Sitcoms Online - Main Page / Message Boards - Main Page / News Blog / Photo Galleries / DVD Reviews / Buy TV Shows on DVD and Blu-ray

View Today's Active Threads / View New Posts / Mark All Boards Read / Chit Chat Board


Unsolved Mysteries Online Main Page / Message Board / Show History / Episode Guide (1987-2002) / Expanded Episode Guide #2 / Expanded Episode Guide #3 / Case Updates / Wiki / Official Site / Related Links / True Crime Shows Message Board / All Other Cases Message Board / Buy The Best of Unsolved Mysteries DVD / Buy Unsolved Mysteries - The Ultimate Collection DVD

Unsolved Mysteries: Original Robert Stack Episodes - The Complete First Season

Watch or Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Original Robert Stack Episodes - The Complete First Season on Amazon Instant Video
/
Season 2
/ Season 3 / Season 4 /
Season 5
/ Season 6 / Season 7 /
Season 8
/ Season 9 / Season 10 /
Season 11
/ Season 12 / Watch on YouTube

Unsolved Mysteries with Dennis Farina Episodes

Watch or Buy Unsolved Mysteries with Dennis Farina - The Complete First Season Episodes on Amazon Instant Video
/ Season 2 / Season 3 / Season 4 / Season 5 / Season 6 / Season 7 / Season 8 / Watch on YouTube


Unsolved Mysteries: UFOs

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: UFOs DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Ghosts

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Ghosts DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Miracles

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Miracles DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Bizarre Murders

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Bizarre Murders DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Psychics

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Psychics DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Strange Legends

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Strange Legends DVD Set

Sitcoms Online Message Boards - Forums  

Go Back   Sitcoms Online Message Boards - Forums > Unsolved Mysteries

Notices

SitcomsOnline.com News Blog Headlines Twitter Facebook Instagram RSS

SitcomsOnline Digest: Paley Center to Honor TV Legends; NBC Developing St. Elmo's Fire TV Series
Fri-Yay: Fall Sitcom Slate Check-In: CBS; E! Gets Reality Sitcom Meet the Frasers
Comedy Central Gets Phoebe Robinson Series; Crank Yankers Returns for 5th Season
Fox to Air Holiday Comedy Series; CBS and Viacom to Combine
The Flintstones Coming to MeTV in Fall 2019; Lifetime Tackles The College Admissions Scandal
Freeform Celebrates 30 Days of Disney in September; A-List Stars Visit Fox's Animation Domination This Fall
Sitcom Stars on Talk Shows; This Week in Sitcoms (Week of August 12, 2019)


New on DVD/Blu-ray (June/July/August)

The Brady Bunch - 50th Anniversary The Brady-est TV & Movie Collection Will & Grace (The Revival) - Season Two The Good Place - The Complete Third Season Life in Pieces - The Complete Fourth Season Brooklyn Nine-Nine - Season Six

06/04 - The Brady Bunch - 50th Anniversary The Brady-est Brady Bunch TV & Movie Collection
06/18 - Will & Grace (The Revival) - Season Two (Blu-ray)
07/08 - Man with a Plan - Season Two
07/09 - Broad City - Season 5
07/09 - Broad City - The Complete Series
07/09 - Life in Pieces - The Complete Fourth Season
07/09 - Speechless - The Complete Third Season
07/16 - Eight Is Enough - The Complete First Season
07/17 - The Practice (1976) - The Complete Series (WBShop.com)
07/23 - Brockmire - The Complete First Season
07/23 - What I Like About You - The Complete First Season
07/30 - The Good Place - The Complete Third Season
08/06 - Caroline in the City - The Third Season
08/06 - Caroline in the City - The Fourth Season
08/13 - I Love Lucy - Colorized Collection
08/13 - Leave it to Beaver - Seasons One and Two
08/20 - Brooklyn Nine-Nine - Season Six
More TV DVD Releases / DVD Reviews Archive / SitcomsOnline Digest


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-15-2011, 09:08 AM   #76
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
The thing about the "Ramseys did it" crowd is that they (still to this day) have never settled on who they actually think is responsible.

"John did it."

"No wait, Patsy did it"

"No wait, Burke did it"

"No wait, John and Patsy together did it",

"No wait, Burke did it and Patsy is covering for him"

Please. If you were going to get me believe someone in the house was responsible, you would have to pick a horse and stick with it. It is simply too easy to say someone in the house was responsible, but not settle on an actual family member (or members).

And that's one of the main reasons I was never convinced someone in the (immediate, at least) family did it.
Really? You aren't convinced that any of the Ramseys committed this crime because you are unable to tell which one "did it?"

So a complete stranger:

1) Broke into the Ramsey home while the Ramsey's were there.
2) Lured or took the girl not out of the house but down to the basement w/o waking other family members.
3) Strangled her and struck her in head, but apparently didn't molest her.
4) Used items found in the Ramsey home to commit the murder.
5) Left a ransom detailing the exact amount of money that the Ramsey father got in a bonus as the amount to paid.
6) Didn't then take the body from home to at least prevent it being found so the ransom could be paid.
7) Left only minor traces that anybody but family members was even in the home.
8) Left the home completely undetected while other people were there.

There are many more things, but I think that I have detailed why it should be obvious that the Ramsey's should at least be strongly considered as suspects. All of the items above could have happened like the Ramsey's are stating, but the odds favor another reason that their daughter was killed.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2011, 12:05 PM   #77
CuriousMind90
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 21, 2010
Posts: 244
Default

Did anyone see the recent case, I believe it happened in 2008--It wasn't a UM mystery but--

A woman had a new boyfriend and a young daughter; She was age 12. For whatever reason, the boyfriend didn't like her daughter very much and told the mother to choose between him and her daughter. So the mother took her daughter out for a ride, first to a supermarket mall where she made a call from a payphone, and then she took the girl out to the woods, strangled her and even took the girl's bottoms off to make it appear like she had been molested.

Then she went home crying, claiming the girl was stolen from the parking lot (the boyfriend didn't mean to kill her, and didn't know the woman did), she went on national TV hysterically crying, asking that her daughter be found--And if you didn't know the truth, she was very convincing. And then investigators found out the truth: She had murdered her own daughter, yet was able to act on TV as if she was a grieving mother looking for a missing child.

The girl's name was Karissa Boudreau
http://www.theweeklyvice.com/2009/02...guilty-to.html

It kind of changed my perspective on the Ramsey case a bit.
CuriousMind90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2011, 12:40 PM   #78
jasonbigley
Member
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 14, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 499
Default

I remember I was 10 years old when this case first came on the scene. Its heartbreaking it is still not solved today. I also remember about 3 or 4 years ago when that guy claimed he killed Jon Benet. It was all over the media. I think he did it just to get attention. I dont want to place blame on the family because we honestly do not know who exactly did it. Who ever did do it though should have their spine snapped in 3 pieces and fed to the lions.
jasonbigley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2011, 03:22 PM   #79
crochetbuff
Member
Forum Regular
 
crochetbuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 16, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 544
Default

Anderson Cooper is having a look into some cold cases, and one of them is Jonbenet's

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/0...t-ramsey-case/
crochetbuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011, 02:16 AM   #80
Clockworkhigh
Member
Forum Regular
 
Clockworkhigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 29, 2009
Posts: 604
Default

I know John was running for Congress at one time which might shock some people who figure he is in on it. Patsy took to her grave what really happened to JonBenet and who knows, she may have been telling the truth although the evidence I always felt implicated someone in that house. The whole idea that there was some new DNA found in 2008 leading to the idea that someone else was down there has always been a weak excuse for clearing the Ramsey's.
Clockworkhigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011, 02:55 AM   #81
radiohead33
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 23, 2007
Posts: 115
Default

wow so this is the second thread now thats been filled with people who "feel that someone is guilty" and therefore that person must be guilty, all based on circumstantial evidence or heresay. Im quite disturbed about this fact, especially as this is a board dedicated to a tv show about solving crimes. folks, hate to break it to you, but we cant solve crimes if we discuss cases based on "oh i feel he, or they or she is guilty" or "they are guilty based on circumstantial evidence". that may be the way most police departments run, but it doesnt make it ethical or moral or right.

one would think, john and patsy being these monsters who molested and murdered their own daughter, that their dna would be on her body, that johns handprints would be all over the murder weapons, that patsy would have similar handwriting to the ransom note. the fact is NO DNA evidence exists in this case that links john and patsy to the murder of their daughter. NONE. We can sit here all day and talk about the odd things in this case but if we are out to hang john for the murder of his kid, I'd say we better have damn good evidence to prove it. From what i know, DNA and other evidence was found around the scene and ON JONBENET herself. Oddly, for cold blooded killers John and Patsy seem to have mastered the art of having their DNA disappear magically, because their DNA appears nowhere at the scene or on the child, in fact DNA exists on Jon Benet that matches no one in the house.

Lets debate cases and jail the bad guys. Im all for that. But this is asinine and absolutely a lynch mob mentality, if we start saying people are guilty because they entered and exited a house and murdered a kid without anyone seeing or hearing. yep, that means they are guilty. lets go get john....

for a group of people so dedicated to helping the victims of the crime, you all are sure quick to label people criminals based on the most asinine of evidence...

gross...
radiohead33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011, 03:00 AM   #82
radiohead33
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 23, 2007
Posts: 115
Default

as with any case, it makes no sense that people could kill anyone and not leave dna behind. the dna left behind is not patsy's or johns or burkes. its someone else's dna. how could john or patsy kill jonbenet and not leave any dna behind? its impossible.
radiohead33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011, 03:06 AM   #83
radiohead33
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 23, 2007
Posts: 115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cori aka ChrisSCrush
It was not an easy shot, but was a possible one. There are wildly contradictory stories regarding Oswald's shooting ability. Someone recalled being on a rabbit hunt with him in Russia where he couldn't even hit a rabbit and someone else had to shoot it for him. Someone else recalled target practice in the Marines, when everyone had knocked off for coffee and cigarettes because no one could hit anything accurately with a strong side wind. Oswald continued to shoot, and to hit the target accurately.

if you are planning on offing the president you are damn sure going to get an accurate and powerful gun or rifle, one that is the top of the top, the best of the best. a mannlicher is none of that. its complete crap.

and dont even get me started on the lie that is that picture of him holding that rifle and the communist newspaper. You ever stood at that angle before? has anyone? its the most unnatural and bizaare stance ive ever seen.
radiohead33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011, 04:21 AM   #84
slasherman
Member
Frequent Poster
 
slasherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 20, 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
Seriously? You believe that an unknown killer, w/ detailed knowledge of the Ramsey home, broke in, waited HOURS and then killed the little girl? This same killer then wrote a note in handwriting similar to the mother's and mentioned an amount of a bonus that the father received from his job?
They lived in a house not a castle, why is so hard to get knowledge of someone if your alone in a house for several hours? The killer wrote the note while he was bored waiting for the Ramsey's to come home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
AND....this same killer left the home unnoticed by either the Ramsey's or the neighbors, has gone years w/o admitting his/her guilt and has been able to lead a "normal life" despite strangling a small child to death?
Yes to all
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
Had this case not been bungled so badly, I believe that at least one member of the Ramsey family would have indicted and possibly convicted for this crime. The "stranger killing" narrative just doesn't seem to have any credibility in this case.
Have anybody thought of this, if some of the Ramsey's killed Jon Benet they have to be one of the stupidest killers ever. Hiding the body in their own cellar without even trying to hide it. At least they would have hide her in a closet or something. And if they killed her, it is likely they would have taken the body out of the house and tried to hide it. Remember Ramsey called the cops they could have waited and hid the body much better than a room in the cellar.
If they wanted it to look like an abduction that body would not have been inside the house. People are stupid but not that stupid...
slasherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011, 08:47 AM   #85
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radiohead33
wow so this is the second thread now thats been filled with people who "feel that someone is guilty" and therefore that person must be guilty, all based on circumstantial evidence or heresay. Im quite disturbed about this fact, especially as this is a board dedicated to a tv show about solving crimes. folks, hate to break it to you, but we cant solve crimes if we discuss cases based on "oh i feel he, or they or she is guilty" or "they are guilty based on circumstantial evidence". that may be the way most police departments run, but it doesnt make it ethical or moral or right.

one would think, john and patsy being these monsters who molested and murdered their own daughter, that their dna would be on her body, that johns handprints would be all over the murder weapons, that patsy would have similar handwriting to the ransom note. the fact is NO DNA evidence exists in this case that links john and patsy to the murder of their daughter. NONE. We can sit here all day and talk about the odd things in this case but if we are out to hang john for the murder of his kid, I'd say we better have damn good evidence to prove it. From what i know, DNA and other evidence was found around the scene and ON JONBENET herself. Oddly, for cold blooded killers John and Patsy seem to have mastered the art of having their DNA disappear magically, because their DNA appears nowhere at the scene or on the child, in fact DNA exists on Jon Benet that matches no one in the house.

Lets debate cases and jail the bad guys. Im all for that. But this is asinine and absolutely a lynch mob mentality, if we start saying people are guilty because they entered and exited a house and murdered a kid without anyone seeing or hearing. yep, that means they are guilty. lets go get john....

for a group of people so dedicated to helping the victims of the crime, you all are sure quick to label people criminals based on the most asinine of evidence...

gross...
The narrative as presented by the Ramsey family makes little in the way of sense. While most "true" stories have "flaws" the Ramsey tale has so many flaws and logical errors that it barely holds up to scrutiny. And since there was no record of a similar type of crime happening in their area, the question of who committed this crime still remains.

If you choose to believe the Ramseys, then that, of course, your right. However, that makes your opinion no more valid than that of the rest of us. If you can explain a narrative that somehow explains all of the evidence that links the Ramseys to this crime, then by all means.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011, 07:23 PM   #86
radiohead33
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 23, 2007
Posts: 115
Default

the issue is not believing or not believing the ramseys. if evidence exists of someones guilt they are guilty, flat out. theres no grey area.

i dont dwell in fairy tales. i believe that its an impossibility for the ramseys to have murdered and raped their own daughter and to not leave any dna or evidence behind. thats what i believe, and i frankly dont know how anyone could disagree with that.

Its not some huge drawn out thing people. scratching our heads and wondeirng. "gee did they do it". No DNA was found that matched the ramseys at the crime scene, or on their daughter. Did they magically kill her and not get any DNA on her or around the room/house? Did they kill her and then somehow erase ALL TRACES of their DNA anywhere in the house?

This aint some huge mystery folks. WOW!!
radiohead33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011, 07:33 PM   #87
radiohead33
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 23, 2007
Posts: 115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
The narrative as presented by the Ramsey family makes little in the way of sense. While most "true" stories have "flaws" the Ramsey tale has so many flaws and logical errors that it barely holds up to scrutiny. And since there was no record of a similar type of crime happening in their area, the question of who committed this crime still remains.

If you choose to believe the Ramseys, then that, of course, your right. However, that makes your opinion no more valid than that of the rest of us. If you can explain a narrative that somehow explains all of the evidence that links the Ramseys to this crime, then by all means.

actually it does make my view more valid. im dealing in facts, dna evidence. if dna from john was found on his daughter thats one thing, then he or his wife are guilty. the lack of such evidence though doesnt mean that we live in fairy tale land and we can accuse and say people are guilty just because we have a gut feeling about it.

IF you have more powerful evidence or if the state has more powerful evidence than circumstantial evidence and the fact that the ramson note was written on patsy's own paper, then lets have it. What is it?

and the state came out and said that the ramseys are innocent, they even sent them an apology for years of innuendo. The ramseys are innocent and its my assertion that this is true, not because I feel it, or believe it, but because the evidence PROVES this to be the case.

You cant murder and rape a girl and not leave behind dna evidence.
radiohead33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2011, 07:49 PM   #88
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radiohead33
the issue is not believing or not believing the ramseys. if evidence exists of someones guilt they are guilty, flat out. theres no grey area.

i dont dwell in fairy tales. i believe that its an impossibility for the ramseys to have murdered and raped their own daughter and to not leave any dna or evidence behind. thats what i believe, and i frankly dont know how anyone could disagree with that.

Its not some huge drawn out thing people. scratching our heads and wondeirng. "gee did they do it". No DNA was found that matched the ramseys at the crime scene, or on their daughter. Did they magically kill her and not get any DNA on her or around the room/house? Did they kill her and then somehow erase ALL TRACES of their DNA anywhere in the house?

This aint some huge mystery folks. WOW!!
That the child was sexually assaulted and then killed were two different crimes and should probably have been treated as such in the beginning. While sexual assault (if there was one) would have left traces of DNA, manually strangling the child could have easily be accomplished using a garrote (which they found potential pieces of ) w/o even touching her.

And you are correct that this isn't a "huge mystery." If the Boulder PD had thoroughly searched the home when the crime was first reported, separated the Ramseys and questioned them in detail and hadn't contaminated the crime scene (thus destroying crucial potential evidence) it's doubtful that this case would have remain unsolved. The most likely suspects (one now deceased) were in the home. That the investigation didn't start off in that direction will likely be the reason that this case will never be solved.

A "fairy tale" , IMHO, would be a narrative that a "super prowler" entered a home in upscale neighborhood by unknown means and in an unseen manner, committed several crimes unheard, left a ransom note for no apparent reason and left the home ,again undetected. And that this person has managed to somehow elude law enforcement despite a massive manhunt for him/her after all of these years to the point of remaining unidentified.

Now THAT'S a fairy tale.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2011, 03:50 AM   #89
Cori aka ChrisSCrush
Member
Senior Member
 
Cori aka ChrisSCrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 30, 2001
Location: USA and still trying to be proud of it!
Posts: 1,717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CuriousMind90
The girl's name was Karissa Boudreau
http://www.theweeklyvice.com/2009/02...guilty-to.html

It kind of changed my perspective on the Ramsey case a bit.
Was it famous in Canada? Never heard of it here, but the Diane Downs and Susan Smith cases were famous. Both were the same way: a boyfriend wishing to dump or discourage a rather unstable girlfriend used her children as an excuse, figuring no woman would choose a man over her children. Boy were they in for a shock. There was also a girl named Valiree Jackson in Spokane, Washington, whose father killed her in a similar way for the same sort of reasons.

The Ramseys would have no financial or emotional reasons to want to get rid of JonBenét. The most logical person to be jealous was the stepbrother, who was not home at the time. I'm betting accident, whether it involved one or more parties.
Cori aka ChrisSCrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2011, 07:14 AM   #90
wiseguy182
Member
Senior Member
 
wiseguy182's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 11, 2006
Location: Wendy's salad bar
Posts: 6,907
Default

The "Ramsesy did it" crowd has flip-flopped so many times in regards to which one (or should i say ones) they beileved committed these atrocius acts, it's difficult to pinpoint where they actually stand at any certain time. My personal favorite are the ones that believe more than one person in the house was responsible. ORLY? That is a huge leap. So not just one, but two people, who have absolutely no history of abusing JonBenet, (sexually, physically, emotionally, or verbally, or whatever) decide to wake up in the middle of the night on Christmas night (when they have an early flight in the morning) and their minds snap and they do all these horrible things to her. Come up with far-fetched scenarios much?

And in addition to their being absolutely zero DNA evidence to link the Ramseys to this, as radiohead33 correctly pointed out, I also pose the question: What motive is there for the Ramseys to do this? Or what possible motive could there be? The only thing they have been able to offer in 15 years is the infamous bedwetting scenario, but that is entirely speculative.

When you look at the actual facts and evidence of the case, it is clear the Ramseys are innocent. Anybody that believes otherwise hasn't looked at the facts, or has maniuplated them and twisted them in order to cling on for dear life that their theories are correct. I think the most famous one was that they Ramseys avoided the police and moved away. ORLY? Because the Ramseys in actuality, gave everything to the police that they asked for, including allowing themselves to hours on end of questioning, every sample from handwriting samples to hair samples, you name it. However, the "Ramseys did it" crowd just simply state they ignored the police and quickly change the subject.
wiseguy182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:19 AM.


Frequently Asked Questions

1) How do I contact Unsolved Mysteries with information on segments?

If you any information on cases, you can contact them via:

Website: www.unsolved.com

Contact form on official Unsolved Mysteries site

Please note that their old mailing address and 1-800 phone number no longer work.


2) Where can I watch Unsolved Mysteries?

Unsolved Mysteries is available for streaming on Amazon Instant Video, YouTube and Hulu.


Although the administrators and moderators of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards, nor vBulletin Solutions Inc. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message. The owners of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

VigLink badge

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.