Moving on....I have always had a passing interest in the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I honestly have always believed that her parents killed her. I believed it was an accident that they hamfistedly tried to conceal. Well now there is some bozo in Thailand (Thailand?) who says he was "there when Jon Benet died." Notice he didn't say that he killed her. Only that he was there. Sources on the rest of the story are shaky at this point. If you want to read about it try www.newyorktimes.com their article was the most researched at this point. As I heard someone else point out just because someone admits to involvement in a crime doesn't mean that they actually were. According to his wife and others the suspect had researched the case extensively, which means he would know more about the case than a regular person. Which begs the question why would you openly research a crime which you had committed. Wouldn't you want to distance yourself from anything having to do with the crime. At this early point, and in my humble layperson's opinion I have to say there is going to have to be some extraordinary evidence (read non-circumstantial) to make me believe that this sad, sad individual had the wit to commit the most publicized child-murder since the Lindbergh Baby.
Enough of that for now.
I hope everyone has a day worth remembering.
