. RAMSEY: this is the same category as his so-called "linguistics expert," who he brought in and
testified that...

KING: Let me ask you, what's his motive? What do you think? Why? Do you think he's out to get you?

J. RAMSEY: I think at this point he's a profiteer. He's the only person from inside the system who has
written a book, who has gone on national television. It's disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful.

KING: But he did quit his job over this, so obviously you...

P. RAMSEY: Because he was headed down a wrong path. He was at the point of no return. And his
ego is the size of a barn, and he can't put it aside to try to find the murderer of this child.

THOMAS: Everybody is wrong, but Lou Smith.

P. RAMSEY: That's right. That's what it says in your -- everybody but Steve Thomas is wrong.

THOMAS: Everybody is wrong but Lou Smith -- the FBI, federal law enforcement, the FBI polygraphy
unit, state law enforcement, the governor of Colorado, the police detective, the D.A.'s office.

P. RAMSEY: Did they show -- did all of those people show all of their evidence to the grand jurors?
Why didn't they come... THOMAS: Let's remember, the grand jury did not exonerate you either.

J. RAMSEY: It's not the grand jury's task to exonerate. Their task is to indict.

THOMAS: I think the grand jury may have issued a report had they -- you were the targets of this
grand jury.

J. RAMSEY: No question.

THOMAS: You know it.

J. RAMSEY: I know that.

THOMAS: Probable cause wasn't an issue. And Patsy tonight I think I've heard her say she wish she
was arrested in this case.

KING: Well, because they feel it would be an end, to have a trial.

J. RAMSEY: We've been tried in public by innuendo and slander from people like you. God knows we
would have loved to have a fair trial in a court of law.

THOMAS: I don't apologize for the book. I left a career, Larry, as you said. I wrote the book for the
same reason that you did, to put information out publicly.

J. RAMSEY: No, you put that book out to line your pockets with money based on our tragedy.

THOMAS: No, that's not true. And as a matter of fact, I think you wrote a book as well and took
money for that.

J. RAMSEY: It's going to charity.

Tell me what...

THOMAS: And I think you've also said it's going to a legal defense fund.

KING: On the other side, you said that one of the reasons this case is unsolved is him.

J. RAMSEY: Absolutely.

KING: Why?

J. RAMSEY: Because he failed miserably in the task he was given. He was inexperienced. He didn't
accept help from people...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Do you think he had the opportunity to solve it at that point? J. RAMSEY: I think experienced
homicide investigators could have solved this case by now.

P. RAMSEY: No, it's not all Steve Thomas' fault. You, it is not all this young man's fault. He did not
have good leadership in his department to lead him down a path of experience. You know, you can't
fault the man for that, truly. I can understand that.

KING: You can understand, Patsy, why you were suspects?

P. RAMSEY: I can understand because there was no one leading this man with any leadership
capability to investigate the homicide of the young child. I understand that. I know the first time that
I interviewed with detective, then-Detective Thomas, I saw the passion in the man's eyes. He wants
to find the killer of this child. It's just that he's going down the wrong path. Now what I do...

KING: Doesn't this anger you?

P. RAMSEY: Well, you know, I felt sorry for the man, truly. We know we're not guilty. He is convinced
that we are. Now I am sorry for that.

KING: Somebody is wrong.

P. RAMSEY: He has -- his career has suffered. He's a young man. This was -- he was at -- you
know, very young in his career. He has lost his job. His -- he doesn't have a family yet, I don't
believe. Perhaps you're married.

God willing, if you ever have a child one day, you will know the pain perhaps when someone hands
you the child in your arms, and says, Mr. Thomas, this is your child, do you tell me that you are going
to look at that child, and -- you just had a new baby, Larry. Could you ever conceive of...

KING: I can't imagine how anyone could harm a child.

P. RAMSEY: ... doing something to this child, let alone the things that this man is...

KING: I'm sure it's beyond belief to you, too, right, that anyone could harm a child?

THOMAS: Of course. It happens every day, unfortunately.

P. RAMSEY: I want see the day when he has a child.

KING: Let me get a break and come back. We'll be back with more. We'll also include your phone
calls.

Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

The comment about Thomas asking questions of Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey does not answer the question posed. If Clem would like to open a separate thread concerning the rights of Thomas to ask questions and the rights of Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey to ask questions of Thomas, it is easily done.

I thought that was the way it was supposed to be, ok?

"If Clem would like to open a separate thread ..."

:-) No, thanks. Please visit the Butts forum.

Steve Thomas was on this case for less than 2 years - he resigned on August 6th, 1998 - less than 2 years after the murder.

He was considered a BORG leader, an ICON - and when he announced he would write a book, the BORG was thrilled - he would prove that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter and would vindicate all BORG.

He wrote his book - was sued for it and chose NOT to defend his position in court.

Since then Lou Smit shared crime scene photos that prove Thomas chose to ignore some evidence and misinform people about other bits.

Since then, a federal judge and the DA who controls the investigation have both said clearly that the evidence does not point to the parents - - and hence Thomas WAS, certainly, WRONG.

When the Ramseys faced Steve Thomas on Larry King Live, Thomas had long since retired from the police department and was NOT a detective - he was simply a private citizen who wanted to face the Ramseys.

He was just Steve Thomas, NOT a detective.

I just hate to see the threads go too far off topic. I tend to do that, myself, and have been working harder to keep myself on topic. As you may have noticed, it can cause a disruption.

Alas, many feel the answer to that is a resounding no.

Right from the start, Trip DeMuth wanted to keep the Ramseys informed in general terms about the progress of the case but I believe it was Sgt. Wickham who said to tell the Ramseys "not one (censored) thing".

Ofcourse at various other sites there are several posts that say the Ramseys are guilty because they didn't camp out at police headquarters trying to get information. Sounds like that is not only foolish but would have been rather futile given the vehemence of the police response to ADA DeMuth.

As soon as I started hearing rumors that the father killed JBR, I thought no way. Not the way she was left. It's not that I don't think parents kill their kids, but I just didn't think she would be left like this if a parent had done it. Seemed way too cold and heartless.