Reply #72: Just to quickly comment

[lala_rawraw]

I saw a lot of case disinfo listed here and again, as it did before, the nagging question I have is why the police went to such lengths to incriminate the family leaking information they new to be false?

For example, the "visiting of a porno shop" by the father, without ever naming the shop or the date? Or the leaking of the "handwriting match" nonsense, when it was not true? It is one thing to suspect someone so much that in private, comments are stated based on one's own "gut" or something like that. But to actually point to evidence that did not exist would suggest to me that someone should have been looking at the police, not at the Ramsey's.

My gut has always pointed me in the direction of motive. If the parent's had molested her, there would be evidence of past abuse. There was none, as her own doctor and the coroner both attested to. The DNA evidence found on the child is not from a family member. Yet the police refused to scream this from the roof tops. Instead, they quietly let that part of the investigation simply go quietly into the night.

So the parents did not in the past molest her, at least not in any visible way and foreign DNA was found in her panties. Next, the child was strangled in a very bizarre way, using a rope and a piece of wood to slowly tighten it. This to me suggests that the person who killed the child was getting off on strangling her not on raping her. If the killer wanted to simply strangle the child, then the killer would have simply tightened the rope quickly or used their hands. But the slow turning of the stick would suggest a sexual fixation on the murder itself. That was never looked at by the police.

The note does not match the writing of any family member. The "missing footprint" that should have been there but was not is a total disinfo leak. There was no snow on their driveway, per pictures shown widely at the time. Yet the police kept insisting that there should have been a footprint.

The police claimed that she was found in some odd secret room. Not so, like with any mansion, the size of the place is of course considerable, there was no "secret room." The window to the basement was broken before Christmas. Yet again, the police did not leak these pieces of information, only information that was not true. Again, it is not that they simply speculated to journos, but they actually cited evidence that was not true or present. And when they did cite something truthful, like "there was no footprint" for example, they left out easily explainable reasons, such as "there was no snow on their driveway."

These are but a few examples. But consider that John had two grown children from a previous marriage, and a son from his second with Patsy. All three of the children were analyzed by experts and found all of them to be normal, that is "not abused" kids.

Yes, some of us find it odd that a little girl would be in pageants, but in certain money circles, that is the same thing as going to the right kind of school or joining the right kind of fraternity.

The parents did not appear to have a motive either. If it were a sexual thing, then okay. But there is 0 evidence to support that. So what motive could they have?

Now look at the actions of the police. What motive could they have had? Although this is not remotely my specialty, I have always believed that someone in that police department knows damn well what happened and acted to cover it up by planting false information in the press, tampering with evidence, and so forth.

Just my two cents. I know everyone has said that the police were simply incompetent, but incompetence and actual lying about non-existent evidence are two different things.

I have thought for a long time that the family's attorney's should have demanded that each officer provide DNA evidence. That is how convinced I am. But again, this is not my specialty and so my 2 cents is worth hardly a penny.