So far, whenever I say this to people, no one has agreed with me. From the beginning I thought it seemed far-fetched that these people would kill their daughter. I know parents kill kids all the time, but I didn't think these people fit the profile, and it didn't seem like there was much evidence. Anyway, I then read their book, and if they are innocent, it's really really horrible what happened to them. Imagine losing your daughter, and then having these evil papers like the Enquirer hounding you week after week. I think people just didn't like the whole pageant thing, and assumed they were guilty because of that. I'm not a pageant person, but I certainly don't think it makes you a murderer. I just saw the cover of the Globe at the supermarket, and the Ramseys won some sort of lawsuit, where a judge said the evidence (some of it not made public) shows that an intruder killed Jonbenet. I hope they catch the murderer someday.

By Kay on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 12:47 pm:

I don't really have an opinion as to whether or not they are guilty or innocent. I will say, however, that I don't believe there is such a thing as a 'profile' for murders like these. It always seems when interviewing neighbors of a serial killer, etc., everyone is saying, 'but he was such a nice person!'

By Susan10 on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 01:41 pm:

I know what you mean about neighbors always saying that, but doesn't it seem like when kids are killed by their parents there's a violent/jealous boyfriend/stepfather involved, or single mother wanting to be free (Susan Smith) or crazy mother with a severe mental problem (Andrea Yates)? How often is it two loving parents, with no past restraining orders, not exes saying they were violent, no drugs or drinking or prior arrests or fights or anything? I know that doesn't prove anything, but I can't think of a single case like that. I just think there have been so many cases lately where they've gone after the wrong people, it makes me realize that cops aren't geniouses. Some of them aren't that smart.

There was the whole pre-school hysteria, and the central park jogger guys in jail for 10 years, and a bunch of people freed because of DNA. Even the 2 girls and mother killed in Yosemite by that Stainer guy. At first the police said they had the killers in custody...they had some parolees who were camping there who supposedly had some fibers in their car that matched the fibers from the blanket that the girls were wrapped in. Everyone thought, Great, case closed. Then, oops, another girl gets killed and they tracked down that Stainer guy. I used to definitely be a "Where there's smoke there's fire", and a pro-death penalty person. BUt now that I see how often mistakes are made, and how everyone automatically convicts the people, I'm not so sure. If there's tons of evidence, like I thought there was in the OJ case, with DNA and everything, that's a different story.

By Annie2 on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 03:07 pm:

I don't think the parents killed their daughter either. My DH watched an Investigative Reports show about the case. An intruder theory makes much more sense.
Now what about this Lacy case in Modesto. Do you think the two bodies washed up on shore are her and her baby? How dreadful.

By Kaye on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 03:52 pm:

A while ago I read quite a bit about this case, from both sides. You are right if they are innocent then it is just terrible all they have been through. However, I just don't think they are. Of all things it is just too "off" for there to be such a long ransom note and then that number to be an exact match to the company bonus. My theory is there was some sort of accident, I don't think they planned to kill her, but I do think they covered it up. Maybe it was another one of their children, but I think they were certainly more involved than they have let on.

By Mommyathome on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 09:54 pm:

I think they are innocent I watched a documentary on the case and I'm completely convinced that the parents didn't do it. There is way to much evidence that shows that they aren't the ones that commited the horrible crime.

They have been to heck and back with this case. If they are in fact innocent, I feel so bad for them. They will take this case with them to their graves I'm afraid. They will always be looked at and talked about.

By Susan10 on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 02:46 pm:

I've seen the detective on TV who thinks they're guilty, and I think he's just stupid. The whole idea that Patsy killed her daughter because of bed-wetting is silly. Like Patsy said, she's had cancer twice, and in that perspective, bed-wetting is insignificant.

Re. Lacy Peterson, it sure sounds like the husband did it.

Now, what about Richard Skakel? I just saw the thing on TV where his cousin, RFK Jr., says he couldn't have killed Martha Moxley it because he was watching TV at a friends house at the time of the murder. I don't know the details, and I'm not sure I want to. These cases get so confusing, sometimes the facts get all twisted and you don't know what is true and what is mythology.