General Discussion /Post Karr [Archive] - Page 10

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

"Thomas wrote that the FBI team said the crime "did not fit an act of sex or revenge or one in which money was the motivation. Taken alone, they said, each piece of evidence might be argued, but together, enough pebbles become a block of evidentiary granite."

Thomas reported that "CASKU observed that they had never seen anything like the Ramsey ransom note. Kidnapping demands are usually terse, such as 'We have your kid. A million dollars. Will call you.' From a kidnapper's point of view, the fewer words, the less police have to go on."

The FBI, according to Thomas, "believed that the note was written in the house, after the murder, and indicated panic. Ransom notes are normally written prior to the crime, usually proofread, and not written by hand, in order to disguise the authorship."

Thomas said the FBI deemed the entire crime "criminally unsophisticated," citing the child being left on the premises, the oddness of the $118,000 demand in relation to the multi-million dollar net worth of the Ramsey, and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be "scanned for electronic devices." Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for the ransom delivery, not wanting to chance a face-to-face meeting.

CASKU profilers also observed that placing JonBenét's body in the basement indicated the involvement of a parent, rather than an intruder. A parent would not want to place the body outside in the frigid night. They also stated, according to Thomas, that the ligatures "indicated staging rather than control, and the garrote was used from behind so the killer could avoid eye contact, typical of someone who cares for the victim." Thomas said the profilers had the gut feeling that "no one intended to kill the child." This would mean that the severe blow to the head was done in a thoughtless rage and that all the subsequent assault on JonBenét and the writing of the ransom note was staged to cover up the unintentional murder."

A one way presentation as I see it and WERE going on the Thomas lies or maybe even Thomas reported it wrong in his "book". Wont' be the first time Thomas misstated the facts or downright LIED in his book.

If you have a link showing exactly what CASKU said and what their stats are I would be happy to read it. Not a blog and not what Thomas said they said but their actual report.

Robert Ressler must have had a vendetta against the Ramseys also?

Ressler: Well, it think if that's the direction of that question I would say that uh, there have been a number of cases , uh, and two which you just mentioned --Ramsey and Jewel. Where in fact, uh--uh-- people y'know have-- have really been a more or less targeted --uh--without adequate investigation beyond that-- that family. Now in the ---there's two main differences here because in the Richard--in the Ramsey case ,the Ramseys from the very onset have been --uh--have more or less built a wall around themselves with attorneys and experts-- uh-- who y'know , who have really obstructed the Law Enforcement from getting the necessary information that uh-- that Law Enforcement needs to either identify or eliminate the Ramseys --they haven't been cooperative enough they've--they've really been holding back information. Where in the Richard Jewel case on the other hand, Richard Jewel--a--went all out . He gave the --uh --the FBI and the Law enforcement people in Atlanta everything they needed to include consensual search of his apartment--uh--only to find--that uh-- that they then nailed him and targeted him as a suspect. A major suspect in the case. That fact was is that --uh- uh--in--in the focusing on Richard Jewel-- uh-- even when there was no forensic evidence at all to support their investigation. What the FBI and Local authorities ending up doing was missing the opportunity to get to the real killer--uh--real bomber. Uh--they wasted a lot of time with Richard Jewel and I think in that case it's largely a focus that was brought upon the FBI, the Atlanta Police authorities, and the prosecutors by the -uh - political pressure that was being put on them by the Department of Justice and the White House. Uh--in other words they wanted somebody so bad that they were willing -- willing to take short cuts that blew up in their face. And I think it's a stern warning to all people in the prosecutorial field --and the Law Enforcement field --is-- make sure you know what your doing --don't take short cut in serious cases --or any cases for that matter.

D. Pugh: Mm-Hmm, and that's kind of our lead in question into our Ramsey related questions. Uh--Mr. Ressler, Internet and public opinion divides the Rams case into two different theories on what happened on December 26th in the death of JonBenet Ramsey. First, the scenario that the death was accidental and one or both the parents were involved in the murder and cover-up. And the second, the scenario when an intruder entered the Rams home, murdered JonBenet, and staged the crime scene. Please comment on both scenarios.

Ressler: Yeah, I've been to Boulder on two occasions. I've talked to a number of people in the law enforcement field, the medical field, the prosecutor, one of the prosecutors out there, even some of the domestic help of uh, the Ramseys and uh, some media people as well. I do not-- uh, I've been to the location of the house, I've been around the house, I've looked at the neighborhood and I do not ascribe at all to the concept that a stranger broke into the house and, uh, in an attempt to kidnap or abduct JonBenet, killed her and wrote the note, and then left. I believe it was some sort of an internal--- uh-- situation that occurred that-- uh--I believe the Ramseys-- Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, possibly their son-- uh-- Burke, have more information available that they could provide police than they've held back-- uh-- in their non-cooperation they've put themselves in a position of being major suspects. It's very likely they're going to be indited in the Grand Jury here in April-- uh-- and whether or not there's enough to prosecute-- uh-- them to the point of conviction remains to be seen. But I think-- uh-- I've always believed that JonBenet was killed as a result of an accident that was being covered up-- I'm not saying whether or not Ramsey's parents or the brother were involved in the actual killing, but I think--as I say--I think that the entire-- uh-- elaborate staging was done to conceal the true facts of what really happened to that child.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Did I say the police should not collect & test fibers & prints?

No. I said, unknown fibers are NOT proof that an intruder entered your home.

And just like a person leaves foresnic evidence wherever they go, a person also picks up 'strange' forensic evidence throughout the day.

Fibers & DNA are a helpful tool to help point LE in the right direction.

Oh ok, thanks for "clarafying" that. Unexplained fibers on the body only point to the Ramseys but not an intruder. Fibers found in their home from their clothes on their child's body in their home also points to the Ramseys. :rolleyes: Clear as mud.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Robert Ressler must have had a vendetta against the Ramseys also?

Ressler: Well, it think if that's the direction of that question I would say that uh, there have been a number of cases , uh, and two which you just mentioned --Ramsey and Jewel. Where in fact, uh--uh-- people y'know have-- have really been a more or less targeted --uh--without adequate investigation beyond that-- that family. Now in the ---there's two main differences here because in the Richard--in the Ramsey case ,the Ramseys from the very onset have been --uh--have more or less built a wall around themselves with attorneys and experts-- uh-- who y'know , who have really obstructed the Law Enforcement from getting the necessary information that uh-- that Law Enforcement needs to either identify or eliminate the Ramseys --they haven't been cooperative enough they've--they've really been holding back information. Where in the Richard Jewel case on the other hand, Richard Jewel--a--went all out . He gave the --uh --the FBI and the Law enforcement people in Atlanta everything they needed to include consensual search of his apartment--uh--only to find--that uh-- that they then nailed him and targeted him as a suspect. A major suspect in the case. That fact was is that --uh- uh--in--in the focusing on Richard Jewel-- uh-- even when there was no forensic evidence at all to support their investigation. What the FBI and Local authorities ending up doing was missing the opportunity to get to the real killer--uh--real bomber. Uh--they wasted a lot of time with Richard Jewel and I think in that case it's largely a focus that was brought upon the FBI, the Atlanta Police authorities, and the prosecutors by the -uh - political pressure that was being put on them by the Department of Justice and the White House. Uh--in other words they wanted somebody so bad that they were willing -- willing to take short cuts that blew up in their face. And I think it's a stern warning to all people in the prosecutorial field --and the Law Enforcement field --is-- make sure you know what your doing --don't take short cut in serious cases --or any cases for that matter.

D. Pugh: Mm-Hmm, and that's kind of our lead in question into our Ramsey related questions. Uh--Mr. Ressler, Internet and public opinion divides the Rams case into two different theories on what happened on December 26th in the death of JonBenet Ramsey. First, the scenario that the death was accidental and one or both the parents were involved in the murder and cover-up. And the second, the scenario when an intruder entered the Rams home, murdered JonBenet, and staged the crime scene. Please comment on both scenarios.

Ressler: Yeah, I've been to Boulder on two occasions. I've talked to a number of people in the law enforcement field, the medical field, the prosecutor, one of the prosecutors out there, even some of the domestic help of uh, the Ramseys and uh, some media people as well. I do not-- uh, I've been to the location of the house, I've been around the house, I've looked at the neighborhood and I do not ascribe at all to the concept that a stranger broke into the house and, uh, in an attempt to kidnap or abduct JonBenet, killed her and wrote the note, and then left. I believe it was some sort of an internal--- uh-- situation that occurred that-- uh--I believe the Ramseys-- Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, possibly their son-- uh-- Burke, have more information available that they could provide police than they've held back-- uh-- in their non-cooperation they've put themselves in a position of being major suspects. It's very likely they're going to be indited in the Grand Jury here in April-- uh-- and whether or not there's enough to prosecute-- uh-- them to the point of conviction remains to be seen. But I think-- uh-- I've always believed that JonBenet was killed as a result of an accident that was being covered up-- I'm not saying whether or not Ramsey's parents or the brother were involved in the actual killing, but I think--as I say--I think that the entire-- uh-- elaborate staging was done to conceal the true facts of what really happened to that child.

Well, ............uh................he was wrong about them being indicted, "uh" wasn't he? .

It's very likely they're going to be indited in the Grand Jury here in April-- uh-- and whether or not there's enough to prosecute-- uh-- them to the point of conviction remains to be seen.

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by hohum
[B]

LOL, if it's not the pageants, then they are harping on that broken window. JBR has already said he broke it months ago so it was not a surprise to him to find it still broken that morning, in other....

Of course, a parent whose daughter has been kidnapped during the night would have no reason to think the police would want to hear about an open window. Why bother the police when it's more helpful to sit around for hours waiting for a phone call?

But then the Ramseys & all of their friends didn't even know that the house where a child has been kidnapped should have been considered a crime scene & that their actions were destroying valuable evidence.

If the police were dumb.... the Ramseys and all their friends were dumber still. After all, the police didn't have a personal stake in the outcome of this case.

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Solace

I believe that she is referring to their selfish needs of NOT COOPERATING with the police for four months after the death of JB.

And why on earth would they take so long to turn over all the clothes they were wearing?

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

And why on earth would they take so long to turn over all the clothes they were wearing?

Police didn't ask for them. :shrug:

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

What are you talking about? Were the Ramseys in charge of the investigation? Were the Ramseys supposed to be the ones to ensure that everyone followed proper LE procedure. Oh, pleas.............

No, I'm saying NOBODY there thought to treat the house as if a crime took place & would ever be solved.

Forget Patsy. She's the mother & expected to be too upset to think straight.

What about John? What about any of John's friends? Nobody there had the presence of mind to realize walking through the house was only going to hurt the investigation?

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Well pardon the Ramsey's and their friends for not being involved in upteen other kidnapping cases so they could have practiced how to behave.

I think common sense is all that's required.

Only a real fool would find his daughter has been kidnapped, then find an open window & even though there are cops & friends all over the place, go back upstairs & sit down & not say a word to anyone.

Jayelles

08-08-2006, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Exactly and why do you think Wood asked that? IMO it was so if this case was ever tried in court he would have it om record they LIED.

Indeed and as a seasoned investigator, Levin would be well aware of this.

That's why he probably didn't lie.

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Only the mother was allowed to be upset? Come on. You don't think that JR was upset, out of his mind with worry? And who told JR to walk through the house? You must think these people had practiced this morning before and knew just what to do. It's ludicrous to think this.

In most cases, when a man is upset he is still calm enough to function.

He wasn't out of his mind enough to forget to cancel his trip to Michigan. He wasn't upset enough to make arrangements to pick up John Andrew. He wasn't upset enough to even bother to ask Burke if he heard anything.... anything at all..... during the night that might help them figure out what happened to poor Jonbenet.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Is it just me or are you getting the distinct impression that they Ramseys were supposed to have been in charge of the investigation?

According to some poster here, it seems they think so. :rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

I remember very little about the day my mother died. Anything I could tell you about that day would be "I think."

I don't understand how people can judge John or Patsy and expect them to have acted in a normal fashion - to be in total control of the actions/emotions that day......I know I wouldn't have been. JMO

Exactly, no one can remember every little detail when a normal or expected death occurs let alone the traumatic things that happened with JonBenet.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 01:37 PM

:lol: Look at the gossip flying with NOTHING to back it up, he refuses to look at facts and echoes the gossip instead.

I wonder if he knows he IS responsible for what he posts here and if the Ramseys were so inclined they could drag him into court and have him try to prove his silly accusations. Thomas's book has already been discredited in a civil case so he can't say that is "evidnece". :lol:

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles

Indeed and as a seasoned investigator, Levin would be well aware of this.

That's why he probably didn't lie.

Probably? LOL Won't cut it in court if it is ever tried. No they can no longer prosecute Patsy but John is fair game to the bumbling keystone cops and their theories with no proof.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234
:lol: Look at the gossip flying with NOTHING to back it up, he refuses to look at facts and echoes the gossip instead.

I wonder if he knows he IS responsible for what he posts here and if the Ramseys were so inclined they could drag him into court and have him try to prove his silly accusations. Thomas's book has already been discredited in a civil case so he can't say that is "evidnece". :lol:

Bears repeating.

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Most people would have some semblance of compassion for a family who have just discovered their child is missing. No one knows how they or anyone else are going to act/react in a situation like that. No one.

I'm sure most citizens had plenty of compassion for the Ramseys when the story first broke.

I think they lost most people when they learned the police hadn't be able to conduct formal interviews but they appeared in that CNN interview & John said he wasn't "angry."

Patsy never should have appeared on TV in a medicated state. She did irreperable harm to herself in that interview.

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Where did you find this?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

So you're saying that in most cases, when a man is upset he is NOT still calm enough to function?

Even men who have served in the military & are highly successful business owners?

Who knew that most men were just as highly emotional as the average women? Not I.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 02:06 PM

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Well don't you think John and Patsy should have read this manual too just in case JB or Burke were kidnapped so they would know exactly what to do? It's so odd that because people don't act like others think they should they become suspect. Was John or Patsy covered in blood, bruised or cut in any way to indicate a struggle? John is considered suspicious here because he was quiet. I would have thought a lot more about him as suspicious had he been pacing around mumbling to himself and been confrontational and bothersome. All he did was what he was told to do and try to stay out of the way and be helpful. For that he is now villified. It's a no win situation as there will always be someone there to find fault.

No, according to Arndt, John was told to look but NOT touch anything if he found it.

So he goes downstairs & finds his daughter & rips off the tape, loosens the cord on her wrist & then carries her upstairs & deposits her body on the floor.

Not that the idiot Arndt was any better. She moved the body yet again & someone (Arndt?) placed a sweatshirt over the body.

Jayelles

08-08-2006, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Probably? LOL Won't cut it in court if it is ever tried. No they can no longer prosecute Patsy but John is fair game to the bumbling keystone cops and their theories with no proof.

I doubt it. I think investigators are probably aware that proof is required.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Solace

*snipped"

Grow a brain all of you and learn how to argue with the facts and instead of your idle chat.

Did we find the writter of the ransom note? Hummm

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles

I doubt it. I think investigators are probably aware that proof is required.

Humm, "probably" "I think" and "I doubt it", THAT is all the so called proof this case has.

nuisanceposter

08-08-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Well, wouldn't you think the police would have seen it when they were down there?

That's part of why people think the Ramseys were lying. Police were down there and did not see this open window, despite the fact that they were down there looking for possible signs of entry.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer4_time.html

6:00 - 8:00 am
Officer Paul Reichenbach arrived at the house, joining French and Veitch. He searched the exterior of the house and the yard, and his testimony about footprints in the snow will be important. Officer Barry Weiss also arrived prior to Det. Arndt's arrival at 8:10, and stayed about an hour. It is not yet known precisely what was done, when it was done, and by which officers, but French made a cursory search of the house interior, including the basement, focusing on points of entry and egress, at some point that morning. No evidence of forced entry was found.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20House

Basement Window

* A basement window was found broken. Lou Smit has argued that an intruder could easily have come in through this window.
* Skeptics believe this is implausible for several reasons:

1. The window sill would have been wiped clean by the intruder's butt as s/he slid through the window.
2. There would have been more evidence of debris immediately below the window.
3. No intruder would shut the window after escaping.
4. "as noted by detectives arriving early on the morning of December 26, an intact spider web covered the grate which blocked off the window. In order to enter or exit the window, the grate would have had to have been removed. This grate was photographed and collected for evidence. Interior dusting of the window for fingerprints was done by crime scene investigators and no latent prints were found. In May, the photos were submitted to Brent Opell, Professor of Biology at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksbury,sic Virginia. Prof. Opell reported that the web was that of the Agelenidae, known as a funnel-web spider. The web was
reasonably intact and extending through the grating, suggesting that the grating had not been disturbed since the spider constructed its web.
According to Prof. Opell, these types of spiders would cease constructing webs no later than early November, thus indicating that no one had entered
that window well past this early November deadline. The theory that anyone could have entered the Ramsey residence through this broken window was totally discounted by this simple evidence of nature." (Sauers 1998).

http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

Ramsey said he had never gotten around to repairing the latches. Police, however, noted that the unlatched, but tightly closed window showed no visible signs of having been opened recently because spider webs were still attached to its base when police checked it the day JonBenét's body was discovered.

John Ramsey didn't say anything about the window police found closed being ooen until he sat down for police interviews for months later.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer5_ce.html

4/30/96: John and Patsy first met with police and district attorney interrogators over four months after the murder. The terms of the interrogation, which consisted of six hours with Patsy and two with John, had been negotiated for months. The Ramseys finally agreed, but only after DA Hunter turned over copies of police reports which detailed the behavior of the Ramseys on December 26 as well as their prior statements. Experts in interrogation were aghast that Hunter would undermine the interrogation process in this way. Their attorneys were in attendance.

I really have to wonder why it took John Ramsey four months to tell police a window was open and why it contradicted what the police who were searching for an open window saw.

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Well, ............uh................he was wrong about them being indicted, "uh" wasn't he? .

It's very likely they're going to be indited in the Grand Jury here in April-- uh-- and whether or not there's enough to prosecute-- uh-- them to the point of conviction remains to be seen.

Of course he was. But remember, he said "likely"... he must have suspected the case was in deep, deep trouble.

The crime scene was botched & the police failed in the first hours of this case. Evidence was contaminated and the police failed to do formal interviews with the parents until 4 months later.

Without a confession or an eyewitness coming forward, this crime will NEVER be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jayelles

08-08-2006, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Humm, "probably" "I think" and "I doubt it", THAT is all the so called proof this case has.

Quite.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 02:29 PM

I called no one a killer and did not say anyone "beat the @##$% out of their kids. I did say Thomas was a jerk and he is a liar and that CAN be proven by his own admission, his book AND court transcripts.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles

Quite.

So you do quite agree with me. Cool!

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by hohum

True. LOL, comparing Joan Crawford to Patsy Ramsey, now where in the world did that analogy come from? Neither of Joan Crawford's children were murdered and neither of them were in pageants. And the last time I checked no one could prove that Patsy Ramsey beat the #$% out of her children yet poster S falsely makes this claim. Slander.

First of all, slander is the spoken word & LIBEL concerns the written word.

The defendant is a slander case has many potential points in his favor. A slander case may be dismissed if the injurious statements were stated as opinion rather than fact; if they are deemed "fair comments and criticisms"; if they do not actually do injury to the plaintiff's reputation; or if the statements were true. The plaintiff in a slander case must also prove that the defendant acted negligently or with malice in order to win a case.

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/slander.html

People are simply stating why they think it's possible & logical to consider the Ramseys were either guilty or covering up for someone else that was guilty.

I also doubt Patsy will be suing any posters at CourtTv.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Would you like to explain how I have threatened you?

:rolleyes: He is just like his hero Thomas, all mouth and no proof.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

*snipped*

I also doubt Patsy will be suing any posters at CourtTv.

DUH, Patsy's husband and a son are still alive and they CAN sue.

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

DUH, Patsy's husband and a son are still alive and they CAN sue.

They are?

Since you're up on all these legal issues, I'm sure you'll know if the law allows them to do that in whatever state they reside in now.

Most states do not allow a slander lawsuit to be filed on behalf of a person who is deceased.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

They are?

Since you're up on all these legal issues, I'm sure you'll know if the law allows them to do that in whatever state they reside in now.

Most states do not allow a slander lawsuit to be filed on behalf of a person who is deceased.

Have you been reading this board? Patsy was NOT the only was accused of things. BTW, I think both John and Burke could prove they have been harmed by the vicious gossip on this board.

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 03:38 PM

Solace

08-08-2006, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Have you been reading this board? Patsy was NOT the only was accused of things. BTW, I think both John and Burke could prove they have been harmed by the vicious gossip on this board.

You should know about Slander Breezy. You are right up there and I am paying close attention. I think there are several people that could prove they have been harmed by the vicious gossip you have been posting especially since you have been warned about it.

Solace

08-08-2006, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

DUH, Patsy's husband and a son are still alive and they CAN sue.

On your way home from K-mart tonight while out slurping your usual dinner, think about all the slanderous posts you have made. They make for good reading in the right hands. And again, you have been warned.

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 04:06 PM

The mystery flashlight bothers me.

It's been wiped clean of all prints & even the batteries had no prints.

The Ramseys had a flashlight just like that Mag & it's NOT in its usual place in the drawer downstairs but they say they don't know if the one found on their table belongs to them.

(Well, it IS smart from a defendant's point of view to be as vague as possible & not allow yourself to be tied down to anything.)

Boys of Burke's age LOVE flashlights & it's very possible that Burke took it out of the drawer downstairs & kept it in his own room.

The coroner in the CourtTv program says the flashlight fits the skull fracture & that a bat did NOT cause the wound. And it just doesn't seem that bashing into a tub or sink would cause a fracture on the very top of her skull almost to the bridge of her nose. This blow seems to have come from ABOVE.

While it's not likely that Burke could accidentally swing the flashlight hard enough to crack JB's skull & leave an 8" fracture, is it possible he DROPPED IT on her head from the top of the stairs?

Did the kids go downstairs for a late night snack & then later get into some typical bratty argument?

Maybe JB teased Burke & said she was going to go mess with one of his new tops & she runs upstairs to gets it, he follows her up & then as she runs back down one of the staircases & he wants to stop her.... he throws or drops the flashlight?

I wonder if this theory has ever been tested as to the velocity the flashlight would reach from the top of a staircase. Enough to do serious, serious damage?

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by hohum

And we know that Patsy and John were successful in winning lawsuits relating to Burke in the past.

Your point being?

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by hohum

A sampling of cases settled.
The Daily Camera

"A libel lawsuit filed against Time.com on behalf of Burke Ramsey was settled out of court earlier this week.

A federal judge approved the settlement Monday. L. Lin Wood, the Atlanta attorney for the Ramseys, said he could not disclose terms of the settlement. The online version of the weekly newsmagazine was accused of reprinting tabloid accusations about the brother of JonBenét Ramsey. The boy was cleared as a suspect in the homicide early on in the case.

Previously, the Ramseys settled similar cases against the Star, Globe and their parent company. Libel suits are still pending against Court TV, AOL Time Warner and others over a Court TV special and promotions for it naming Burke a suspect."

Well then, Burke should call his lawyer & go sue all the citizens who still question what he might have seen or heard that night.

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Questioning is one thing. Slanderous comments are quite another. Those in print can be especially troublesome. Have you found that post yet about Patsy suing?

I don't appreciate the rude way you're posting to me.

As far as that post you keep asking me to find, you know that we were talking about Patsy & THAT'S why I said Pasty would not be suing anyone.

As far as slanderous comments, I think we've exhausted that topic.

More interesting is whether John lives in a state where it is possible for him to sue in behalf of his dead wife? If he doesn't, then people are free to say what they want without fear of being sued.

breezy1234

08-08-2006, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

I don't appreciate the rude way you're posting to me.

As far as that post you keep asking me to find, you know that we were talking about Patsy & THAT'S why I said Pasty would not be suing anyone.

As far as slanderous comments, I think we've exhausted that topic.

More interesting is whether John lives in a state where it is possible for him to sue in behalf of his dead wife? If he doesn't, then people are free to say what they want without fear of being sued.

Once again, John does not have to sue on behalf of his dead wife. Both he and his son are ALIVE. :rolleyes:

LI_Mom

08-08-2006, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Once again, John does not have to sue on behalf of his dead wife. Both he and his son are ALIVE. :rolleyes:

And you continue to miss my point.

People are free to say whatever they want about Patsy without fear of being sued?

nuisanceposter

08-09-2006, 09:22 AM

Interesting.

I wonder also if he'll run again.

Jayelles

08-09-2006, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

I don't know. Can you send her a pm, maybe?

Just curious - is there a reason why YOU can't send her a pm?

LI_Mom

08-09-2006, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Interesting.

I wonder also if he'll run again.

Does he really want to reopen all the old wounds again?

I sure wouldn't want the media on my back again.

breezy1234

08-09-2006, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by hohum

*snipped*

It certainly is quiet this morning. I had to double check to make sure I was on the JB thread!

Since the troublmaker gossip is gone there is no gossip to disprove.

breezy1234

08-09-2006, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Does he really want to reopen all the old wounds again?

I sure wouldn't want the media on my back again.

IMO his running is proof he has nothing to hide.

LI_Mom

08-09-2006, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

IMO his running is proof he has nothing to hide.

Proof?

That would hardly be "proof" of anything except he wants to be elected.

As far as having "nothing to hide," of course the question is not a legal one, the question would be does he really want to expose himself & his family to more media attention? And if he was actually elected, the media scrutiny would probably be relentless.

I would think this family had enough media attention to last them a lifetime & wouldn't want anymore.

LI_Mom

08-09-2006, 02:01 PM

I hope so because the negative opinions are going to follow them for the rest of their lives.

My only point is that it's probably better for their mental health to not encourage public scrutiny & to try to live private lives if possible.

Bunny2

08-09-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Started what? You've been slapping at people ever since you started posting here.
I can say from personal experience that Breezy has a nasty attitude right from the beginning. My first post here said only something to the effect of "Actually, the presumption of innocence applies only in the courtroom." And for that, I received Breezy's condescending "READ the post..." as a welcome. :(

Bunny2

08-09-2006, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by hohum

I checked my PM box a few days ago and emptied all my old pms but I have had problems with this before. I must be forgetting to do something. Let me go check again.
FWIW, check your sent items and message tracking (in the "jump to folder" box in the private message/inbox area)...they might need emptying.

LI_Mom

08-09-2006, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Funny how fast they disappeared at the mention of accountability for one's posts.

It's also funny how after Court TV aired the Jonbenet show, the ONLY mention about the show was a snide 'guess who wasn't on the show?'

I'd think, the 'Ramseys are guilty' crowd realized the 'Ramseys are innocent' crowd wasn't really interested in discussing the actual case anymore.

If all that's left to talk about are lawsuits for slander, I guess it IS an old, cold case.

LI_Mom

08-09-2006, 05:40 PM

Exactly.

But a lot of people involved with the case want to put it all behind them... various people in LE, various politicians & many of the 'experts' who were consulted.

It's an old, cold case & going nowhere.

LI_Mom

08-09-2006, 06:48 PM

I think, in most cases, it's easy to figure out when a personal is stating an opinion & when they are stating what they believe to be "facts."

What might be in dispute are which 'facts' are accurate & which are not. There HAS been a lot of bad information surrounding this case. (And I'm not talking about what has been proven in a court of law, because there has never been a crimminal trial & NOTHING has been proven.)

An example of a factual statement that is 'bad': many people believe there was semen found in this case & believed JB was raped.

The only semen found in this case, as far as I know, was on John Andrew's baby blanket which was found in the suitcase in the basement.

And I agree, I enjoy the links also, BUT it's important to keep in mind that most of the links are biased&/or media articles & it's important to read links in the proper context & know whether the info in them has been refuted or not.

breezy1234

08-09-2006, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2

I can say from personal experience that Breezy has a nasty attitude right from the beginning. My first post here said only something to the effect of "Actually, the presumption of innocence applies only in the courtroom." And for that, I received Breezy's condescending "READ the post..." as a welcome. :(

It's "nasty" to say "read the post"??? :rolleyes: You seem to be a bit thin skinned IMO. Strange you think saying read the post is "nasty" but saying a person is guilty of murder is not nasty.:rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-09-2006, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Do you know how the Ramsey suit against CTV came out?

No, I don't know if it was settled or what happened.

nuisanceposter

08-09-2006, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

It's also funny how after Court TV aired the Jonbenet show, the ONLY mention about the show was a snide 'guess who wasn't on the show?'

I'd think, the 'Ramseys are guilty' crowd realized the 'Ramseys are innocent' crowd wasn't really interested in discussing the actual case anymore.

If all that's left to talk about are lawsuits for slander, I guess it IS an old, cold case.

I think you're right. The people here who take the viewpoint opposite of mine are not really interested in discussing the actual case - they're more interested in using particular pieces of the case and the comments of others to speak condescendingly to anyone they don't agree with.

While they prove a certain amount of challenge with their steadfastness to their version of the facts, their total lack of decency and ability to engage in polite discussion leave people unable to have any discussion at all. It becomes nothing more than cries of lie and gossip no matter what links you provide, and then they try to twist your words seemingly for the sole purpose of provoking bad feeling.

There are enough other JonBenet boards on the internet with people willing to actually converse in a respectful manner about the actual case that only those who want to fight will stick around here for long.

There is a list of JonBenet forums on this page:

http://www.acandyrose.com/

nuisanceposter

08-09-2006, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I think, in most cases, it's easy to figure out when a personal is stating an opinion & when they are stating what they believe to be "facts."

What might be in dispute are which 'facts' are accurate & which are not. There HAS been a lot of bad information surrounding this case. (And I'm not talking about what has been proven in a court of law, because there has never been a crimminal trial & NOTHING has been proven.)

An example of a factual statement that is 'bad': many people believe there was semen found in this case & believed JB was raped.

The only semen found in this case, as far as I know, was on John Andrew's baby blanket which was found in the suitcase in the basement.

And I agree, I enjoy the links also, BUT it's important to keep in mind that most of the links are biased&/or media articles & it's important to read links in the proper context & know whether the info in them has been refuted or not.

Very good post, LI_Mom.

breezy1234

08-09-2006, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I think you're right. The people here who take the viewpoint opposite of mine are not really interested in discussing the actual case - they're more interested in using particular pieces of the case and the comments of others to speak condescendingly to anyone they don't agree with.

While they prove a certain amount of challenge with their steadfastness to their version of the facts, their total lack of decency and ability to engage in polite discussion leave people unable to have any discussion at all. It becomes nothing more than cries of lie and gossip no matter what links you provide, and then they try to twist your words seemingly for the sole purpose of provoking bad feeling.

There are enough other JonBenet boards on the internet with people willing to actually converse in a respectful manner about the actual case that only those who want to fight will stick around here for long.

There is a list of JonBenet forums on this page:

http://www.acandyrose.com/

:seeya:

breezy1234

08-09-2006, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Do you know how the Ramsey suit against CTV came out?

I found this.

Update: July 16, 2001
John and Patsy Ramsey settled their libel suit against Time.com and its parent company, AOL-TimeWaner. The Ramseys brought suit following Time.com and Court TV's stories on promoting Burke Ramsey, their son, as a possible suspect in the unsolved murder of their daughter, JonBenet. The police in Boulder, Colorado, the site of the murder of the child, were clear in their statements that Burke was not a suspect.

However, Time.com and Court TV reported on stories from the nation's tabloids, including The Globe and The Star that touted Burke as a suspect. The Ramseys have already settled libel suits against those two publications.

LI_Mom

08-09-2006, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

You shouldn't have to figure out if a person is stating an opinion. They should say when something it is "their opinion."

This is a message board, not a court of law where people speak in a more formal manner.

In a normal conversation, people generally do not pepper their speech with "IMO" because it is assumed people can follow the flow of the conversation.

In the event, there is a doubt as to what a person might have meant, it is quite easy to ask the person to clarify what they meant. After they explain what they were trying to say, there's still plenty of opportunity to refute their points &/or to call them on the carpet.

And that's my opinion & it's a fact as well.

LI_Mom

08-09-2006, 08:42 PM

nuisanceposter

08-09-2006, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

I'll check the forums listed, thanks.

I've done some lurking at other court forums and have noticed you, Rashoman & Solace posting at a couple of the boards.

So far, I've resisted jumping in only because there's an overwhelming number of threads going on but I think it's probably time to go over to the darkside if I want to discuss this topic. (I'm already registered... I just have to jump in, I guess)

:biggrin:

Yes, come jump on in! You're well-spoken and fair-minded in this case and in discussing the evidence and its implications.

LI_Mom

08-09-2006, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

When I am discussing something controversial I do say something to the effect of "I think", "In my opinion" so the person understands I am stating my opinion. Puts us a jump ahead in our conversation by eliminating the need to explain, refute, or call people on the carpet. And that's my opinion & it's a fact as well. JMO...........

I usually try to also, Rosy. :)

But I admit I don't do it in every statement when I assume it's obvious.

Bunny2

08-09-2006, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

It's "nasty" to say "read the post"??? :rolleyes: You seem to be a bit thin skinned IMO. Strange you think saying read the post is "nasty" but saying a person is guilty of murder is not nasty.:rolleyes:
Oh, please. Who do you think you're fooling? The tone of your post wasn't a simple polite "please read the post" sort of thing, and we both know it. In reading your other posts, the same sort of condescending and patronizing attitude comes through in huge numbers of them. In fact, it often seems that you can barely manage to write a single paragraph without using at least one "rolleyes" and often more than one if you sense that anyone isn't 100% in agreement with what you say. Old habits die hard, I guess.

nuisanceposter

08-09-2006, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2

Oh, please. Who do you think you're fooling? The tone of your post wasn't a simple polite "please read the post" sort of thing, and we both know it. In reading your other posts, the same sort of condescending and patronizing attitude comes through in huge numbers of them. In fact, it often seems that you can barely manage to write a single paragraph without using at least one "rolleyes" and often more than one if you sense that anyone isn't 100% in agreement with what you say. Old habits die hard, I guess.

She isn't fooling anyone, and I couldn't agree more - breezy is nothing but negative attitude in every single post. Even more sad are her two little minions who encourage her and parrot her behavior and sentiment.

nuisanceposter

08-09-2006, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by hohum

If there are "enough other JB boards" that you find more respectful and interesting, the big question would really be why do you stay on a board where you think the posters that don't agree with you aren't decent and are condescending?

I didn't say this board wasn't interesting. I'm here because I find this board to be rather interesting indeed. It's the fact that you and breezy and hohum are so condescending and lacking in decency towards others who don't agree with you - and the fact that you seem to think it's okay to act like that - that I find so interesting.

Bunny2

08-09-2006, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

She isn't fooling anyone, and I couldn't agree more - breezy is nothing but negative attitude in every single post. Even more sad are her two little minions who encourage her and parrot her behavior and sentiment.
After reading one of hohum's last posts, I'd say she or he did a good job of backing up your post, nuisanceposter. :)

Originally posted by hohum

nui·sance (nû'səns, nyû'-)
n.
One that is inconvenient, annoying, or vexatious; a bother

I bet someone gave you that nickname as a small child.
hohum, perhaps you should consider being more careful when you put down others. It may come back to haunt you.

ho-hum ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hhm)
adj. Informal
Boring and dull; routine: “a ho-hum speaker who couldn't capture the attention of the conventioneers” (Chicago Tribune).

hohum

ho-hum adj : so lacking in interest as to cause mental weariness; "a boring evening with uninteresting people"; "the deadening effect of some routine tasks"; "a dull play"; "his competent but dull performance"; "a ho-hum speaker who couldn't capture their attention"; "what an irksome task the writing of long letters is"- Edmund Burke; "tedious days on the train"; "the tiresome chirping of a cricket"- Mark Twain; "other people's dreams are dreadfully wearisome" [syn: boring, deadening, dull, irksome, slow, tedious, tiresome, wearisome]

Bunny2

08-09-2006, 11:38 PM

For the record, it should be noted that I refrained from saying that "breezy" reminds me of passing wind.

:D

(Sorry, breezy, I just couldn't resist. :))

nuisanceposter

08-09-2006, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by hohum

So your interest lies, not in the JB case, but in hanging out with the NGs. Now that is interesting.

No, that's not right.

I'm very interested in discussing the JonBenet case with people who can discuss it, whether they agree with me or not - it's just that this board is not the place for that. That doesn't mean I don't find other things here that interest me.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by Bunny2

Oh, please. Who do you think you're fooling? The tone of your post wasn't a simple polite "please read the post" sort of thing, and we both know it. In reading your other posts, the same sort of condescending and patronizing attitude comes through in huge numbers of them. In fact, it often seems that you can barely manage to write a single paragraph without using at least one "rolleyes" and often more than one if you sense that anyone isn't 100% in agreement with what you say. Old habits die hard, I guess.

:rolleyes: I never realized the ones who think the Ramseys are guilty can "hear" my "tone? :rolleyes:

I guess your idea of "polite" is this, huh...........................:no:
Bunny2
Member

Registered: Dec 2005
Location:
Posts: 557
For the record, it should be noted that I refrained from saying that "breezy" reminds me of passing wind.

(Sorry, breezy, I just couldn't resist.

(Sorry, breezy, I just couldn't resist. )

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I didn't say this board wasn't interesting. I'm here because I find this board to be rather interesting indeed. It's the fact that you and breezy and hohum are so condescending and lacking in decency towards others who don't agree with you - and the fact that you seem to think it's okay to act like that - that I find so interesting.

Right, how could we be so insensitive? Only those who think the Ramseys are guilty and horrible, horrible people are "decent" enough to give their opinions.

Remember NO one is forcing you to post with such condescending and lacking in decency posters. Go where you can go over and over the gossip and tell each other you have all the answers from an unproven opinion book and anyone who dares to disagree with you is condescending and lacking in decency. ROFLMAO:rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

No, that's not right.

I'm very interested in discussing the JonBenet case with people who can discuss it, whether they agree with me or not - it's just that this board is not the place for that. That doesn't mean I don't find other things here that interest me.

:seeya:

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by hohum

nui·sance (nû'səns, nyû'-)
n.
One that is inconvenient, annoying, or vexatious; a bother

I bet someone gave you that nickname as a small child.

This is precisely the kind of post which derails decent discussion.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

:rolleyes: I never realized the ones who think the Ramseys are guilty can "hear" my "tone? :rolleyes:

I guess your idea of "polite" is this, huh...........................:no:
Bunny2
Member

Registered: Dec 2005
Location:
Posts: 557
For the record, it should be noted that I refrained from saying that "breezy" reminds me of passing wind.

(Sorry, breezy, I just couldn't resist.

(Sorry, breezy, I just couldn't resist. )

It can be difficult to ascertain the intended tone from an e-mail or discussion room post. Brevity can often introduce an unintentional terseness. That was why emoticons were "invented".

This is an interesting guide to good manners on the Internet - worth a read:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette

bullmoose

08-10-2006, 05:20 AM

I'm new to this forum, but as with all you others on this site, I have been following this case intensely since it happened. I have read the books by the Ramseys and by the different cops, all of whom feel strongly and I believe sincerely what they've written is the truth ; as they saw it. But I can personally attest to the ability to develop tunnel vision, grabbing a hunch and ignoring any inconvenient contradictory evidence by the police. These BPD officers had no homicide experiance and it showed from the start; they then started a campaign of lies that were leaked to the press to bring public opinion against the Ramseys. I have perssonal experience with similar tactics by a police force. I personally have seen perjured statements by the arrestting officer in my case to bolster a weak case. I have seen where evidence was tampered with while in police possession. In conclusion, I do not find the Ramseys' behavior in getting lawyers to be anything other than good common sense; no not good southern sense,John is not from the south. I believe the cops never ever considered that anyone else was a real suspect, because of the statistical odds that it would end up being a family member.But the cops' rank incompetance to be handling a case such as this and the asinine arrogance to refuse the offered FBI help onthe case made it probably impossible to ever solve this case. In case anybody hasn't figured out it out by now, I do not believe the Ramseys had any part in their daughter's murder.signed Bullmoose

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

:seeya:

Discussion should be polite though - yes? Attacking the other person or making snide remarks isn't *really* discussion. Not mature discussion anyway.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

And, of course, Bunny's definition of Breezy didn't have a bit of effect on your sensitivities.........right?

The post I referred to was made first. I read the thread in chronological order and commented accordingly.

My question regarding the pm was polite. The response to my question was rude. I actually asked in case there was some technical reason which prevented one poster from pming another. Had that been the case, I might have been able to help as I've been around the board for a reasonably long time and I'm quite familiar with the software.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

If as you say, you read in chronological order, you would have known that hohum was the one who was wondering what happened to the OP, and that I was suggesting a way of possibly contacting her ......... but ........whatever.......... JMO

No, I didn't read those posts. There appears to have been a merging of threads and I was only reading one of them. In fact I had it bookmarked, but the link wouldn't work I found the merged thread by searching for my own last post and I only read forward from there.

There was nothing sinister in my question and I'm sorry that it has apparently caused offence. I do think that petty mud slinging is counter productive and demeaning to the participants.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Jayelles

Discussion should be polite though - yes? Attacking the other person or making snide remarks isn't *really* discussion. Not mature discussion anyway.

When someone says they are leaving it IS polite to wave good bye IMO.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

And, of course, Bunny's definition of Breezy didn't have a bit of effect on your sensitivities.........right?

Of course not, that was "sensitive, comsiderate and polite " of bunny to say.............. "Bunny2 For the record, it should be noted that I refrained from saying that "breezy" reminds me of passing wind.

(Sorry, breezy, I just couldn't resist. )

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Did either of you get a chance to visit the website I mentioned yesterday? I found the timeline especially interesting.

Yes I read it and it was interesting. I had read it or something like it a long time ago on another site.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by bullmoose
I'm new to this forum, but as with all you others on this site, I have been following this case intensely since it happened. I have read the books by the Ramseys and by the different cops, all of whom feel strongly and I believe sincerely what they've written is the truth ; as they saw it. But I can personally attest to the ability to develop tunnel vision, grabbing a hunch and ignoring any inconvenient contradictory evidence by the police. These BPD officers had no homicide experiance and it showed from the start; they then started a campaign of lies that were leaked to the press to bring public opinion against the Ramseys. I have perssonal experience with similar tactics by a police force. I personally have seen perjured statements by the arrestting officer in my case to bolster a weak case. I have seen where evidence was tampered with while in police possession. In conclusion, I do not find the Ramseys' behavior in getting lawyers to be anything other than good common sense; no not good southern sense,John is not from the south. I believe the cops never ever considered that anyone else was a real suspect, because of the statistical odds that it would end up being a family member.But the cops' rank incompetance to be handling a case such as this and the asinine arrogance to refuse the offered FBI help onthe case made it probably impossible to ever solve this case. In case anybody hasn't figured out it out by now, I do not believe the Ramseys had any part in their daughter's murder.signed Bullmoose

I agree with you and have posted links proving the tunnel vision of cops that have made up their minds in other cases as well as this one. Those "books" written about the Ramsey case are the gospel according to some posters here. They actually think books are evidence and that everything the cops "leaked" are facts and NOTHING like truth will change their minds.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I don't remember anyone specifically mentioning Eller, but from what I've read he was a real ding-dong. Didn't want the help offered by the FBI, DA, Sheriff, or Denver PD.

The errors that were made by the inexperienced police officers that morning caused seemingly insurmountable problems for the investigation. Note: I am not blaming the officiers for their inexperience, but I do question their leadership in being able to provide proper intructions/directions on what needed to be done..........JMO

According to one of the "books".

"BOULDER -- Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller's exhaustive 621-page analysis of the JonBenet Ramsey case, makes no attempt to identify the little girl's killer.

But the book -- excerpted, leaked and buzzed about all week and released Thursday -- paints a shocking, detailed picture of an investigation where ego, power, politics and incompetence teamed up to overshadow and stall efforts to bring six-year-old JonBenet's killer to justice.

Within the first day of the investigation, Eller had turned down FBI help in the case.

The book alleges then-police Chief Tom Koby later turned down help from the Denver Police Department.

Before the police department's well-documented ongoing feud with the district attorney's office had even developed, in-fighting among officers was already commonplace, the book says.

Eller and the police department, meanwhile, told Hunter they would stop sharing evidence with prosecutors because they were leaking information to the media and the Ramseys .

We now know who was leaking infomation by his own admission...........THOMAS.

The relationship between prosecutors and police took its first major hit, the book says, when Eller reportedly refused to allow the release of JonBenet's body until her parents agreed to be interviewed. This reportedly infuriated Hofstrom, who told Eller it was illegal for him to withhold the body, and Hunter, who feared Eller's actions would destroy prosecutors' fragile relationship with the Ramsey camp.

Sparks also flew between those leaning toward an intruder theory -- including Hunter appointee Lou Smit -- and police. Hunter also continually complained that Eller was failing to follow leads that pointed away from the Ramsey.

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail99.asp?ID=26

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

When someone says they are leaving it IS polite to wave good bye IMO.

Who said they were leaving?

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Jayelles

Who said they were leaving?

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

No, that's not right.

I'm very interested in discussing the JonBenet case with people who can discuss it, whether they agree with me or not - it's just that this board is not the place for that. That doesn't mean I don't find other things here that interest me.

nuisanceposter
Member

Registered: Feb 2005
Location:
Posts: 385

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LI_Mom

I think you're right. The people here who take the viewpoint opposite of mine are not really interested in discussing the actual case - they're more interested in using particular pieces of the case and the comments of others to speak condescendingly to anyone they don't agree with.

While they prove a certain amount of challenge with their steadfastness to their version of the facts, their total lack of decency and ability to engage in polite discussion leave people unable to have any discussion at all. It becomes nothing more than cries of lie and gossip no matter what links you provide, and then they try to twist your words seemingly for the sole purpose of provoking bad feeling.

There are enough other JonBenet boards on the internet with people willing to actually converse in a respectful manner about the actual case that only those who want to fight will stick around here for long.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Excuse me. I think I responded to your comments about the spiders and about the window that Mr. Ramsy found open.
Never heard another word from you about that.

I don't recall you posting a link refuting what Dr Opell said. I assumed it was just your opinion that a funnel spider came out and respun the web overnight - while it was snowing.

And even if the spider did come out of hibernation and respin his web in just a few hours, there still isn't enough evidence surrounding that window to support the idea that anyone came in or went out through it Christmas night.

And I can't recall what you said about Ramsey and his, imo, lies about the window.

Was is that he didn't tell the police about the open window until some four months after the 26th because he didn't talk to police until then?

What, his telephone doesn't work? He can't just call up the police or his attorneys and have them call police and report this open window that neither Officers French or Veitch saw, despite being in the basement specifically to search for a point of entry? Fleet White was down there that morning too and did not notice that window open.

Only John Ramsey saw it open, and he didn't even bother to notify anyone about it until four months after his daughter was murdered. It doesn't seem like he's too interested in finding the killer if he'll wander downstairs, find an open window, go back upstairs and say nothing for some four months.

John Ramsey changed a few stories between December 26th, 1996, and April 30th, 1997. It sounds to me like he was lying.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

When someone says they are leaving it IS polite to wave good bye IMO.

I did not say I was leaving, and I'm not.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I did not say I was leaving, and I'm not.

I didn't think you had! In which case, waving goodbye isn't polite - it's extremely rude!

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 10:01 AM

She never meant that wave to be polite. It's not the least bit surprising that she would try to play it off as if she had, either.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
She never meant that wave to be polite. It's not the least bit surprising that she would try to play it off as if she had, either.

I'm glad you aren't leaving NP. Despite your hat, I believe you are polite and serious follower of the case :-)

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Do you have anything to say about the case or just the posters? Using your words - "just curious."

Perhaps you missed all of my previous posts on this thread? My O/T posts have been polite requests for for you and your pals to stop derailing the discussion (which I have been participating in) - with your snide remarks.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 10:55 AM

Hmmm, this link provides an opinion comment from Schiller about the web, who is not an arachnologist. I'll stick with Dr Brent Opell, who is.

There's no way to date that mark on the wall near the window. It could have been there for years, for all we know. The foliage inside the window well does not show signs of recent upheaval. There are leaves and dirt that aren't scattered enough for someone to have climbed in that window - which measures 18 by 30 inches.

In order for an intruder to get in or out through that window, s/he would have needed to remove the grate first. When police got there, the grate was in place. Why would a vengeful, murderous intruder bother to replace the grate?

Well, why in god's name didn't John Ramsey yell for Detective Arndt to come see the window, or go upstairs and promptly report he found it open? He's down there looking for anything amiss, and when he finds something, he just says nothing to anyone and continues to sit there wondering where his little baby girl is? Come ON!

Are you saying that Officers French and Veitch overlooked an open window while searching for that exact type of thing? I think not. At that point in the investigation all they knew is that the daughter of a wealthy and affluent family was missing and there was a ransom note, and they were sent to examine the house and grounds and report anything that appeared to be a sign of entry or exit. It was also the middle of winter. Don't you think the draft emanating from an open window might tip off people searching for an open window that it's open?

As for thinking with clarity - your daughter has been kidnapped. her safety and very life depends upon you thinking clearly and working as hard as possible to find her and get her home safe. No one is so confused and emotional that they say nothing at all to the police in the house when they find an open window and their daughter is supposedly kidnapped. Yes, I think if my child was gone and I found an open window anywhere in my house I would have the presence of mind and the clarity to inform the detective upstairs what I had found - I certainly would not close it and then continue to sit around with mentioning a single word to anyone.

John Ramsey had every opportunity to tell someone, anyone, of that window, and didn't, and police who searched the house looking for points of entry did not see this window open at all. That indicates to me that John Ramsey did not find an open window on the 26th and is lying about it on April 30th.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I don't recall you posting a link refuting what Dr Opell said. I assumed it was just your opinion that a funnel spider came out and respun the web overnight - while it was snowing.

And even if the spider did come out of hibernation and respin his web in just a few hours, there still isn't enough evidence surrounding that window to support the idea that anyone came in or went out through it Christmas night.

And I can't recall what you said about Ramsey and his, imo, lies about the window.

Was is that he didn't tell the police about the open window until some four months after the 26th because he didn't talk to police until then?

What, his telephone doesn't work? He can't just call up the police or his attorneys and have them call police and report this open window that neither Officers French or Veitch saw, despite being in the basement specifically to search for a point of entry? Fleet White was down there that morning too and did not notice that window open.

Only John Ramsey saw it open, and he didn't even bother to notify anyone about it until four months after his daughter was murdered. It doesn't seem like he's too interested in finding the killer if he'll wander downstairs, find an open window, go back upstairs and say nothing for some four months.

John Ramsey changed a few stories between December 26th, 1996, and April 30th, 1997. It sounds to me like he was lying.

Here we have more conflicting evidence. Was it warm enough for a funnel spider to come out of hibernation and respin its web? In which case, it was warm enough for the snow which was lying on the ground at 6pm to have melted by 7.30.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Jayelles

I'm glad you aren't leaving NP. Despite your hat, I believe you are polite and serious follower of the case :-)

Thank you very much, Jayelles. That means a lot coming from one as well-versed in the Jonbenet case such as yourself. I was very impressed with your incredibly enlightening experiment with the bloomies. Thank you so much for caring enough to go so far.

I try to be polite and I am very serious about discussing what happened to JonBenet and figuring out who did that and why. My goodness, my heart breaks for JonBenet and the dubious legacy surrounding her. She did not deserve anything that happened to her, and I think we all owe it to her to see if this thing can ever be solved.

Do you know if it's true that JonBenet was buried in a pair of size 12/14 underwear? I believe I read that somewhere recently and it horrified me.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Enough.

What do you think about Santa? What about his wife who wrote the play based on the abduction of their daughter and her having to witness the sexual abuse of her friend? I think DNA was one of the things that cleared them. For discussion - let's disregard the DNA - say it's no good.

Santa Bill? He and his family were cleared. I think the thing with the play his wife wrote years ago and the situaton with their daughter is WEIRD coincidence.

Santa Bill had open heart surgery four months prior to the murder, when he was 65 years old. My own father had the same bypass surgery when he was 48 years old, and I can tell you from personal experience that he would have been too weak to strangle, bludgeon, and carry around six year old child just four months afterwards. I can assume from that that Bill McReynolds, at age 65, would also have been too weak to have done to JonBenet what was done to her.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Jayelles

Here we have more conflicting evidence. Was it warm enough for a funnel spider to come out of hibernation and respin its web? In which case, it was warm enough for the snow which was lying on the ground at 6pm to have melted by 7.30.

There was no snow on the walkways.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Do you know if it's true that JonBenet was buried in a pair of size 12/14 underwear? I believe I read that somewhere recently and it horrified me.

I've never heard that but I guess nothing would surprise me about this case. I did read that she was buried with a scarf, a tiara, a bracelet and a cat (sbtc). I know that the scarf, bracelet and cat are correct, but I'm not sure about the tiara (although that wouldn't surprise me). The person who posted this gave DOI as a source.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

There was no snow on the walkways.

Here we go...

The officer who made the report about there being no footprints in the snow never claimed there was a universal covering of snow. This whole argument is moot.

He described the covering of snow as patchy and added that there was no footprints in that (patchy) snow. Yet for years we have been hearing about "BORG" claims that there was no footprints in the non-exisistent snow - as though the officer DID claim there was a universal covering of snow.

The officer merely made some accurate observations and they have subsequently and repeatedly been misrepresented!

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Did you ever think that John Ramsey might have felt a need to do something with his life rather than sit around twiddling his thumbs. This was a very smart man who had a lot to offer, who had built a struggling in the basement company into a billion dollar business. After all the scrutiny and unrelenting media attention over the past years, there was nothing left to report by the media. In fact when John ran, I saw a one paragraph mention in the newspaper.

If John Ramsey had been a smart man, he would have recognised that people look for honesty above most other qualities when electing officials/politicians.

John Ramsey has repeatedly shown himself to be a man who cannot take responsibilities for his failings and who will point the finger at others when things go flipside-up. An ability to say "I was wrong" goes a long way with a lot of people - according to a poll at our last General Election.

Bunny2

08-10-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

:rolleyes: I never realized the ones who think the Ramseys are guilty can "hear" my "tone? :rolleyes:

I guess your idea of "polite" is this, huh...........................:no:
Bunny2
Member

Registered: Dec 2005
Location:
Posts: 557
For the record, it should be noted that I refrained from saying that "breezy" reminds me of passing wind.

(Sorry, breezy, I just couldn't resist.

(Sorry, breezy, I just couldn't resist. )
I wasn't rude to you when I put up my first posts here. You, on the contrary, were rude to me from the start, and I've seen you be rude to others in nearly every post whenever you think you're not being agreed with. When you act like a mean and nasty person over and over again, eventually some people will simply decide you're not worth being polite to and will give you back some of your own medicine. If you can't take it, you shouldn't be dishing it out.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles

Here we go...

The officer who made the report about there being no footprints in the snow never claimed there was a universal covering of snow. This whole argument is moot.

He described the covering of snow as patchy and added that there was no footprints in that (patchy) snow. Yet for years we have been hearing about "BORG" claims that there was no footprints in the non-exisistent snow - as though the officer DID claim there was a universal covering of snow.

The officer merely made some accurate observations and they have subsequently and repeatedly been misrepresented!

"The first "clue" they focused on was the supposed lack of footprints in the snow surrounding the house, which suggested that someone inside was responsible. Later the media admitted that this opinion was based on an official report from a policeman at the scene who noted: - "Strange, no footprints." The next item was also gleaned from a police report. It stated that there were allegedly no signs of forced entry.

The mayor of Boulder, Leslie Durgan, added further weight to the story when she appeared on television stating: - "By all reports there was no visible signs of forced entry. The body was found in a place where people are saying, someone had to know the house."

The facts surrounding the so-called "evidence" tell a completely different story.

The first point to come under scrutiny is the snow cover. News video footage shot on December 26 clearly shows that large areas surrounding the house had no snow cover at all. In support of this, Julie Hayden, the television reporter states:

"We looked at the videotape once the footprints in the snow started becoming an issue and one of the things that I observed was, there did not seem to be snow going up to all of the doors. So, in my opinion, this thing about footprints in the snow has always been much ado about nothing because it seemed clear to me that people could have gotten in the house, whether they did or not, without traipsing through the snow."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/evidence_2.html

“Moreover, contrary to media reports that had discredited an intruder theory, based on the lack of ‘footprints in the snow,’ there was no snow covering the sidewalks and walkways to the defendants’ home on the morning of December 26, 1996,” Carnes wrote. “Hence, a person walking along these paths would have left no footprints.”

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=25

Honest mistakes, reckless nonsense and outright exploitation have at times overwhelmed responsible reporting. One result: Some of what people "know" about the case at any given moment isn't true. For months, people "knew" that semen was found on JonBenet's body. (The information turned out to be wrong.) People "knew" that there were no footprints in the snow around the Ramsey house. (It's true that there were no footprints; it's not true that the ground was covered with snow.)

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/10/02-ed.html

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene3.html

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 12:19 PM

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by hohum

The problem is that people try to cloud the issue, and it is not moot, it is a very important point. Take a look at the pictures taken around the Ramsey house. The sidewalks, of which there were many, were clear and there was a light dusting of snow on the grass. To describe the snow as "patchy" is not to describe it accurately. He should have made the clear distinction between the grass and the sidewalks which went right up the house and some of the windows. You have seen the pictures haven't you? REPEAT, there was no snow on the sidewalks.

Good Grief - no-one is saying there was snow on the walkways.

Patchy was my choice of words. If you go to Smoking Gun, you will find Reichenbach's own choice of words. His description is fuller and includes the temperature.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles

I've never heard that but I guess nothing would surprise me about this case. I did read that she was buried with a scarf, a tiara, a bracelet and a cat (sbtc). I know that the scarf, bracelet and cat are correct, but I'm not sure about the tiara (although that wouldn't surprise me). The person who posted this gave DOI as a source.

Looks like that's right. The SBTC thing is weird.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-funeral.htm

DOI (HB) Page 39

The last time we saw JonBenet was in that funeral home. My mother and dad, Nedra and Don Paugh; my sisters, Pam and Polly; John and I; John Andrew; and Melinda stood around the coffin saying our good-byes. Mother had a special gold bracelet she had saved to give to JonBenet when she was older. Mother reached down and slipped it over her wrist.

Polly put a large gold cross in JonBenet's hands. During the time I had cancer, Father Rol had performed a healing service for me and had given me a cross that had been blessed by Native Americans in South Dakota, where he had formerly pastored a church. Later I had found gold crosses similar to that one at a jewelry store in Boulder and bought those crosses for my mother and sisters. Polly had worn the cross through some difficult times; JonBenet would wear it forever.

Pam had brought JonBenet's Little Miss Christmas Tiara, which she had won during December's pageant competition in Denver. Now Pam bent over and lovely placed the crown on JonBenet's head.

Then it was John turn. He had recently purchased a beautiful silk scarf, and he tucked it around JonBenet as if surrounding her with a final blanket of love.

2000 March 18 - John and Patsy Ramsey book, "Death of Innocence"

DOI (HB) Page 40

"Suddenly my friend Priscilla White rushed in. She and Fleet had found Sister Socks, a stuffed kitten that was so dear to JonBenet. I couldn't believe that Priscilla had the gray-a-white cat. I had asked to have the toy brought from the house in Boulder, but the stuffed animal that was given to us earlier was the wrong one. Priscilla knew that, and somehow, even though she was now in Atlanta, she had gotten hold of the right Sister socks, the one with the red ribbon around it's neck. I tucked Sister Socks under JonBenet's right arm."

I believe I also read somewhere that JonBenet was also laid to rest holding Kristine Griffin's crown in her hands, but I can't find a link.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by hohum

His failings? JR came in second out of several contenders, only 500 votes short, so it doesn't appear that all people think of him as you do. And this even after all the media attention and the umbrella of suspicion that hung over he and Patsy. Pretty remarkable.

I am not referring to the election as one of his "failings". I am referring to his failure to co-operate with police (that was the laywers fault). His failure to remain faithful to his fist wife (that was the mistress's fault)... etc etc

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Looks like that's right. The SBTC thing is weird.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-funeral.htm

DOI (HB) Page 39

The last time we saw JonBenet was in that funeral home. My mother and dad, Nedra and Don Paugh; my sisters, Pam and Polly; John and I; John Andrew; and Melinda stood around the coffin saying our good-byes. Mother had a special gold bracelet she had saved to give to JonBenet when she was older. Mother reached down and slipped it over her wrist.

Polly put a large gold cross in JonBenet's hands. During the time I had cancer, Father Rol had performed a healing service for me and had given me a cross that had been blessed by Native Americans in South Dakota, where he had formerly pastored a church. Later I had found gold crosses similar to that one at a jewelry store in Boulder and bought those crosses for my mother and sisters. Polly had worn the cross through some difficult times; JonBenet would wear it forever.

Pam had brought JonBenet's Little Miss Christmas Tiara, which she had won during December's pageant competition in Denver. Now Pam bent over and lovely placed the crown on JonBenet's head.

Then it was John turn. He had recently purchased a beautiful silk scarf, and he tucked it around JonBenet as if surrounding her with a final blanket of love.

2000 March 18 - John and Patsy Ramsey book, "Death of Innocence"

DOI (HB) Page 40

"Suddenly my friend Priscilla White rushed in. She and Fleet had found Sister Socks, a stuffed kitten that was so dear to JonBenet. I couldn't believe that Priscilla had the gray-a-white cat. I had asked to have the toy brought from the house in Boulder, but the stuffed animal that was given to us earlier was the wrong one. Priscilla knew that, and somehow, even though she was now in Atlanta, she had gotten hold of the right Sister socks, the one with the red ribbon around it's neck. I tucked Sister Socks under JonBenet's right arm."

I believe I also read somewhere that JonBenet was also laid to rest holding Kristine Griffiths's crown in her hands, but I can't find a link.

Ah - good catch. That would be Scarf, Bracelet, Tiara, Cross.

It is weird.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 12:35 PM

I agree the BP should have contacted the FBI immediately. At least they would have made sure the crime scene was not trampled on & evidence wasn't compromised.

Once JB's body was found, the case went from being a kidnapping to a simple murder case & the FBI had no authority as it was Boulder's case.

I'm sure most small size towns would have the same types of problems we saw with the Boulder Police on the day after a major holiday. It takes time to round up officers at that early hour plus people are on vacation. Add to that a lack of experience with serious crimes & prosecutors without much experience trying serious crimes & it's a recipe for failure.

This case was a disaster and from the very start... it was like watching a bunch of chickens running around without heads. There's plenty of blame for everyone in this case.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 12:37 PM

"Sgt Reichenbach states in his report that he had arrived at the Ramsey home at approximately 0600 hours on December 26 and that he had examined the exterior of the Ramsey home as well as the yard. Sgt Reichenbach noted that the air temperature was approximately 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Sgt Reichenbach noted in his report that there was a very light dusting of snow and frost on the exposed grass in the yard outside the Ramsey home. Some of the grass and yard was covered with snow from previous snowfall(s) and this snow was described as being crusty and measuring one-two inches deep. Sgt Reichenbach states that he saw no fresh footprints in any of the snow or in the frost on the grass..."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jonbenet/charlevoix3.html

As you see - no-one claimed there was snow on the walkway.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Weird to whom?

Well I guess we all have out different standards as to what we might consider weird or unusual.

Some people don't think it's at all unusual that Patsy would take the deicsion to leat JonBenet wear outsized knickers which were in danger of falling down around her ankles and whose legholes were so large that they exposed half her butt.! LOL

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by hohum

LOL you are reaching. Even his first wife moved on. And I might add had nothing but support for him after the death of JB.

Hmm. I think John Ramsey also provided a high level of "support" for her (i.e. of the financial sort).

But youy are right. Lucinda Ramsey has been married several times since then and has had a variety of live-in lovers too. I guess she got over John.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles

Ah - good catch. That would be Scarf, Bracelet, Tiara, Cross.

It is weird.

Interesting.

But I'm sure that's pure coincidence.

Now that you bring up this topic, I wonder if it means anything that Burke didn't leave anything for his little sister?

Anyone know whether siblings usually contribute to this burial ritual or whether it's mainly for adults?

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Well you must find something interesting here. If you are "very interested in discussing the JB case" and "this board is not the place for that" then quite simply why do you bother? BTW where is your alter ego S?

I'm interested in watching people act and react to each other. Human behavior fascinates me. That's part of the reason I so enjoy reading about crimes and trials.

S? I don't know where she is.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Where else would you go? I mean to discuss the JB case like you say you want to discuss it. LOL, it must be here!

This is only one of several boards I follow. If you look through other JBR boards you'll find me there as well.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Bars are good for that. I knew there must be some reason that you hung around other than JB.

Lol, me at a bar! I dislike alcohol immensely and cannot abide to spend time around people in the process in intoxification.

I really like message boards on the internet for people-watching. It's a continuous study arena for observing behavior amongst various kinds of people.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jonbenet/charlevoix3.html

As you see - no-one claimed there was snow on the walkway.

And with Sergeant Reichenbach noting the temperature at 10 degrees F, I think it's safe to assume that the spider species Agelenidae, a known hibernator, was not out repairing his web.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by hohum

And your point is?

I am agreeing with you that she "moved on"!

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles

I am not referring to the election as one of his "failings". I am referring to his failure to co-operate with police (that was the laywers fault). His failure to remain faithful to his fist wife (that was the mistress's fault)... etc etc

He DID co-operate until they made it obvious he and Patsy were the PRIME and ONLY suspects..................THEN it was the Constitutions "fault". It was not a "failing" to exercise his constitutional rights.

Yes, he is the ONLY man who EVER "failed" by being unfaithful to his wife. :rolleyes:

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Here we are back to that snow question. There was no snow on the sidewalks. There are pictures posted all over the internet of no snow on the sidewalks. And according to expert testimony, the spider could have woven/rewoven the web.

Did I say sidewalks. No I didn't - I said "ground".

NO-ONE said there was snow on the sidewalks. I don't know why this is such a big difficulty for some people.

ETA - and in fact (whether you realise it or not) - you are corroborating what I said. If it was warm enough for the spider - it was warm enough for snowmelt.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

And with Sergeant Reichenbach noting the temperature at 10 degrees F, I think it's safe to assume that the spider species Agelenidae, a known hibernator, was not out repairing his web.

I'm not an expert on spiders but I know some posters contacted a university professor about this. Do you remember that discussion?

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by hohum

One is not required to drink alcohol just because they are in a bar. And discussing the subject of a thread is much more labor intensive than people watching, a spectator sport.

Well, I did say I cannot abide to be around people in the process of intoxification...

I didn't say I don't join thread discussion. I obviously do, if this board is anything to go by.

Can we please get back to discussion of the case, or are you not done provoking me with comments about my personal life (of which you know nothing)?

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles

I'm not an expert on spiders but I know some posters contacted a university professor about this. Do you remember that discussion?

I have a thread from Websleuths bookmarked where BlueCrab talks about the spider, and I know SuperDave also from WS has offered just this week to share information he has about the spider and web and Opell. I'll go PM him ask for that, I'm very curious abou it myself. Here's where you can read BlueCrab's comments (post #7).

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13935

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jonbenet/charlevoix3.html

As you see - no-one claimed there was snow on the walkway.

Did you read the media reports? They DID say there was NO footprints in the snow.....................that lie is STILL "reported" on the Ramsey forums even now.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by hohum

It's like a discussion of the tabloids, and the same mentality.

Exactly, trying to dig up dirt and gossip, gossip, gossip and none of it has anything to do with who killed JonBenet.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Failure to remain faithful to his first wife - something that happened some twenty years before JonBenet's death - now that is grasping at straws. IMO

Rosy, there are 2 separate issues here.

1) The JB investigation

2) The election

IMO, everything & anything in a person's past is relevant when they enter the political arena.

And John was running as a Republican, a party which adheres to conservative values, so his affair might very well turn off potential voters.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by hohum

All this from a poster who didn't mind delving into the personal life of Lucinda Ramsey and posting it for all to see. Which has not one whit to do with the death of JB. I will forever be amused by the hypocrisy of some posts (and posters).

You must have me confused with someone else. I haven't said anything about Lucinda Pasch Ramsey. Please show me the post where I did.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Did you read the media reports? They DID say there was NO footprints in the snow.....................that lie is STILL "reported" on the Ramsey forums even now.

I know that the media initially put their own spin on Sgt Reichenbach's report - as they did on some other case (non) facts.

However, I have been following the case for over 6 years now and I only ever see the point about the footprints in the snow raised by pro-Ramsey posters or on pro-Ramsey forums as some kind of "proof" of BORG misinformation. Serious case followers who are RDI moved on a LONG time ago.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

You must have me confused with someone else. I haven't said anything about Lucinda Pasch Ramsey. Please show me the post where I did.

HoHum is talking about me. I am going to ignore this person from now on. It is very clear that he/she is not interested in serious discussion and is only interested in baiting and derailing the discussion. These types are not worthy of our time and energy.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

And then there was one who couldn't believe Lucinda couldn't remember the mistresses' name and wasn't jumping on the bandwagon to put her name.......and all of the details......out so
the tabloids would have a field day and their children could read all about it.

JMO

A warning to daddies (and mommies) everywhere: consider your children's feelings BEFORE you have an affair. You never know when your past will come back to haunt you.

If the ex had simply given the lover's name, the police could have easily located & questioned her like they did with all the other people they questioned.

IMO, the only important question here is whether the ex was withholding the info on her own or whether someone else asked her to withhold the name.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Rosy, there are 2 separate issues here.

1) The JB investigation

2) The election

IMO, everything & anything in a person's past is relevant when they enter the political arena.

And John was running as a Republican, a party which adheres to conservative values, so his affair might very well turn off potential voters.

Indeed. It's about the person's character. Most people would recognise that.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Jayelles

I know that the media initially put their own spin on Sgt Reichenbach's report - as they did on some other case (non) facts.

However, I have been following the case for over 6 years now and I only ever see the point about the footprints in the snow raised by pro-Ramsey posters or on pro-Ramsey forums as some kind of "proof" of BORG misinformation. Serious case followers who are RDI moved on a LONG time ago.

It HAS been brought upon THIS forum as "proof" of the Ramsey's guilt.:rolleyes:

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Are you saying if John had run as a Democrat, a liberal, then he would have had a better chance of winning?

No, I'm saying that conservatives are likely to be turned off by a married man who had an affair.

And considering the badmouthing the Ramseys did in their book about 'liberals' I don't think he would have had much success running as a Democrat.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by hohum

All the interest in the "lover," was her DNA checked?

The police wanted to talk to her to help them make a psychological profile on John, I would imagine.

The DNA was from a male, unless she was a transsexual, I don't think they were interested in a sample.

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 03:17 PM

The mistress's name is public knowledge. You will find it if you search an informative forum. I am not referring to "Jody Roberts" - the name she was referred to in the books.

John Ramsey described the relationship as like "Fatal Attraction" yet six months after JonBenet's murder, he admitted to tracking his former lover down and sitting outside her home in his car.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by hohum
One thing that has puzzled me is the placement of the kidnap note and how Patsy avoided stepping on it. In the interrogation she stated that she came down the stairs and stepped over it and then turned around to read it. It would be hard to skip a step on that little narrow circular staircase. I realize I have opened a can of worms for the Gs to chew on but this point still puzzles me.

I wonder about that too.

I wonder why hers and/or John's fingerprints were not on the note either. She said she handed it to John and he said he laid it out on the floor to read it faster. Both of their prints should be somewhere on that note.

I also wonder why Patsy told two different stories about what happened irt finding JonBenet gone. First she said she checked JonBenet's room and found her gone and then went downstairs and read the note, and later she changed it to she went downstairs and found the note and then checked JonBenet's room.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Bunny2

I wasn't rude to you when I put up my first posts here. You, on the contrary, were rude to me from the start, and I've seen you be rude to others in nearly every post whenever you think you're not being agreed with. When you act like a mean and nasty person over and over again, eventually some people will simply decide you're not worth being polite to and will give you back some of your own medicine. If you can't take it, you shouldn't be dishing it out.

That wasn't your last post I see. I guess the devil makes you do a lot of things, huh? Now maybe others will see who is looking for trouble and that is why I posted this. You can't even give your dig to me and let it go at that. No you have to brag about it to others. You call that "polite"? Are you trying to "endear" yourself to me..............OR are you trying to make a fool out of yourself? Do you really think I care what you and your "chum(p)s" think of me?

Bunny2
Posts: 2,135
Registered: 1/8/05
Ignore Member

Re: All's Well That Ends in Disappointment!
Posted: Aug 10, 2006 3:09 PM (240 of 240)

* Report

For Solace and Will, here's what might be my last post on the CTV JonBenet boards. The devil made me do it! I don't think I endeared myself to breezy with my first post on this page, but I think you two will enjoy it.

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=268706&perpage=40&pagenumber=49

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Evidently just because a person touches something doesn't mean they always leave clear prints. There should have been a print of someone on that kidnap paper (3 pages) as many people as there were who handled it. Including the police.

"The only identifiable fingerprints on the ransom note belonged to Patsy, John, and the technician at the lab that processed the note. "

http://www.justicejunction.com/innocence_lost_jonbenet_ramsey_both_sides_stand_ha rd.htm

Who knows with the police leaks and BS put out by the media what is fact and what is not???

Jayelles

08-10-2006, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by hohum

I don't have any interest in her name. I am more interested in the JB case. Aren't you the poster who didn't like people delving into a person's personal life?

Back off and quit the attacks and snide remarks. Ramsey threads have been pulled by the moderators for less.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

John provided her name.............

Nobody said John didn't provide her name.

The discussion about the mistress centered on why the EX-WIFE claimed she forgot the woman's name.

It only serves to slow down the process of building a complete profile on the parents since she should have realized the woman's name would be revealed eventually.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

And with Sergeant Reichenbach noting the temperature at 10 degrees F, I think it's safe to assume that the spider species Agelenidae, a known hibernator, was not out repairing his web.

Do they know for sure that the web was made by that species?

In any event, didn't they also say that it was possible that the web would NOT broken if the window was open... that it could have enough 'springiness' or 'give?' (Or whatever term is used to describe pulling a spiderweb)

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 04:53 PM

File not found on that link, breezy.

No Prints Are Reported On Ramsey Ransom Note

Published: July 18, 1997

Forensic tests on a ransom note turned over to the police before the body of JonBenet Ramsey was found at her parents' home here on Dec. 26 showed no trace of the finger or palm prints of her parents, a newspaper reported today.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00E4DB1F38F93BA25754C0A9619582 60

I could also quote from Steve Thomas's book - he said there were only the prints of CBI investigator Chet Ubowski on the actual note, while on the pad it come from were seven prints - five of them Patsy's.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Do they know for sure that the web was made by that species?

In any event, didn't they also say that it was possible that the web would NOT broken if the window was open... that it could have enough 'springiness' or 'give?' (Or whatever term is used to describe pulling a spiderweb)

4. "as noted by detectives arriving early on the morning of December 26, an intact spider web covered the grate which blocked off the window. In order to enter or exit the window, the grate would have had to have been removed. This grate was photographed and collected for evidence. Interior dusting of the window for fingerprints was done by crime scene investigators and no latent prints were found. In May, the photos were submitted to Brent Opell, Professor of Biology at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksbury,sic Virginia. Prof. Opell reported that the web was that of the Agelenidae, known as a funnel-web spider. The web was

reasonably intact and extending through the grating, suggesting that the grating had not been disturbed since the spider constructed its web.
According to Prof. Opell, these types of spiders would cease constructing
webs no later than early November, thus indicating that no one had entered
that window well past this early November deadline. The theory that anyone could have entered the Ramsey residence through this broken window was totally discounted by this simple evidence of nature." (Sauers 1998).

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20House

I'm also awaiting information from a poster on another board that has more detail on this spider web and species and the expert who indentified it.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I wonder about that too.

I wonder why hers and/or John's fingerprints were not on the note either. She said she handed it to John and he said he laid it out on the floor to read it faster. Both of their prints should be somewhere on that note.

I also wonder why Patsy told two different stories about what happened irt finding JonBenet gone. First she said she checked JonBenet's room and found her gone and then went downstairs and read the note, and later she changed it to she went downstairs and found the note and then checked JonBenet's room.

I don't find it startling that they would be confused as to when they checked JB's room.

I DO find their stories about finding & reading the ransom note VERY peculiar.

Stepping over the note and avoiding a step on a circular staircase? It just doesn't seem logical. I can believe Patsy might have seen something on the step & moved it over with her foot before putting her foot on that step but I find it hard to believe that at that hour of the morning & before a cup of coffee, Patsy is THAT awake & athletic that she can bypass a step.

I also have a lot of trouble understanding why anyone would place a note of a floor & then read it on hands & knees? It's more logical to flip on a lightswitch & read it quickly & carefully.

I have trouble with those 2 things.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by hohum
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-06-murder-houses_x.htm

The Ramsey House for sale.

Interesting article.

""It's stigmatized. It's always been stigmatized," says Joel Ripmaster, president of Colorado Landmark Realtors. Ripmaster has represented the last four owners of the property, all who purchased or sold the house at below-market value since JonBenét's slaying in 1996."

Between the history & the awful layout of the place, it's no wonder buyers aren't happy with the place.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by hohum

What incriminating evidence did they find to cast him as a murderer?

LI_Mom: The police wanted to talk to her to help them make a psychological profile on John

Where did I say that they wanted to speak to the mistress because they cast him as a murderer?

They need to develop a profile on all the players involved.... family members, friends, business associates, etc. The faster they do it, the better.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

4. "as noted by detectives arriving early on the morning of December 26, an intact spider web covered the grate which blocked off the window. In order to enter or exit the window, the grate would have had to have been removed. This grate was photographed and collected for evidence. Interior dusting of the window for fingerprints was done by crime scene investigators and no latent prints were found. In May, the photos were submitted to Brent Opell, Professor of Biology at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksbury,sic Virginia. Prof. Opell reported that the web was that of the Agelenidae, known as a funnel-web spider. The web was

reasonably intact and extending through the grating, suggesting that the grating had not been disturbed since the spider constructed its web.
According to Prof. Opell, these types of spiders would cease constructing
webs no later than early November, thus indicating that no one had entered
that window well past this early November deadline. The theory that anyone could have entered the Ramsey residence through this broken window was totally discounted by this simple evidence of nature." (Sauers 1998).

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/The%20House

I'm also awaiting information from a poster on another board that has more detail on this spider web and species and the expert who indentified it.

Thanks, NP.

So the prosecution would need to prove it was that type of spider AND that it DIDN'T get warm enough for that spider to repair the web.

It's just one piece of circumstantial evidence in the puzzle because for all we know the alleged intruder walked in through an unlocked door or even had a key.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 05:42 PM

If there were any unlocked doors. Both John and Patsy told both friendsa nd police that all the doors were locked that night only to change their story later.

I think a bigger issue than the web is the fact that the grate was in place over the window. Any intruder who went in or out that window would have had to have stopped to replace the grate over it, because that's how police found it when they arrived.

I can't see a person who would break in and assault and strangle a small child caring enough to stop and take the time to replace a grate he moved to go in or out of the house.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
If there were any unlocked doors. Both John and Patsy told both friendsa nd police that all the doors were locked that night only to change their story later.

I think a bigger issue than the web is the fact that the grate was in place over the window. Any intruder who went in or out that window would have had to have stopped to replace the grate over it, because that's how police found it when they arrived.

I can't see a person who would break in and assault and strangle a small child caring enough to stop and take the time to replace a grate he moved to go in or out of the house.

I know there were different stories about the doors being locked AND how many keys were given out to the house.

There also was some speculation that Patsy might have left a key outside (because she kept locking herself outside) without telling John.

As far as the grate, where is that in reference to where the baseball bat was found? Regardless, it's also possible the kids were playing outside & moved the grate.

I wonder if they checked for prints on the grate & outside that area?

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by hohum

I was hoping someone would bring that grate up and be able to explain why fresh grass was caught under the grate if it had not been moved that night. There are pictures on the web with the grass caught under it--in other words the grass would have grown around the grate but when someone lifted the grate and put it back the grass accidentally got caught under. One of the very few details the killer overlooked.

It's my understanding that photo was taken after police inspected the window.

Another quote from BlueCrab.

Later that morning the temperature warmed up and the dusting of snow melted. Investigators eventually lifted the iron grate to inspect the window-well and the broken window. Police photos taken later in the day show only patches of snow on the ground, and grass caught under the iron gate -- but those photos were taken after it had warmed up and melted the dusting of snow; and after the cops had inspected the window-well, trapping the grass under the iron grate when they replaced it.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13935

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by hohum

They developed a profile on all the players? Gosh is that list somewhere?

Why? Do you think they WEREN'T interested in whether any of the players had crimminal records or possible motives to want to kill JB?

I assume the police & the various investigators would have that list.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by hohum

They found at least one door unlocked and one standing open. Also the Ramsey's kept a key to the house hidden outside and I think it was something like 22 keys that were outstanding.

The butler pantry door that was open was noted by John Fernie, who arrived after John and Patsy found JonBenet gone and after police arrived. Any of them could have left the door open.

You would think if that door was standing open when Patsy went downstairs to make coffee and found the note that she would have seen it or felt a draft. You would definitely think that when her and John were running around searching for Jonbenet they would have seen it and pointed it out to police. They didn't.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by hohum

You are a piece of work. First you post that you don't like bars nor alcohol (who cares) and that no one needs to ask you about your personal life, no one did, then you can't wait to post about Lucinda's personal life and how many times she has been married and other personal info which has absolutely nothing to do with the murder of JB. Then you call other posters snide when they comment on anything in your very public posts which in and of itself is one of those studies in people watching if one is not interested in the subject of this thread, JONBENET RAMSEY. What is snide is your attempt to make Lucinda look bad.

You're confused, hohum. Please read back through the thread and make sure you know who said what before you begin accusing anyone of anything.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Maybe she did forget her name. It had been twenty years (if not a few more). I don't remember a lot of things that are no longer important to me. You've heard the expression "long ago and far away." Some people just don't dwell on the negative. The let it go and move on. JMO

That's certainly possible and reasonable.

And frankly, I don't remember what her reaction was (she's just the ex-wife & not very important) but I do remember wondering why she wouldn't just volunteer the info & move to the next question.

It's the little things like this that make police suspicious about the cooperation they are getting. Why give them ammo to use against you, is what I'm thinking?

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

The butler pantry door that was open was noted by John Fernie, who arrived after John and Patsy found JonBenet gone and after police arrived. Any of them could have left the door open.

You would think if that door was standing open when Patsy went downstairs to make coffee and found the note that she would have seen it or felt a draft. You would definitely think that when her and John were running around searching for Jonbenet they would have seen it and pointed it out to police. They didn't.

Speaking of Fernie....

Transcript Testimony of John Fernie
Colorado vs Thomas C. Miller trial
June 13, 2001

John Fernie and his wife, Barbara were called by Patsy Ramsey the morning of December 26, 1996 shortly after Patsy called 911 to report JonBenet Ramsey had been kidnapped. Three and a half years later, John Fernie was subpoenead to testify in the trial of the State of Colorado vs Thomas C. Miller, who was accused of conspiring to help Craig Lewis purchase a copy of the ransom note for $30,000 for the Globe.

John Fernie, "I drove my car into the -- up the alley and parked in the back of your house, and went around to the patio door, which was a glass door leading into the kitchen and back of the house, and didn't see anybody, but saw a piece of paper laying on the floor. Looked at that. It was facing the other direction. Read it. And after the first few lines realized something very strange was happening. And so I ran around to the front of the house and knocked on the door and was let in."

John Fernie: "I didn't pick it up. It was inside the door and I was outside. The door was locked. I read it through the door."

http://www.acandyrose.com/06132001fernie-millertrial4.gif

I just can't get over how that ransom note is left on the floor as if it's an unimportant piece of paper.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by hohum

There is another interesting point made in the interrogation of John. They asked him if he closed the garage door that night when they got home from the White's. He said he usually was the one who closed the door but that he doesn't remember doing so that night because he carried the sleeping JB up to her room. And I never heard any mention of the garage door being up or down. John stated that they never locked the door that went from the house into the garage.

When did he say that - the 26th or later on?

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Perhaps after John read it, he said he put it on the floor by the glass door because there was more light, he just left it there and ran upstairs to check on things. I am going to read the entire transcript of the interrogation again. It only takes about 2 nights to read and it feels like you are sitting in on the interrogation. What I was looking for when I read it was any contradiction from either Patsy or John in what they say because they are asked some questions, it seems like 10 times, at different times in the interview.

DOI:

John runs down the main stairs & into the back hallway. I grasp my stomach & run after him. By the time I get to him, he is down on his hands & knees, staring at the sheets of paper spread out on the floor in front of him. He is examining the ransom note, under the ceiling lights of the back hall.

Here's the floor plan.

http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/floors.htm

Just seems like a strange way to read.

bullmoose

08-10-2006, 07:17 PM

I have a sort of strange connection to the Ramsey case; in june of 97, while visiting relatives in northern Michigan, we took a drive to Charlevois, twenty miles from my Uncle's house. It is an unusually beautiful town on Lake Michigan even for northern Michigan. We were driving around the place after dinner when we drove by the Ramsey's house. It was a beautiful place, all the homes in that town are; but I remember remarking "Look at all those Colorado-plated cars!". My uncle said that's where that family that had their daughter murdered last Christmas lives. We then got into a discussion as to why weren't they in jail if they were as guilty as all the tabloids and Geraldo said they were. When I returned home to Idaho I started doing my own research on the case because of all the the strange aspects that seemed everywhere you looked[the truly odd ransom note, the ligatures,etc]. The more I looked the odder it seemed. Neighbors down the block that were never talked to by the BPD struck me as proof of tunnelvision by the cops. The incredibile media frenzy struck me as having a lynch-mob tone to it; the continuos leaking of half-truths and outright lies by the frustrated yet obviously incompetant police had an almost petulant air about it. The attitude was" they must be guilty, why don't they just admit it?"The attitude of the cops and the attack-dogs of the media seemed asinine to me; it seemed like some of the thoughtful investigation that was later done by qualified people like Smit could have been done many months earlier. There was such a preoccupation with those kiddy-pagent tapes by the media, like it was proof of something evil about the Ramseys; yes I know that there are sick *******s that get off on tapes of small children, but in my opinion those were just innocent pagents that were sold by people trying to cash in on the frenzy. Nothing I ever read ever made any sense as to pointing to who actually killed JonBenet. Why did the cops refuse FBI and other offers of help? In my opinion because they were so sure of the parents' guilt, and I think they didn't want to share any of the glory when they sweated the expected confessions out of John and Patsy. They expected them to act like braindead common criminals and turn on each other to save their own skins; when this didn't happen, over the weeks and months, it didn't seem to occur to those Keystone Kop wannabes that maybe they were dealing with innocent people. The confusion and crimescene chaos is to me totally understandable, but the idiotic action of the BPD in the following months is just shameful. Thats just my opinion. bullmoose

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 07:22 PM

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Was that you, I haven't had time to check. Rather than doing that I have been spending time researching the facts about grates and doors and fingerprints and fibers, things that might pertain to the JONBENET RAMSEY case.

it would the first time all week that you've taken the time to discuss the case instead of bait and insult others.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0105/28/lkl.00.html

KING: There we see a window. That's the window, right?

SMIT: That's the window. Now, again, that picture that you see is the first photograph taken of that window after the crime scene technicians got back into the house.

Some posters at Forums for Justice are saying that photo was taken by Lou Smit himself.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3223&page=2&pp=12

The origin of the Smit-provided evidence is subject to question to begin with. Take, for instance, that infamous picture of the basement window well - the one where they try to claim an intruder messed up the debris in the well. It is my understanding that no pictures were taken of that window well on Dec. 26, at least not the pictures Smit has provided. Smit didn't come on the scene until months after the crime was committed. At that time he went to the house and took his own pictures, if my memory serves me correctly. The pictures of the window well, taken from outside looking in, I believe were taken by Smit. If that is a fact, then those pictures are not credible as evidence of what that window well looked like that morning.

LE officers who were on the scene that day said there was NO DISTURBANCE at that window well. They saw it. Then, Smit comes in months later, after God knows who has been trying out that window sill, and takes pictures of the small disturbance there and tries to pawn it off as crime scene pictures.

this site refers to the photos as being Smit's as well:

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/29lsmit.html

Smit's photos, including shots of the interior and exterior of the former Ramsey house, are aimed at supporting his intruder theory, much of it reported many times before

*Sounds like we don't know when those photos were taken so we don't know how the grass got under the grate. Considering the chair in front of the door to that room, I would say no one came through that window.

http://www.acandyrose.com/ramseycase-quotes1.htm

NE Page 314 (06-25-1998 Interviews)

Lou Smit: "So you think that the chair would block the door and nobody would have gotten in there without moving it?"

John Ramsey: "Correct"

Lou Smit: "In other words, let's say that the intruder goes into the train room, gets out, let's say, that window?"

John Ramsey: "Uh huh."

Lou Smit: "How in effect would he get that chair to block that door, if that is the case, is what I'm saying?"

John Ramsey: "I don't know... I go down, I say, "Ooh, that door is blocked." I move the chair and went in the room."

Lou Smit: "So you couldn't have gotten in without moving the chair?"

John Ramsey: "Correct... I had to move the chair."

Lou Smit: "The thing I'm trying to figure out in my mind then is, if an intruder went through the door, he'd almost have to pull the chair behind him... because that would have been his exit... so that's not very logical as far as......"

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by hohum

John's interrogation was on June 23, 1998.

LS "Does the garage door close automatically?"
JR "Well, it doesn't close automatically. There's a button by the door..I don't remember closing the door myself. I only remember carrying her....."

p. 296 JB The Police Files

And we know that John Ramsey had different stories to tell depending on whether it was the 26th or later.

Let me ask this - when police arrived, did they note the garage door as being open? Did the friends of the Ramseys note the garage door as being open? I can't find that said anywhere, so I'm going to assume that the garage door was not open when the police and friends of the Ramseys arrived, or else it would have been noted then.
'
Another case of Ramnesia and contradicting stories from the Rs.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 07:39 PM

It's still totally illogical that this intruder who has been in the house long enough to know where to find pad & paper & had countless hours to roam around would take his kidnap victim downstairs to the basement.

IF this was a kidnapping, you don't take time to rape the child in the house. You grab the kid & leave. You have all the time in the world to rape her later.

IF this crime was intended only to destroy the Ramseys, why the nonsense about the kidnapping? Why not taunt them with how they couldn't do anything to prevent JB's grisly murder?

The note makes no sense.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

*snipped*

Some posters at Forums for Justice are saying that photo was taken by Lou Smit himself.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3223&page=2&pp=12

The origin of the Smit-provided evidence is subject to question to begin with. Take, for instance, that infamous picture of the basement window well - the one where they try to claim an intruder messed up the debris in the well. It is my understanding that no pictures were taken of that window well on Dec. 26, at least not the pictures Smit has provided. Smit didn't come on the scene until months after the crime was committed. At that time he went to the house and took his own pictures, if my memory serves me correctly. The pictures of the window well, taken from outside looking in, I believe were taken by Smit. If that is a fact, then those pictures are not credible as evidence of what that window well looked like that morning.

LE officers who were on the scene that day said there was NO DISTURBANCE at that window well. They saw it. Then, Smit comes in months later, after God knows who has been trying out that window sill, and takes pictures of the small disturbance there and tries to pawn it off as crime scene pictures.

this site refers to the photos as being Smit's as well:

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/29lsmit.html

Smit's photos, including shots of the interior and exterior of the former Ramsey house, are aimed at supporting his intruder theory, much of it reported many times before

*Sounds like we don't know when those photos were taken so we don't know how the grass got under the grate. Considering the chair in front of the door to that room, I would say no one came through that window.

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene3.html

You really think Smit put "crime Scene photo" on the pictures. :rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
It's still totally illogical that this intruder who has been in the house long enough to know where to find pad & paper & had countless hours to roam around would take his kidnap victim downstairs to the basement.

IF this was a kidnapping, you don't take time to rape the child in the house. You grab the kid & leave. You have all the time in the world to rape her later.

IF this crime was intended only to destroy the Ramseys, why the nonsense about the kidnapping? Why not taunt them with how they couldn't do anything to prevent JB's grisly murder?

The note makes no sense.

Can you tell me what IS logical or makes sense about murder?

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
I have a sort of strange connection to the Ramsey case; in june of 97, while visiting relatives in northern Michigan, we took a drive to Charlevois, twenty miles from my Uncle's house. It is an unusually beautiful town on Lake Michigan even for northern Michigan. We were driving around the place after dinner when we drove by the Ramsey's house. It was a beautiful place, all the homes in that town are; but I remember remarking "Look at all those Colorado-plated cars!". My uncle said that's where that family that had their daughter murdered last Christmas lives. We then got into a discussion as to why weren't they in jail if they were as guilty as all the tabloids and Geraldo said they were. When I returned home to Idaho I started doing my own research on the case because of all the the strange aspects that seemed everywhere you looked[the truly odd ransom note, the ligatures,etc]. The more I looked the odder it seemed. Neighbors down the block that were never talked to by the BPD struck me as proof of tunnelvision by the cops. The incredibile media frenzy struck me as having a lynch-mob tone to it; the continuos leaking of half-truths and outright lies by the frustrated yet obviously incompetant police had an almost petulant air about it. The attitude was" they must be guilty, why don't they just admit it?"The attitude of the cops and the attack-dogs of the media seemed asinine to me; it seemed like some of the thoughtful investigation that was later done by qualified people like Smit could have been done many months earlier. There was such a preoccupation with those kiddy-pagent tapes by the media, like it was proof of something evil about the Ramseys; yes I know that there are sick *******s that get off on tapes of small children, but in my opinion those were just innocent pagents that were sold by people trying to cash in on the frenzy. Nothing I ever read ever made any sense as to pointing to who actually killed JonBenet. Why did the cops refuse FBI and other offers of help? In my opinion because they were so sure of the parents' guilt, and I think they didn't want to share any of the glory when they sweated the expected confessions out of John and Patsy. They expected them to act like braindead common criminals and turn on each other to save their own skins; when this didn't happen, over the weeks and months, it didn't seem to occur to those Keystone Kop wannabes that maybe they were dealing with innocent people. The confusion and crimescene chaos is to me totally understandable, but the idiotic action of the BPD in the following months is just shameful. Thats just my opinion. bullmoose

:patriot: I agree with you all the way!

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Can you tell me what IS logical or makes sense about murder?

Unless a person is certifiably insane, his actions are usually somewhat logical, even if they are evil or sick.

And if this killer was logical enough to allegedly break in, manage to not leave forensic evidence in every room he visited PLUS escape undetected that tells us he was in control of himself & had to be carefully thinking about what he was doing.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Breezy, I am amazed at people who seem to believe the Ramseys should have performed on the 26th as if a script had been written for them. ........... Hindsight is 20/20 - and second guessing is just that. JMO, of course.

Yep, everyone THINKS they would know how to act and what to do and they would have perfect memory at a time like that but of course if they did they would not be human.

The baseball bat..............Police also found a baseball bat not owned by the Ramseys on the north side of the house with fibers on it consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet’s body was found.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..........

Years ago this was discussed but of course the Ramsey did it crowd laughed it off. I wonder if that DNA in this case was compared to the DNA from the Ramsey case??

"By Christopher Anderson, Camera Staff Writer
December 20, 1998 Christmas time one year after JonBenet

One year ago, the brutal beating of a 23-year-old University of Colorado student who was found barely alive in an alley of a downtown neighborhood sent shock waves of fear through the community.

Residents were told that an attacker was on the loose and could strike again. Women were warned not to walk alone at night.

The fear escalated the next day when Susannah Chase was pronounced dead, and her murder became the second in two years to darken the Christmas holidays. Police believe she might have been sexually assaulted in the Dec. 21 attack.

Like the Dec. 26, 1996, murder of JonBenét Ramsey, Chase's murder remains unsolved.

The focus of the Boulder Police Department investigation has led away from anyone who knew Chase, indicating the slaying was most likely a random act.

"It could be that the perpetrator was from out of town," said Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner.

Although police are no longer working on the case full time, they have not given up hope.

The corner became the site of a grisly crime scene, where police found a trail of blood leading south down the 18th Street sidewalk and a bloody aluminum baseball bat — believed to be the murder weapon — between the sidewalk and a neighbor's fence.

http://www.bouldernews.com/extra/chase/20chase.html

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Patsy describes exactly where she hid the key outside. When I find it I will post it. And about the baseball bat, if I remember correctly it was very near, even right next to the grate. I will look for the picture and post a link for that also. Do you know how heavy those grates are? Very.

My point was that it's possible one of the kids or kids' friends were playing in the area & messed around with the grate.

10 year old boys are pretty strong & do some pretty dopey things when they play.

I don't think we can prove the grate was moved on that night because of the placement of the vegetation.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 10:28 PM

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

The "small foreign faction" that had it in for John Ramsey went after a 23 year old woman he met in an alley?

But this time they didn't even want money?

Years ago this was discussed but of course the Ramsey did it crowd laughed it off. I wonder if that DNA in this case was compared to the DNA from the Ramsey case??

You proved my point. Nice you can make jokes about murder.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Years ago this was discussed but of course the Ramsey did it crowd laughed it off. I wonder if that DNA in this case was compared to the DNA from the Ramsey case??

You proved my point. Nice you can make jokes about murder.

Who's joking?

Other than the fact that these 2 murders happened around Christmas time (a VERY stressful time of year for many people)... what similarities are there?

And I don't know what forensic evidence they collected at the Chase scene. If there was any DNA, I would think they compared it to any & all unsolved cases AND against databases.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Yep, everyone THINKS they would know how to act and what to do and they would have perfect memory at a time like that but of course if they did they would not be human.

The baseball bat..............Police also found a baseball bat not owned by the Ramseys on the north side of the house with fibers on it consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet’s body was found.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..........

Years ago this was discussed but of course the Ramsey did it crowd laughed it off. I wonder if that DNA in this case was compared to the DNA from the Ramsey case??

"By Christopher Anderson, Camera Staff Writer
December 20, 1998 Christmas time one year after JonBenet

One year ago, the brutal beating of a 23-year-old University of Colorado student who was found barely alive in an alley of a downtown neighborhood sent shock waves of fear through the community.

Residents were told that an attacker was on the loose and could strike again. Women were warned not to walk alone at night.

The fear escalated the next day when Susannah Chase was pronounced dead, and her murder became the second in two years to darken the Christmas holidays. Police believe she might have been sexually assaulted in the Dec. 21 attack.

Like the Dec. 26, 1996, murder of JonBenét Ramsey, Chase's murder remains unsolved.

The focus of the Boulder Police Department investigation has led away from anyone who knew Chase, indicating the slaying was most likely a random act.

"It could be that the perpetrator was from out of town," said Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner.

Although police are no longer working on the case full time, they have not given up hope.

The corner became the site of a grisly crime scene, where police found a trail of blood leading south down the 18th Street sidewalk and a bloody aluminum baseball bat — believed to be the murder weapon — between the sidewalk and a neighbor's fence.

http://www.bouldernews.com/extra/chase/20chase.html

While struggling to breathe, JonBenet clawed at the rope, which explains the deep fingernail marks on her neck. Before she could get free, the intruder struck her across the head with an aluminum baseball bat which police found on the north side of the house. The killer then left the house through the basement window, perhaps using the suitcase as a step-up to the window well.

"His essay chronicled the sexual torture of Barbie in an extremely sadistic, vicious manner. When John Ramsey found JonBenet, the killer had left the girl's Barbie doll nightgown beside her.

Few people around town knew The Prophet. But during his college years, the manager of a local diner allowed him to hang a mobile of naked Barbie dolls from the restaurant's ceiling. As I was investigating The Prophet in the summer of 1998, I found a similar doll in the Ramsey's front yard, stuffed inside a tiny white sandal. I wondered if the shoe had once belonged to JonBenet. The blonde doll had a little white rope around her neck and a red spot marked on her gown by her vaginal area. I immediately called the police who collected the item into evidence. "

http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/122001/coverstory.html

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 10:49 PM

There are many dissimilarities between the Chase murder and JonBenet's.

Susannah Chase was not a child, she was not attacked in her own home (and not with her family present on another floor of the same house), there was no ransom note left, she was not vaginally assaulted, she was not strangled.

It's not the same MO at all.

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

While struggling to breathe, JonBenet clawed at the rope, which explains the deep fingernail marks on her neck.

I don't recall ever hearing that Jonbenet had deep fingernail marks on her neck or that she had her own skin under her fingernails (which she would if she left deep fingernail marks in her neck). Could you please supply a link for that?

And wow, that last link you supplied from Shapiro is just full of error.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 11:00 PM

The object used to whack JB's head hasn't been determined positively.

It could have been the flashlight, a bat or even a golf club.

Oddly, the Ramseys couldn't identify the flashlight at their house as belonging to them. Likewise the baseball bat that was outside.

It's not hard to believe parents cannot identify EVERY piece of sports equiptment their children own. My own kid had more than one bat & I sure wouldn't be 100% positive if one found laying around was his or not. And I wouldn't drop dead from shock if one of my kid's possessions was left outside instead of where it belongs. (Naturally, if I asked, Mr. Nobody would be responsible because my kid would never forget to put away toys. lol)

I do seem to remember that the police took golf clubs into evidence AND John took a set of golf clubs from the house.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I don't recall ever hearing that Jonbenet had deep fingernail marks on her neck or that she had her own skin under her fingernails (which she would if she left deep fingernail marks in her neck). Could you please supply a link for that?

And wow, that last link you supplied from Shapiro is just full of error.

Warning, only view if you are not squeamish..............http://boards.aetv.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800000640&start=210

The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name.

Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

I will never be able to understand if you know all the evidence and know what is "error" and what is not why haven't you solved thsi case by now?

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 11:08 PM

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

*snipped*

I do seem to remember that the police took golf clubs into evidence AND John took a set of golf clubs from the house.

You "recall" that huh? You do realize what you "recall" is not evidence as we know the police leaked untrue stories left and right under their own admission.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Here's a link with autopsy photos.

Are the marks merely rope burn?

http://zyberzoom.com/ComparisonPhotos.html

And does Shapiro have ANY credibility? :rolleyes:

Notice the picture above the caption that says "SCRATCHES on JonBenets neck". When or how can rope burn become SCRATCHES and how can rope burn take out small pieces of skin as the picture shows????

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 11:20 PM

Yep, they took a flashlight and golf clubs among other things.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/01/12-1.html

A flashlight was listed among several blunt objects collected at the Ramsey's Boulder home, according to four search warrants released Sept. 29.

Other seized items, which could have been used to strike Ramsey, included a baseball bat, golf clubs, a red clay brick and a hammer.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Notice the picture above the caption that says "SCRATCHES on JonBenets neck". When or how can rope burn become SCRATCHES and how can rope burn take out small pieces of skin as the picture shows????

I guess you didn't look at all the pics?

Particularly the one where it mentions the possibility of friction burn.

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Yep, they took a flashlight and golf clubs among other things.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/01/12-1.html

A flashlight was listed among several blunt objects collected at the Ramsey's Boulder home, according to four search warrants released Sept. 29.

Other seized items, which could have been used to strike Ramsey, included a baseball bat, golf clubs, a red clay brick and a hammer.

And I assume NONE of the potential weapons they collected had blood or any type of dna? Just another dead end.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Yep, they took a flashlight and golf clubs among other things.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/01/12-1.html

A flashlight was listed among several blunt objects collected at the Ramsey's Boulder home, according to four search warrants released Sept. 29.

Other seized items, which could have been used to strike Ramsey, included a baseball bat, golf clubs, a red clay brick and a hammer.

That report says nothing about John carrying out golf clubs as she said he did.:shrug:

Originally posted by LI_Mom

*snipped*

I do seem to remember that the police took golf clubs into evidence AND John took a set of golf clubs from the house.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

I guess you didn't look at all the pics?

Particularly the one where it mentions the possibility of friction burn.

Yes I did and I also know when pieces of skin are scratched off.................not from "friction" but scratched. Possibility? :rolleyes:

nuisanceposter

08-10-2006, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Warning, only view if you are not squeamish..............http://boards.aetv.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800000640&start=210

The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name.

Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml

I will never be able to understand if you know all the evidence and know what is "error" and what is not why haven't you solved thsi case by now?

I don't see how this illustrates whether JonBenet's neck and nails show evidence of her clawing at her own neck. The first link is a discussion board, and the second talks about DNA under her nails that is not her own.

Coroner Meyer says nothing of JonBenet's neck having scratches that would be associated with her scratching at herself, and I don't think it looks like she clawed at her neck in the autopsy pics. There would be drap marks where she tried to get her fingers under the cord, and there aren't any. Nor was her own skin found to be under her nails.

breezy1234

08-10-2006, 11:36 PM

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by hohum
During interrogation JR was asked about an entrepreneurial magazine found in the house where he is photographed as one of four award winners. Three of the faces have "NO" written across them. A heart is drawn around John's picture.

JR: That's weird.
LS: Could Patsy or JB have written that (meaning the word NO)?
JR: NO

LS asks this in relation to the red heart drawn on JBs hand.

p. 312 JB The Police Files

I remember reading about this.

Was he ever directly asked if HE did it? Maybe doodling & daydreaming & a little impressed with himself?

I have to say this intruder sure must have been super comfortable wearing gloves inside for all those hours. I bet he had really sweaty hands. Ewww :D

LI_Mom

08-10-2006, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by hohum

Where Patsy hid the key outside. Under a little gray statue guy who sat on a platform (they called him Pierre). He stood outside the door by the sun room.

Investigator asks Patsy what is the usual method of coming in the house. Patsy says garage door opener, go in, then the inside garage door was unlocked. She says she never ever used the house key.

I can tell you I would never leave the door in the garage to my house open. We have six windows in the garage and someone could climb through them as we often leave them cracked for ventilation.

P. 213 JBTPF

I kind of like naming the statue Pierre. That's cute.

I'm with you, I'd never leave the garage door unlocked either. My dad does though but he has no windows in the garage AND he sets his alarm so I guess he's not nervous.

ferretplay

08-11-2006, 06:58 AM

I have followed this tragedy from the beginning,read the book,"Perfect Murder,Perfect Town".Everything from the beginning was so confusing.If it wasn't so henious of a crime,it would been ridiculous.All of the evidence pointed here & there.I couldn't seem to decide.I could not bring myself to believe the Ramseys did that atrocity to their child.I f there had been an accident,involving a family member,they would not have gone to such henious acts to cover up.Come on,not possible,IMO.This person was demented & or high on BAD drugs.Seems kidnapping was the plan & something went wrong.He lost control & completely went bonkers on the child.This family & child was very well known in the community.Any nutjob could have easily stalked them.IMO.:rose:

Jayelles

08-11-2006, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I don't see how this illustrates whether JonBenet's neck and nails show evidence of her clawing at her own neck. The first link is a discussion board, and the second talks about DNA under her nails that is not her own.

Coroner Meyer says nothing of JonBenet's neck having scratches that would be associated with her scratching at herself, and I don't think it looks like she clawed at her neck in the autopsy pics. There would be drap marks where she tried to get her fingers under the cord, and there aren't any. Nor was her own skin found to be under her nails.

Look closely at the little marks purported to be claw marks on her neck. Look at their position and direction.

Now imagine the garotte around your own neck and claw at it. Where are your fingernails in relation to the cord? Where are the claw marks on JonBenet's neck in relation to the cord?

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I don't see how this illustrates whether JonBenet's neck and nails show evidence of her clawing at her own neck. The first link is a discussion board, and the second talks about DNA under her nails that is not her own.

Coroner Meyer says nothing of JonBenet's neck having scratches that would be associated with her scratching at herself, and I don't think it looks like she clawed at her neck in the autopsy pics. There would be drap marks where she tried to get her fingers under the cord, and there aren't any. Nor was her own skin found to be under her nails.

She also had DNA that WAS her own under her fingernails.

"Smit believes that JonBenet was fighting for her life. There were marks that look a lot like scratches on her neck. “JonBenet was trying to take that off of her neck,” says Smit. “She did have her own DNA under her fingernails. She was struggling with that garrote. Whoever was there with her knew that she was struggling. This is a very vicious strangulation.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523884.shtml

nuisanceposter

08-11-2006, 10:26 AM

I have my own DNA under my nails too. It gets depositied if I so much as lightly scratch an itch on my arm.

I'm thinking if she was clawing at her neck, desperately trying to relieve the pressure choking her, that she would have left deep furrows into her neck with her nails, and that they would find her skin, not just DNA, under her nails.

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 10:36 AM

Think of the worst things you can about the Ramseys that you think proves their guilt and then look at this evidence and ask yourselves what sounds more reasonable as to who is guilty IF these people were truly investigated.

1. The man was Gary Oliva, 38, a convicted sex offender from Oregon who made frequent trips to Boulder. He has been classified as a paranoid schizophrenic. He was convicted of assaulting another 7-year-old girl in Oregon, and spent time in prison.

Police said that in 1991, months after he sexually assaulted the little girl, Oliva tried to strangle his mother with a telephone cord. And in December 1996, Oliva, then a fugitive and a homeless drifter, may have been less than a block away from the Ramsey’s house.

John Sanegustin and Ollie Gray, the Ramseys’ private investigators, say Oliva frequented buildings owned by a local church, which fed homeless people. The buildings were 10 houses away from the Ramsey house.

According to Smit, Oliva called his friend right after the murder, crying, and said he would never be able to go to his house again, because the friend had children.

“The phone call started with him sobbing into the phone,” said Michael, the man whom Oliva called. Michael is Oliva’s best friend from high school. “He was sobbing on the phone. He related to me that he’d done something horrible.” Oliva mentioned he was in Boulder.

The call, Michael says, came just days after the Ramsey murder. Gary told him he had hurt a child. “He was sobbing like you’ve never heard a grown man sob or cry before in your life. And I knew it was serious. I knew this very serious.” So serious that Michael, who lived in a nearby state, called Boulder police.

According to Michael, on one tape Oliva pretended he’s been left alone to babysit a friend’s daughter. According to Michael, Oliva talks about raping a little girl. As the tape continues, Oliva appears to be simulating a rape. On another tape, he talks about hurting a child.

“Some of the things I do like making bacon strips out of little girl, you see, I’m into it, you know,” he claims Oliva said.

“These tapes are not a joke. These tapes are not a joke at all,” says Michael.

Michael says he left all his information on the Boulder police tip line. “I told them about the cassette tapes. I told them about the phone call. I told them about what I knew.”

No one from the police called him and asked to listen to any of those tapes. “I mentioned I had cassette tapes. I mentioned I had hand writing samples. I don’t know what it’s worth but I thought, here’s a lead you might want to follow up on. I know this fellow was in Boulder, Colo., and I called up and told them that.”

What did the Boulder police do with the tip? Nothing.

In Oliva’s case, police didn’t investigate him until nearly four years after JonBenet’s death, when Oliva was caught with drugs - and a stun gun.

Oliva, who is wanted in Oregon for probation violations, turned himself in to the Boulder police two weeks ago. He claims he never used that stun gun on a child. He says he did not hurt or kill JonBenet.

When asked whether he told his friend he was attracted to little girls, he says: “I don’t want to talk about that.”

While Oliva says he doesn’t remember making the disturbing audiotapes, what he will admit to is an obsession with JonBenet. “I believe that she came to me after she was killed and revealed herself to me. I’d like to see a memorial set up for her. I haven’t seen that, anywhere,” he says.

Police have dismissed Oliva because his DNA doesn’t match evidence at the scene. The Ramseys say police have a double standard: While some suspects have been cleared because their DNA doesn’t match, they have not been cleared for the same reason.

Just this week, police said Oliva is not a suspect. Sources say his DNA doesn't match evidence at the scene.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523892.shtml

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 10:38 AM

2.

Carnes points out that other people under suspicion other than Patsy Ramsey were not eliminated as possible authors of the ransom note, including Wolf himself.

“For example, forensic document examiner Lloyd Cunningham cannot eliminate plaintiff as the author of the ransom note,” Carnes wrote. “Plaintiff’s ex-girlfriend has also testified that she was ‘struck by how the handwriting in the note resembled (Wolf’s) own handwriting,’ and believes that he is the note’s author.”

In August 1997, Wolf’s then-girlfriend, Jacqueline Dilson, told Patsy Ramsey’s sister, Pam Paugh, that she believed Wolf was involved in JonBenet’s murder.

According to the Ramseys’ book, Dilson had reported to the police that Wolf had disappeared on Christmas Day and returned at 5:30 a.m. the next day. Dilson said he took a shower and went to sleep.

The next day, Dilson claims, Wolf watched the television report of JonBenet’s death and became angry, claiming that he believed JonBenet had been sexually abused by her father.

Dilson told Paugh and police that Wolf hated big business and once had a sweatshirt with the initials SBTC on it, which stood for the Santa Barbara Tennis Club. SBTC was the signature at the end of the ransom note.

Police never publicly named Wolf or other people named in the Ramseys’ book as suspects."

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail03.asp?ID=26

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Police have dismissed Oliva because his DNA doesn’t match evidence at the scene. The Ramseys say police have a double standard: While some suspects have been cleared because their DNA doesn’t match, they have not been cleared for the same reason.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523892.shtml [/B]

That's a pretty absurd complaint by the Ramseys.

If a person's DNA or prints do not match, what proof is there that they were ever in the Ramsey house?

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 10:46 AM

3. Helgoth committed suicide just one day after Alex Hunter announced in a press conference: "I want to say something to the person or persons who took this baby from us, the list of suspects narrows. Soon there will be no-one on the list but you." The timing therefore seems suspicious.
"a stun gun was found near Mr. Helgoth's body, as well as boots with a "HI-TEC logo like that left on the basement floor of defendants' home. (SMF P 281; PSMF P 281.)" (Carnes 2003:36).
However, some of those who believe Helgoth was involved also think he may have had an accomplice originally named SX who was a known sexual offender. SX was subsequently identified as John Steven Gigax.
Because of some peculiarities shown in the autopsy, some further believe that this accomplice killed Helgoth and made it look like a suicide.
A documentary by Michael Tracey, a professor in the at School of Journalism and Mass Communication at University of Colorado Boulder, summarized the case against Helgoth and partner.
Nehemiah has posted here a brief synopsis of how Helgoth and a left-handed partner committed this crime.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Acquaintance%20Intruder%20Theories

4. The McElroy Theory
Mike McElroy was a UC-Boulder student who hosted a website with pornographic articles about the murder and rape of young girls, photos of sexual bondage and a story about how to have violent sex with a Barbie doll. This is discussed in detail in (Shapiro 2001).

Incriminating Evidence Related to McElroy

Police confiscated a stun gun, sharpies and Hi-Tech boots (Shaprio 2001).
According to Internet poster, the http://wideawake.org/HomiHeroes.html">following is part of the "WideAwake" Website maintained by McElroy

Exculpatory Evidence Related to McElroy
Internet poster Ivy asserts "McElroy (a.k.a. The Prophet) gave a palm print (the fake ransom note contained a partial palm print) and a saliva sample to the BPD. Apparently his palm print didn't match the partial palm print on the note, or we'd know about it. Also, by this time, his DNA must have been compared to the DNA from the crime scene. If there was a match, we would know about that too."

The same DNA that didn't clear the Ramseys'.

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I have my own DNA under my nails too. It gets depositied if I so much as lightly scratch an itch on my arm.

I'm thinking if she was clawing at her neck, desperately trying to relieve the pressure choking her, that she would have left deep furrows into her neck with her nails, and that they would find her skin, not just DNA, under her nails.

Do you KNOW it was not actual skin found under her fingernails? How do you know these things?

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

That's a pretty absurd complaint by the Ramseys.

If a person's DNA or prints do not match, what proof is there that they were ever in the Ramsey house?

Pretty absurd? The DNA mixed with JonBenets blood in her panties and under her fingernails didn't match the Ramseys either yet they were never "cleared" because of that. I never knew there had to be proof that a supsect was at the crime scene to investigate that person or even prosecute them if the evidence turns out compelling. :rolleyes: Guess in your way of thinking if someone is killed in your home it is automatic proof of your guilt. No use looking any further.

There were tapes the cops didn't even TRY to listen to for crying out loud, he had a record of hurting little girls and being obsessed with JonBenet and you find it reasonable to ignore that and worry about the non issues you people keep coming up with? Thank God you are not a cop.

nuisanceposter

08-11-2006, 11:03 AM

I believe Coroner Meyer would have noted finding skin under her nails, and it would have been tested to see whose it was.

Judging from the knot fixed at the back of JonBenet's neck with her hair and necklace caught in up the cord, and lack of damage to the interior of her neck, and the fact that her undies and long underwear were urine-stained in the crotch and in the front, I'd say JonBenet was strangled face-down from the back and did not resist at all.

I believe the head wound was incurred before the neck ligature, and I think the killer thought she was already dead from the head wound when s/he strangled JonBenet. I think the head wound was an accident, and I think the strangling was staging.

nuisanceposter

08-11-2006, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

There were tapes the cops didn't even TRY to listen to for crying out loud, he had a record of hurting little girls and being obsessed with JonBenet and you find it reasonable to ignore that and worry about the non issues you people keep coming up with? Thank God you are not a cop.

Are you talking about John Brewer Eustace? Detectives Thomas and Gosage interviewed him in prison in North Carolina. They found him to be thoroughly repulsive, but not JonBenet's killer. His coworkers and his time sheet say he was in North Carolina until December 26th.

You really should read Steve Thomas's book, breezy. He goes into detail about who police have interviewed and what they found.

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I believe Coroner Meyer would have noted finding skin under her nails, and it would have been tested to see whose it was.

Judging from the knot fixed at the back of JonBenet's neck with her hair and necklace caught in up the cord, and lack of damage to the interior of her neck, and the fact that her undies and long underwear were urine-stained in the crotch and in the front, I'd say JonBenet was strangled face-down from the back and did not resist at all.

I believe the head wound was incurred before the neck ligature, and I think the killer thought she was already dead from the head wound when s/he strangled JonBenet. I think the head wound was an accident, and I think the strangling was staging.

And I think you are wrong because the evidence does not suggest what you believe. IMO you "believe" almost the exact same thing Thomas wrote in his book.

Can you explain why if the head would was first it didn't bleed outwardly? Any head wound bleeds profusely let alone the kind of wound she got. Look at her skull, are you really saying the blow to the head could cause that much damage but not even cut the skin enough to make it bleed? INO the reason it didn't bleed much is there wasn't enough blood going to her head at the time of the head blow BECAUSE she had already had the garote around her neck.

EVDENCE: Items turned over to the Boulder Police Department as evidence include: Fibers and hair from clothing and body surfaces; ligatures; clothing, vaginal swabs and smears; rectal swabs and smears; oral swabs and smears; paper bags from hands; fingernail clippings; jewelry; paper bags from feet; white body bag; samples of head hair, eyelashes and eyebrows; swabs from right and left thighs and right cheek; red top and purple top tubes of blood.

http://www.angelfire.com/oh4/jonbenet/autopsy.html

Is there anything here that says it wasn't skin under her fingernails or if it was tested?

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

Pretty absurd? The DNA mixed with JonBenets blood in her panties and under her fingernails didn't match the Ramseys either yet they were never "cleared" because of that. I never knew there had to be proof that a supsect was at the crime scene to investigate that person or even prosecute them if the evidence turns out compelling. :rolleyes: Guess in your way of thinking if someone is killed in your home it is automatic proof of your guilt. No use looking any further.

If you can't prove a suspect was even AT the scene of the crime, it's pretty hard to prove they committed the crime, isn't it?

You have no forensic proof, no eyewitness that says he saw the suspect with the victim and no confession. I think Alex Hunter might be a tad reluctant to bring the person to trial. :rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Are you talking about John Brewer Eustace? Detectives Thomas and Gosage interviewed him in prison in North Carolina. They found him to be thoroughly repulsive, but not JonBenet's killer. His coworkers and his time sheet say he was in North Carolina until December 26th.

You really should read Steve Thomas's book, breezy. He goes into detail about who police have interviewed and what they found.

Sorry, I don't read fairy tales, I am much too old for that. Do you really think I would believe a word Thomas wrote? A judge didn't so why should I? Where did I mention John Brewer Eustace BTW?

nuisanceposter

08-11-2006, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

And I think you are wrong because the evidence does not suggest what you believe. IMO you "believe" almost the exact same thing Thomas wrote in his book.

Can you explain why if the head would was first it didn't bleed outwardly? Any head wound bleeds profusely let alone the kind of wound she got. Look at her skull, are you really saying the blow to the head could cause that much damage but not even cut the skin enough to make it bleed? INO the reason it didn't bleed much is there wasn't enough blood going to her head at the time of the head blow BECAUSE she had already had the garote around her neck.

EVDENCE: Items turned over to the Boulder Police Department as evidence include: Fibers and hair from clothing and body surfaces; ligatures; clothing, vaginal swabs and smears; rectal swabs and smears; oral swabs and smears; paper bags from hands; fingernail clippings; jewelry; paper bags from feet; white body bag; samples of head hair, eyelashes and eyebrows; swabs from right and left thighs and right cheek; red top and purple top tubes of blood.

http://www.angelfire.com/oh4/jonbenet/autopsy.html

Is there anything here that says it wasn't skin under her fingernails or if it was tested?

I used to think the same thing, breezy, about the amount of blood.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/031720...ondiscovery.htm

transcript by listener on 3/18/2000

Narrator Lyn Cannon
Guest Forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz
From handwriting analysis to the autopsy, the lastest twist in what the evidence may reveal about this gruesome crime.

Six year old JonBenet Ramsey is back in the news this week. The girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, are out with a new book that proclaimed their innocence, and offers a psychological profile about who they think killed their daughter. The case has stumped authorities for 3 yrs. One of the most basic questions that has gone unanswered,--- what weapons were used in the murder?

THE WEAPON:

LC: From the day the body was found, investigators knew that Jon Benet Ramsey, suffered a severe blow to the head, as well as strangulatiion with a cord. But which came first? Determining that could tell a great deal about the motive and the killer. Investigators speculate strangulation first could mean a sex crime. If the blow came first, it might point to a kidnapper or a crime of rage. Dr.Warner Spitz has conducted more than 50,000 autopsies. In 1997, he was consulted by the Boulder police investigating the murder. He says he reviewed more than 100 autopsy photos which have never been released to the public.

You believe JBR was hit on the head first, and then strangled.

Dr. WS: Yes.

LC: But in reports published this week, a former detective, who also worked on the case, claimed the head wound did not bleed enough to be the first injury, but Spitz says, he can prove his case, and it's believed the Boulder police agree.

Dr.WS: Because there was hemmoraging in the brain.

LC: There was hemmoraging in the brain?

Dr.WS: There was hemmoraging in the scalp, in the skin,in other words,

LC: Spitz says those hemmorages would not have formed if JB was already dead of strangulation when she suffered the head injury.

Dr.WS: She did have a circulation....she did have blood clots, she did have heart beat, she did breathe, for awhile, after the head injury.

LC:Let me say that the noose, made of cord similar to this, was not tied around her neck after death. He believes that she was dying of the head injury while she was strangled. His evidence,...a tell tale pattern of hemmoraging on the internal surface of her eye lids. Petechial or penpoint hemmorages.

Dr.WS: When strangulation occurs, there is a point where the blood vessels to the neck get obstructed. The blood still flows into the head, but it doesn't flow out.

LC: That's because veins, which have lower blood pressure, are shut off first. Arteries, with higher blood pressure, keep flowing longer.

Dr.WS: ........?..there is increased pressure above the knees, and tiny little blood vessels in the eyes and around the eyes, may break.

LC: Jon Benet eyes did show this pattern of hemmoraging, indicating, Spitz says, that her heart was still beating when the noose was applied. And there's always then another question: was Jon Benet sexually assaulted, and when? Experts disagree, but Spitz's review tells him that Jon Benet had no history of sexual abuse. But a splinter found during the autopsy tells him she was sexually assaulted at the time of her death, perhaps with the artist's paintbrush tied to the cord around her neck.

Dr.WS: I believe that this..?.pressure occurred at the time that she died, or just before, or during.

LC: But Spitz thinks the sexual assault was an attempt to disguise the crime scene, to make it look like a sex crime.

Dr.WS: I believe that the injury to the head was first, knocked her out. I think everything else here was staging.

LC: Spitz maintains the blow to the head was the central element of the murder, and he carefully studied JB's fatal scull fracture.

Dr.WS: ...? it was perfectly rectangular. That piece of bone that was knocked out, remained attached on a hinge,and was bendable.

LC: The size and shape of the fracture was so distinctive, Spitz decided to conduct his own tests, reenacting the injury.

Dr.WS: You could do it on syrofoam, you could do it on cardboard, you could do it on bone. I did it on all three.

LC: Published reports this week, speculate a baseball bat, found outside the house, might be the murder weapon. Spitz's tests lead him to a weapon inside the house.

Dr.WS: I would certainly believe that the flashlight is the instrument of death.

LC: What makes you so sure that it's compatible. How do you know?

Dr.WS: Because it fits right into the ....?.. It doesn't fit into the defect where it leaves some area to play with. It fits perfectly.

LC: Not any flashlight, but a specific type police reportedly found in the Ramsey home.

Dr.WS: The flashlight was raised above the head of the perpetrater and,a hand down,...with this portion , this wide, breaking the bone.

LC: So who did it? Here...forensic pathology comes up short. The autopsy tells Spitz only what was done, not by whom.....

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

If you can't prove a suspect was even AT the scene of the crime, it's pretty hard to prove they committed the crime, isn't it?

You have no forensic proof, no eyewitness that says he saw the suspect with the victim and no confession. I think Alex Hunter might be a tad reluctant to bring the person to trial. :rolleyes:

No it isn't hard to prove. Have you ever heard of circumstantioal evidnece??? There WERE witnesses who saw somone lurking, saw a car and other things, and if one of these guys was the killer just a bit of questiong by cops will sometimes bring out a confession. Of course if no investigating goes on, no questions asked OR if they are "cleared" by the same DNA that didn't clear the Ramseys there would be nothing to charge them with obviously. It takes some real police work, not some jerk who wants to make money by writing a book.

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 11:41 AM

The pad was put back where it belonged.

The pen was put back where it belonged.

Why wasn't the flashlight put back in the drawer?

I wonder if they wiped it & for some reason were distracted & forgot to put it away?

Or did they leave it out intentionally as evidence of an "intruder?"

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I used to think the same thing, breezy, about the amount of blood.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/031720...ondiscovery.htm

transcript by listener on 3/18/2000

Narrator Lyn Cannon
Guest Forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz
From handwriting analysis to the autopsy, the lastest twist in what the evidence may reveal about this gruesome crime.

Six year old JonBenet Ramsey is back in the news this week. The girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, are out with a new book that proclaimed their innocence, and offers a psychological profile about who they think killed their daughter. The case has stumped authorities for 3 yrs. One of the most basic questions that has gone unanswered,--- what weapons were used in the murder?

THE WEAPON:

LC: From the day the body was found, investigators knew that Jon Benet Ramsey, suffered a severe blow to the head, as well as strangulatiion with a cord. But which came first? Determining that could tell a great deal about the motive and the killer. Investigators speculate strangulation first could mean a sex crime. If the blow came first, it might point to a kidnapper or a crime of rage. Dr.Warner Spitz has conducted more than 50,000 autopsies. In 1997, he was consulted by the Boulder police investigating the murder. He says he reviewed more than 100 autopsy photos which have never been released to the public.

You believe JBR was hit on the head first, and then strangled.

Dr. WS: Yes.

LC: But in reports published this week, a former detective, who also worked on the case, claimed the head wound did not bleed enough to be the first injury, but Spitz says, he can prove his case, and it's believed the Boulder police agree.

Dr.WS: Because there was hemmoraging in the brain.

LC: There was hemmoraging in the brain?

Dr.WS: There was hemmoraging in the scalp, in the skin,in other words,

LC: Spitz says those hemmorages would not have formed if JB was already dead of strangulation when she suffered the head injury.

Dr.WS: She did have a circulation....she did have blood clots, she did have heart beat, she did breathe, for awhile, after the head injury.

LC:Let me say that the noose, made of cord similar to this, was not tied around her neck after death. He believes that she was dying of the head injury while she was strangled. His evidence,...a tell tale pattern of hemmoraging on the internal surface of her eye lids. Petechial or penpoint hemmorages.

Dr.WS: When strangulation occurs, there is a point where the blood vessels to the neck get obstructed. The blood still flows into the head, but it doesn't flow out.

LC: That's because veins, which have lower blood pressure, are shut off first. Arteries, with higher blood pressure, keep flowing longer.

Dr.WS: ........?..there is increased pressure above the knees, and tiny little blood vessels in the eyes and around the eyes, may break.

LC: Jon Benet eyes did show this pattern of hemmoraging, indicating, Spitz says, that her heart was still beating when the noose was applied. And there's always then another question: was Jon Benet sexually assaulted, and when? Experts disagree, but Spitz's review tells him that Jon Benet had no history of sexual abuse. But a splinter found during the autopsy tells him she was sexually assaulted at the time of her death, perhaps with the artist's paintbrush tied to the cord around her neck.

Dr.WS: I believe that this..?.pressure occurred at the time that she died, or just before, or during.

LC: But Spitz thinks the sexual assault was an attempt to disguise the crime scene, to make it look like a sex crime.

Dr.WS: I believe that the injury to the head was first, knocked her out. I think everything else here was staging.

LC: Spitz maintains the blow to the head was the central element of the murder, and he carefully studied JB's fatal scull fracture.

Dr.WS: ...? it was perfectly rectangular. That piece of bone that was knocked out, remained attached on a hinge,and was bendable.

LC: The size and shape of the fracture was so distinctive, Spitz decided to conduct his own tests, reenacting the injury.

Dr.WS: You could do it on syrofoam, you could do it on cardboard, you could do it on bone. I did it on all three.

LC: Published reports this week, speculate a baseball bat, found outside the house, might be the murder weapon. Spitz's tests lead him to a weapon inside the house.

Dr.WS: I would certainly believe that the flashlight is the instrument of death.

LC: What makes you so sure that it's compatible. How do you know?

Dr.WS: Because it fits right into the ....?.. It doesn't fit into the defect where it leaves some area to play with. It fits perfectly.

LC: Not any flashlight, but a specific type police reportedly found in the Ramsey home.

Dr.WS: The flashlight was raised above the head of the perpetrater and,a hand down,...with this portion , this wide, breaking the bone.

LC: So who did it? Here...forensic pathology comes up short. The autopsy tells Spitz only what was done, not by whom.....

Glad you brought him up. He is the guy who thinks the stun gun marks are from a "pebbles or rocks" or a snap on her clothing depending on what time he was interviewed. . :rolleyes:

Erin Moriarty (voice over) “Instead, Spitz believes the large dark mark on JonBenet’s face was left by a snap on a piece of clothing.
Dr. Spitz: “You know like the snaps they have on blue jeans for instance. If you look at this one below the ear, this thing here. if you look at it closely with a magnifying glass you will see within this brownish mark is a boat shaped structure which is missing with any of the other injuries.”

While there are some minor differences, both Doberson and Smit believe the experiment confirms a stun gun was used.

But the Boulder police are relying on another opinion, that of Dr. Werner Spitz. He thinks that pebbles or rocks on the floor caused the marks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523884.shtml

I don't believe the snap or pebble theory or his theory about the head wound.

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

No it isn't hard to prove. Have you ever heard of circumstantioal evidnece??? There WERE witnesses who saw somone lurking, saw a car and other things, and if one of these guys was the killer just a bit of questiong by cops will sometimes bring out a confession. Of course if no investigating goes on, no questions asked OR if they are "cleared" by the same DNA that didn't clear the Ramseys there would be nothing to charge them with obviously. It takes some real police work, not some jerk who wants to make money by writing a book.

Yeah, I've heard of circumstantial evidence.

I guess the Boulder DA should just keep having trials for every possible suspect & hope they get lucky with a jury?

It's a real stretch to go from seeing "someone" lurking to identifying the suspect as being the mysterious lurker.

The last I heard, a supect does NOT have to agree to be questioned by police & can hire a lawyer who will protect him from incrimminating himself.

nuisanceposter

08-11-2006, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
The pad was put back where it belonged.

The pen was put back where it belonged.

Why wasn't the flashlight put back in the drawer?

I wonder if they wiped it & for some reason were distracted & forgot to put it away?

Or did they leave it out intentionally as evidence of an "intruder?"

Good question.

I think they forgot to put it away, and I say that because if they meant to indicate an intruder left it, they would have pointed it out to police saying, this isn't ours. They didn't. They tried to say they weren't sure about that falshlight, when in fact, John Andrew had given one just like it to John. They normally kept it in a drawer at the wet bar.

The flashlight and batteries all being wiped clean of any prints, in combination with the shape of the skull fracture and Dr Werner Spitz's professional opinion make me think it was the implement that created JonBenet's head wound.

nuisanceposter

08-11-2006, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by breezy1234

While there are some minor differences, both Doberson and Smit believe the experiment confirms a stun gun was used.

But the Boulder police are relying on another opinion, that of Dr. Werner Spitz. He thinks that pebbles or rocks on the floor caused the marks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523884.shtml

I don't believe the snap or pebble theory or his theory about the head wound.

I don't believe those marks were made from a stun gun. Neither did Coroner Meyer, the only expert to examine her body in person.

How qualified is Dr Spitz?

Werner U. Spitz, MD

Consultant Forensic Pathology and Toxicology Medical Examiner, Macomb County, Michigan Professor of Pathology, Wayne State University School of Medicine Adjunct Professor of Toxicology, University of Windsor, Canada

Dr. Spitz received his medical training at the Geneva University Medical School in Switzerland and the Hebrew University, Hadassa Medical School in Jerusalem, Israel. He is certified by the American Board of Pathology in Anatomic and Forensic Pathology. Dr. Spitz served as chief medical examiner of Wayne County (Detroit, Michigan) for 16 years and retired from this position in October, 1988. Other positions Dr. Spitz held were deputy chief medical examiner of the state of Maryland, associate professor of forensic pathology at Johns Hopkins University and lecturer in the department of forensic pathology at the Free University in Berlin, Germany.He is author of 90 scientific publications, author and editor of the authoritative and celebrated textbook, Medicolegal Investigations of Death. The expanded and updated third edition is now available. He has served on various committees investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,including the House Committee on Assassinations. Dr. Spitz has served as an expert in many cases receiving national attention, the California Night Stalker murder trail, Mary Jo Koepeckne, the Franke murder trial in Oregon and the “Preppy Murder Trial” in New York City are but a few. He has lectured and given expert testimonyworldwide. Dr. Spitz served as an expert commentator for network television during the O.J. Simpson trial and JonBenet Ramsey case.

www.med.wayne.edu/cme/Medical%20Legal%2004.pdf

In 1972, Dr Werner Spitz became Chief Medical Examiner and immediately instituted controversial reforms at the morgue. During his 16-year reign Spitz built an international reputation by testifying at high-profile trials and congressional investigations. He testified in investigations into the Mary Jo Kopechne drowning, the Oakland County child murders, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the Skid Row Murder trial in Los Angeles. He wrote a textbook that is a standard in medical schools around the world.

Dr. Spitz decreed that bodies were to remain in the facility no longer than 24 hours. He installed closed circuit television to ease the impact of identification on family members. He hired additional staff and trained them to run the morgue more efficiently. For the first time Wayne State University affiliated itself with the morgue. Dr. Spitz set up a private organization to help investigate Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), commonly known as "crib death."

He began sending pituitary glands to outside firms for use in manufacturing Human Growth Hormone, a vital ingredient for children otherwise destined for dwarfism. He even took down the Morgue sign and replaced it with a more benign "Wayne County Medical Examiner" plaque.

Famed Los Angeles Medical Examiner Dr. Thomas Noguchi said of Spritz: "He's probably one of the best there is."

http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=166&category=locations

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234
While there are some minor differences, both Doberson and Smit believe the experiment confirms a stun gun was used.

"You really can't tell from a photo," Doberson said"

"Doberson said Boulder detectives visited him April 25 to ask about a 2-year-old Arapahoe County case in which the coroner exhumed the body of Gerald Boggs eight months after burial and found evidence of electrical shock in the man's skin tissue."

"They came over and showed me some pictures from the (Ramsey) autopsy and asked for my opinion, whether they could be stun gun injuries," Doberson recalled. "I told them that they could be; that was a possibility."

"Besides, he added, the only definitive way to tell if electrocution was involved in JonBenet's death is to re-examine her body and look for "very characteristic" changes in skin tissue." "You really can't tell from a photo," Doberson said."

"D.A. disputes DNA report in Ramsey case"
By MATT SEBASTIAN, Camera Staff Writer, Tuesday, January 13, 1998

http://www.acandyrose.com/

The stun gun is NOT going to be a smoking gun if this ever comes to trial. It might be a minor piece of circumstantial evidence but there's just too much reasonable doubt whether a stun gun was used. A halfway decent defense lawyer will raise this doubt in a split second.

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Yeah, I've heard of circumstantial evidence.

I guess the Boulder DA should just keep having trials for every possible suspect & hope they get lucky with a jury?

It's a real stretch to go from seeing "someone" lurking to identifying the suspect as being the mysterious lurker.

The last I heard, a supect does NOT have to agree to be questioned by police & can hire a lawyer who will protect him from incrimminating himself.

No, not trials UNLESS the "circumstantial" evidence is there AFTER "a real investigation". Yes you're right ,a suspect doesn't have to agree to be quesrioned if he believes he is a suspect but in this case the police didn't even ASK to question them. Questioning the suspect is NOT the only way to conduct an investiagtion either.

No it is not a stretch because we have NOT heard these people testify don't forget.

INO what is a stretch is pineapple, pageants, clothes and make up. :rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

"You really can't tell from a photo," Doberson said"

"Doberson said Boulder detectives visited him April 25 to ask about a 2-year-old Arapahoe County case in which the coroner exhumed the body of Gerald Boggs eight months after burial and found evidence of electrical shock in the man's skin tissue."

"They came over and showed me some pictures from the (Ramsey) autopsy and asked for my opinion, whether they could be stun gun injuries," Doberson recalled. "I told them that they could be; that was a possibility."

"Besides, he added, the only definitive way to tell if electrocution was involved in JonBenet's death is to re-examine her body and look for "very characteristic" changes in skin tissue." "You really can't tell from a photo," Doberson said."

"D.A. disputes DNA report in Ramsey case"
By MATT SEBASTIAN, Camera Staff Writer, Tuesday, January 13, 1998

http://www.acandyrose.com/

The stun gun is NOT going to be a smoking gun if this ever comes to trial. It might be a minor piece of circumstantial evidence but there's just too much reasonable doubt whether a stun gun was used. A halfway decent defense lawyer will raise this doubt in a split second.

The stun gun is just one piece of evidence if the other evidence matches another suspect. A decent lawyer will raise doubt about everything, including "pineapple" "pagenats" and the rest of the non evidence that some of you think makes the Ramseys's guilty.

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

No, not trials UNLESS the "circumstantial" evidence is there AFTER "a real investigation". Yes you're right ,a suspect doesn't have to agree to be quesrioned if he believes he is a suspect but in this case the police didn't even ASK to question them. Questioning the suspect is NOT the only way to conduct an investiagtion either.

No it is not a stretch because we have NOT heard these people testify don't forget.

INO what is a stretch is pineapple, pageants, clothes and make up. :rolleyes:

Police have dismissed Oliva because his DNA doesn’t match evidence at the scene.

They investigated. There was NO MATCH.

So do you suggest they beat the confession out of him? Maybe plant some DNA evidence so they can arrest him & close the case?

So who do you think they should pin this on? Do you have a favorite or will any old suspect do?

nuisanceposter

08-11-2006, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Police have dismissed Oliva because his DNA doesn’t match evidence at the scene.

They investigated. There was NO MATCH.

So do you suggest they beat the confession out of him? Maybe plant some DNA evidence so they can arrest him & close the case?

So who do you think they should pin this on? Do you have a favorite or will any old suspect do?

Anyone who isn't a Ramsey. Unfortunately, that's exactly where the evidence keeps going.

How can you dismiss the pineapple, breezy? It's in her intestines, it's in the bowl on the table, it's direct conflict with the Ramsey version of events.

Burke Ramsey said JonBenet was awake that night when they got home. That pineapple in her intestines says she was awake at some point after they got home. John Ramsey's original story to police was that JonBenet was, oh yes, AWAKE when they got home.

And then he changes that story later to she wasn't? Huh?

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Police have dismissed Oliva because his DNA doesn’t match evidence at the scene.

They investigated. There was NO MATCH.

So do you suggest they beat the confession out of him? Maybe plant some DNA evidence so they can arrest him & close the case?

So who do you think they should pin this on? Do you have a favorite or will any old suspect do?

FOUR years after the fact. :rolleyes: IMO they stopped there with the DNA instead finding out if he had someone else with him, listening to the tapes, interviewing others that knew him who he MAY have talked to about JonBenet, etc.

In Oliva’s case, police didn’t investigate him until nearly four years after JonBenet’s death, when Oliva was caught with drugs - and a stun gun.

"When asked whether he told his friend he was attracted to little girls, he says: “I don’t want to talk about that.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523892.shtml

Do you think that is good "investigating"? When the Ramseys said they didn't want to talk without their lawyers it was a major problem for some of you but this guy gets a pass? :rolleyes:

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 12:31 PM

Burke said JB was awake?

You know, if you have a bedwetter, even if they're asleep when you get home, wouldn't you place the kid on the toilet and tell her/him to 'just try?'

Young kids would most likely fall right back asleep anyway.

If they did not do this, then there's even more reason to believe she woke up wet or woke up to use the bathroom.

Then you have the kids downstairs having a late night snack. I bet they were super charged that night anyway... all the new presents PLUS the upcoming trip. Who can sleep?

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Anyone who isn't a Ramsey. Unfortunately, that's exactly where the evidence keeps going.

How can you dismiss the pineapple, breezy? It's in her intestines, it's in the bowl on the table, it's direct conflict with the Ramsey version of events.

Burke Ramsey said JonBenet was awake that night when they got home. That pineapple in her intestines says she was awake at some point after they got home. John Ramsey's original story to police was that JonBenet was, oh yes, AWAKE when they got home.

And then he changes that story later to she wasn't? Huh?

This is ALL BS gossip. Read the facts.

I dismiss the pineapple because it proves nothing. Why on earth would Patsy lie about such a non issue? :rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Back to the old "got any links"

I have never read where Burke said JonBenet was awake when they got home.

I have never read anything where John said JonBenet was awake when they got home.

Since the time of death is not known, what is the evidence with regard to when the pineapple was eaten?

The bowl of pineapple could have been given to JonBenet by the intruder. No fingerprints other than Patsy's & Burke's but, hey, no fingerprints on other pieces of "evidence" either. Intruder wore gloves?

JMO

The only links you will get are from blogs or possibly Thomas.

The pineapple could have been eaten BEFORE she went to the Whites Christmas party. IMO the pineapple is a non issue just like the other gossip they come up with.

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

FOUR years after the fact. :rolleyes: IMO they stopped there with the DNA instead finding out if he had someone else with him, listening to the tapes, interviewing others that knew him who he MAY have talked to about JonBenet, etc.

In Oliva’s case, police didn’t investigate him until nearly four years after JonBenet’s death, when Oliva was caught with drugs - and a stun gun.

"When asked whether he told his friend he was attracted to little girls, he says: “I don’t want to talk about that.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523892.shtml

Do you think that is good "investigating"? When the Ramseys said they didn't want to talk without their lawyers it was a major problem for some of you but this guy gets a pass? :rolleyes:

The fact is they DID investigate the leads and they DID clear the people you mentioned.

It took them 4 years. It took the Ramseys 4 months to agree to a formal interview with the police who they expected to solve this case? Which do you think is more grievous? (Don't answer. I won't agree with you.)

Why are you bringing up dead leads that do NOTHING to exonerate the Ramseys? It's not useful as reasonable doubt if a person has been cleared. :rolleyes:

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

The only links you will get are from blogs or possibly Thomas.

The pineapple could have been eaten BEFORE she went to the Whites Christmas party. IMO the pineapple is a non issue just like the other gossip they come up with.

Patsy said she did NOT eat pineapple before the party.

The Whites did NOT serve pineapple at the party.

It's not gossip, it's one of the mysteries of the case.

It's no more gossip than the flashlight or the footprints or any other evidence they managed to collect.

nuisanceposter

08-11-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
Burke said JB was awake?

You know, if you have a bedwetter, even if they're asleep when you get home, wouldn't you place the kid on the toilet and tell her/him to 'just try?'

Young kids would most likely fall right back asleep anyway.

If they did not do this, then there's even more reason to believe she woke up wet or woke up to use the bathroom.

Then you have the kids downstairs having a late night snack. I bet they were super charged that night anyway... all the new presents PLUS the upcoming trip. Who can sleep?

Burke Ramsey said that JonBenet walked in the house and up the spiral staircase Christmas night ahead of their mother in an interview in June of 1998.

This interview was held over two consecutive days in Atlanta, and was conducted by Detective Schuller while Deputy DA Pete Hofstrom and Ramsey lawyer Jim Jenkins watched from another room. Videotapes were sent back to BPD for review.

I'm not sure if this is available to the public. I got this info from ST's book, hb, page 316.

John Ramsey originally told Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach that he read JonBenet a book and put her to bed. Later he changed it to he put her to bed and read a book.

This change in story was in contradiction to the original story noted by three independent police officers.

nuisanceposter

08-11-2006, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

This is ALL BS gossip. Read the facts.

I dismiss the pineapple because it proves nothing. Why on earth would Patsy lie about such a non issue? :rolleyes:

It doesn't fit in with Patsy's version of events and shows she may be lying.

The cracked crab JonBenet had at the White's is farther in her digestive system than the pineapple, it was already to her large intestine.

Judging from the digested state of the pineapple, it indicates that she was alive for one or two hours after eating it.

First off, how is some intruder going to get JonBenet to sit down with him and eat some pineapple? As if she sits down to a snack with a stranger at midnight every night! Please answer me that one.

And secondly, why would he wait one or two hours, long enough for it to travel as far into her system as it did, before he kills her?

He wasn't afraid of being discovered with her at all?

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

The fact is they DID investigate the leads and they DID clear the people you mentioned.

It took them 4 years. It took the Ramseys 4 months to agree to a formal interview with the police who they expected to solve this case? Which do you think is more grievous? (Don't answer. I won't agree with you.)

Why are you bringing up dead leads that do NOTHING to exonerate the Ramseys? It's not useful as reasonable doubt if a person has been cleared. :rolleyes:

They did NOT clear them if all they used was the SAME DNA that didn't "clear" the Ramseys!!!

IMO there is nothing more we can discuss because you give everyone a pass EXCEPT the Ramseys, the VICTIMNS in this case. :seeya:

nuisanceposter

08-11-2006, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

The only links you will get are from blogs or possibly Thomas.

Hmm, not like that link you gave us yesterday from Jeff Shapiro just full of factual errors about the case. Yeah, he's a real valid news source, breezy. Tsk, tsk, peddling tabloid gossip. Hypocrite much?

Or that link you put up yesterday that came back file not found. Shows you're really doing your homework.

Or the link when we were talking about whether JB had clawed at her own neck that was a link to another board - one with Solace where you and her and Bunny2 were going at each other. That was very enlightening.

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Burke Ramsey said that JonBenet walked in the house and up the spiral staircase Christmas night ahead of their mother in an interview in June of 1998.

This interview was held over two consecutive days in Atlanta, and was conducted by Detective Schuller while Deputy DA Pete Hofstrom and Ramsey lawyer Jim Jenkins watched from another room. Videotapes were sent back to BPD for review.

I'm not sure if this is available to the public. I got this info from ST's book, hb, page 316.

John Ramsey originally told Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach that he read JonBenet a book and put her to bed. Later he changed it to he put her to bed and read a book.

This change in story was in contradiction to the original story noted by three independent police officers.

Now I remember reading that. Thanks.

I tend to believe John's explanation that he meant he "read a book." It's logical & believable. I'll buy that one.

I always thought it a bit odd that he didn't know if Patsy was sleeping when he got into bed though. Didn't he whisper & ask if she was still awake? They have a big trip planned for the morning, they just celebrated Christmas. Just a bit odd. I don't think they had a warm relationship.

nuisanceposter

08-11-2006, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

They did NOT clear them if all they used was the SAME DNA that didn't "clear" the Ramseys!!!

IMO there is nothing more we can discuss because you give everyone a pass EXCEPT the Ramseys, the VICTIMNS in this case. :seeya:

Breezy, there is NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE linking any of those suspects to this crime scene.

How is that so hard to understand?

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by breezy1234

They did NOT clear them if all they used was the SAME DNA that didn't "clear" the Ramseys!!!

IMO there is nothing more we can discuss because you give everyone a pass EXCEPT the Ramseys, the VICTIMNS in this case. :seeya:

Why is it so hard for you to understand they had NO WAY to connect them to JB's murder?

The DNA did NOT match.

Did they find a SINGLE fingerprint of these supsects in the Ramsey house?

Was there a single person who knew they were inside the Ramsey house on 12/25?

Was any of their property found inside the Ramsey house?

Can you say the same things about the Ramseys?

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 01:05 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Burke Ramsey said that JonBenet walked in the house and up the spiral staircase Christmas night ahead of their mother in an interview in June of 1998.

This interview was held over two consecutive days in Atlanta, and was conducted by Detective Schuller while Deputy DA Pete Hofstrom and Ramsey lawyer Jim Jenkins watched from another room. Videotapes were sent back to BPD for review.

I'm not sure if this is available to the public. I got this info from ST's book, hb, page 316.

You call ST's "book" evidence? :rolleyes:

John Ramsey originally told Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach that he read JonBenet a book and put her to bed. Later he changed it to he put her to bed and read a book.

This change in story was in contradiction to the original story noted by three independent police officers. [/QUOTE

ALL BS IMO, I thought according to the guilty's and Thomas the Ramseys "refused" to be questioned. Make up your mind, either they were questioned and co-operated or they wern't.
:rolleyes:

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Why is it so hard for you to understand they had NO WAY to connect them to JB's murder?

The DNA did NOT match.

Did they find a SINGLE fingerprint of these supsects in the Ramsey house?

Was there a single person who knew they were inside the Ramsey house on 12/25?

Was any of their property found inside the Ramsey house?

Can you say the same things about the Ramseys?

YES, The SAME DNA did NOT match the Ramseys.:rolleyes:

Oh no, you really mean the Ramseys fingerprints and property was in the Ramsey home? :lol: What a smoking gun that is. :lol:

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Breezy, there is NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE linking any of those suspects to this crime scene.

How is that so hard to understand?

HOW on earth do you know that? :no: You do NOT!

nuisanceposter

08-11-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom
Burke said JB was awake?

You know, if you have a bedwetter, even if they're asleep when you get home, wouldn't you place the kid on the toilet and tell her/him to 'just try?'

Young kids would most likely fall right back asleep anyway.

If they did not do this, then there's even more reason to believe she woke up wet or woke up to use the bathroom.

Then you have the kids downstairs having a late night snack. I bet they were super charged that night anyway... all the new presents PLUS the upcoming trip. Who can sleep?

It was Patsy's regular routine to go into JonBenet's room and have her use the toilet around midnight every night. There was no overhead light in JonBenet's room as it had been replaced with a ceiling fan in an earlier renovation. JonBenet kep a flashlight right beside her bed in case she needed it. She would sometimes wake up at night and then go get in bed with her brother Burke.

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Now I remember reading that. Thanks.

I tend to believe John's explanation that he meant he "read a book." It's logical & believable. I'll buy that one.

I always thought it a bit odd that he didn't know if Patsy was sleeping when he got into bed though. Didn't he whisper & ask if she was still awake? They have a big trip planned for the morning, they just celebrated Christmas. Just a bit odd. I don't think they had a warm relationship.

You really think John should have told YOU what he whispered to Patsy or everything that happens in their bedroom or even if they even made love that night? Ye gads, talk about voyeurism.

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

It was Patsy's regular routine to go into JonBenet's room and have her use the toilet around midnight every night. There was no overhead light in JonBenet's room as it had been replaced with a ceiling fan in an earlier renovation. JonBenet kep a flashlight right beside her bed in case she needed it. She would sometimes wake up at night and then go get in bed with her brother Burke.

Yes but on this night they put her straight to bed?

After being at a party & probably drinking late in the evening.

The night before a trip, don't you try to avoid the wet bed?

This is one wacky family.

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Hmm, not like that link you gave us yesterday from Jeff Shapiro just full of factual errors about the case. Yeah, he's a real valid news source, breezy. Tsk, tsk, peddling tabloid gossip. Hypocrite much?

Or that link you put up yesterday that came back file not found. Shows you're really doing your homework.

Or the link when we were talking about whether JB had clawed at her own neck that was a link to another board - one with Solace where you and her and Bunny2 were going at each other. That was very enlightening.

:rolleyes: Tell him all his errors.

"Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is an investigative reporter in New York City who spent three years working solely on the JonBenet Ramsey case in Boulder. He's widely credited for gaining more routine access to former DA Alex Hunter, the Ramseys, and various "potential suspects" than any other reporter on the case. Reach Shapiro at: JBsAVENGER@aol.com. "

Glad you are so "enlightened".

:rolleyes: God knows you NEED enlightening.

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Yes but on this night they put her straight to bed?

After being at a party & probably drinking late in the evening.

The night before a trip, don't you try to avoid the wet bed?

This is one wacky family.

Probably drinking? Of course NO proof of that, just your own speculation thinking it is proof of something sinister.

Patsy has said over and over as well as the housekeeper (who wasn't very Ramsey friendly after she smelled money from the tabloids) said a wet bed was no big deal to Patsy. IMO it is wacky to be so hung up on a wet bed that wasn't wet THAT night. :shrug:

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by hohum

If I remember correctly, that flashlight was one of those big black generic ones. At our house we have one of those and a yellow one with a builtin AM/FM radio and a mint green one. The last two I could positively identify but the black one I could say we had one similar but could not identify for sure. Patsy says John used a similar flashlight to look for things in the garage and in the car. I don't think she ever used it. I think they identified that bat as not belonging to them.

Have you read the transcript of the interrogations?

Didn't get the book yet.

John Andrew bought the Maglite flashlight for John. They usually kept it in the drawer (in the hallway, I think?)

It was NOT in the usual place.

I think Patsy DID eventually identify it as hers, she was confused because the color looked a little different because it was tested for prints.

The bat: It had no blood or DNA on it, as far as I know. All it had was some carpet fibers from their basement. I think it's possible it was the kids bat & they left it outside and the parents just didn't remember it. I don't know that it was ever connected to the crime.

breezy1234

08-11-2006, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Didn't get the book yet.

John Andrew bought the Maglite flashlight for John. They usually kept it in the drawer (in the hallway, I think?)

It was NOT in the usual place.

I think Patsy DID eventually identify it as hers, she was confused because the color looked a little different because it was tested for prints.

The bat: It had no blood or DNA on it, as far as I know. All it had was some carpet fibers from their basement. I think it's possible it was the kids bat & they left it outside and the parents just didn't remember it. I don't know that it was ever connected to the crime.

LOL read a fairy tale book instead of transcripts hohum. :rolleyes:

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

It seems to me that you try to project how you (think you) would have acted as the normal way all people would act. I don't think that is the case. JMO

Of course, I do.

What other frame of reference would I use?

If other parents here would do things differently then speak up.

As the parent of an ex-bedwetter, I tried to do everything I could to aim for a dry bed in the morning.

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by hohum

To wake up a sleeping child and try to force her to pee on demand sounds wacky to me.

The cleaning lady was coming to the Ramsey house after they left for Charlevoix so I doubt Patsy was worried about a wet bed.

At that age, they are light enough to sit them on the toilet & they are barely conscious and will fall straight back to sleep.

And it's not the housekeeping concerns.... it's the interrupted sleep of your child when he/she wakes up wet & cold that is the concern.

SilSal

08-11-2006, 02:00 PM

how about Andrea Yates and the rest of the women in prison for killing their children?

They had NO priors????????????

The Ramsey's are guilty as sin.

LI_Mom

08-11-2006, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Accepting the fact that we are all different. I have a sister. I love her dearly. We were brought up by the same parents, but having lived in different cities with our own families for many years we have developed different habits. Therefore, I cannot project my feelings & ways even on her. Why would I do it to a perfect stranger?

And many of the things you say don't really relate to the case at all. For example, the mention yesterday of John's long ago affair and how Reps might not have voted for him because of the affair.

Not relative to the discussion of this case at all - IMO.......

I wouldn't project my feelings or beliefs on my sisters either BUT that doesn't mean we couldn't discuss things.

And how do you think police & lawyers & profilers go about developing and defending (or prosecuting) a case? There has to be a starting point.... you look at what a person does & says & ask yourself if it sounds reasonable & logical. If it is, you discount it. If it is not, you look closer.

And John's affair certainly DOES matter to the people who live in his district. They would have every right to know what kind of man & what he stands for before they elect him to office. Every person running for office is scrutinized & he should not be an exception to that rule.