General Discussion /Post Karr

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


"In a statement last year, though, Thomas hinted he plans to put Patsy Ramsey on trial. The former cop promised to "expose in a court of law what happened in the Ramsey home on Christmas night 1996."

Truth is the best defense in libel cases. For Thomas, that would be proving Party Ramsey guilty.

"There's no doubt that part of the Thomas defense will be an effort to prove Patsy Ramsey's guilt — and he may, in fact, accomplish that," said Scott Robinson, a Denver lawyer who has watched the Ramsey case closely.


http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/17alegl.html

Well then it make sense that the Ramseys were so anxious to settle. The last thing they want is to be stuck trying to prove Thomas was wrong.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Well then it make sense that the Ramseys were so anxious to settle. The last thing they want is to be stuck trying to prove Thomas was wrong.

:lol: :rolleyes:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


ROFL - you go look. It's nothing but an advertisement now!

Exactly. There's nothing there now. They couldn't be bothered.

But... you also rushed to say, "Somebody else hoping to profit off of the name association I suppose."

And if they didn't have the money for a domain, they could have had one for free IF they were interested.



"The email address, JonBenetTipline@aol.com also bounces back as "unknown." There is no updated or corrected tip line phone number, leaving the owner of the incorrect number printed in the hardback version to field calls on a regular basis explaining there is no tip line for JonBenet Ramsey. The Boulder Police Department no longer has control of the case. It is now in Boulder D.A Mary Keenan's hands.

The Ramsey website, "www.ramseyfamily.com" has been non-existent for several years. A check of ownership at Network Solutions shows the owner of this domain as Haddon, Morgan, and Forman, the Ramseys' former criminal attorneys. The domain ownership expired April 19, 2004. To date, no one has renewed the domain.

It is now left up to strangers to keep web sites going concerning the killing of JonBenet Ramsey and the investigation that has encompassed over seven years. Despite John’s promises to seach for the killer of his daughter, the Ramsey family hasn’t even attempted to keep up a family web site.

Friends of Support Ramsey Truth dot com would like to offer the Ramseys a domain name to use if they ever feel compelled to follow through on what they promised they would do in their book Death of Innocence. The owner of "www.supportramseyTRUTH.com" also owns www.jonbenetramsey.org

Free and unlimited use of www.jonbenetramsey.org is hereby offered to the Ramseys for the expressed purpose of following through on their promises, as outlined above, until the killer of their daughter JonBenet is brought to justice.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


No surprise you don't want to see it. Are you speaking for all the posters here now? Your generalizations are out in left field.

You're wrong again. I DID want to see the video before I commented on what it showed but I certainly wasn't going to deny its existence because I couldn't find it 10 years after it aired. Not everything makes it to the internet & plenty of things are deleted over time to save bandwidth or sometimes for copyright reasons.


Seeing the other JB pageant videos available was more than enough to know she wasn't being packaged as an average 6 year old child. She was being showcased as a mini-adult.


Did I ever give you the impression I was speaking for other posters here?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


It's no surprise you don't understand it. All this talk about the Ramsey's "lawyering up" and needing to hire a lawyer right away. FYI, their friend, who is also a lawyer, came to the Ramsey's and offered his help. The Ramsey's did not go out in search of a lawyer one minute after JBs body was found like the Gs love to promote. Another in a long line of falsehoods.

Yes, I know they didn't have to go out to search for a lawyer.

Bynum was right there at their house & HE told the Ramseys to let him take care of everything & that he would hire lawyers for them.

Then Bynum told the police that the Ramseys were too upset to talk. Off they went. The police remained behind to process the (already contaminated) crime scene.

But hey.... if the police had any important questions, all they had to do was wait patiently for the Ramseys to answer Arndt's fax or watch CNN, I guess. :biggrin:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


No chance that was going to happen.

"The last thing they want is to be stuck trying to prove Thomas was wrong."


It's nice that we are agreeing now.

[nuisanceposter]

Yeah, settled in their favor...to Thomas's stipulations. What were they again?

Q: Can Steve Thomas still speak about the case?
A: Yes, Steve can still speak about the case.

Q: Can the book that claims, in the "author’s opinion," that Patsy Ramsey is a murderer still be sold in bookstores?
A: Yes, the book can still be sold.

Q: Did Steve Thomas have to admit any wrongdoing?
A: Steve Thomas has never admitted to any wrongdoing.

Q: Did Steve Thomas have to pay any money to the Ramseys?
A: Steve Thomas did not pay any money to the Ramseys.

The only thing that has changed is that the Ramseys and their attorney Lin Wood lined their pockets with money, but not money from Steve Thomas. The Ramseys did not need to settle but they did.

http://www.supportramseytruth.com/index2.htm


He did not need to seek the settlement, he never admitted to any wrongdoing, he did not pay any money personally to the Ramseys, the book can continue to be published as is with no corrections, and he can still speak about the case.

Yeah, the Ramseys really won that one, all right. They look like idiots trying to sue him and backing down like that. They gained nothing other than money - and still abandoned their search for the "real" killer.

And you guys think Thomas is the one who should be ashamed here...lol. The way the Ramseys let JonBenet down is so shameful my heart aches for her.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Well it's 10 years since JB died and you don't seem to have any trouble linking that info post after post. Why are you having so much trouble finding the link to that video. If that video exists, it made it to the internet. Your explanation for the missing video is laughable.

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Nobody else here has a pressing need to see the thing.

Yes, from your statement I would definitely say you are trying to speak for other posters. Trying being the key word.

If you're so interested in seeing the video, look for it.

I already told you my position on this matter.

I find the pageant clips that ARE still online to be more than enough evidence that JB was not being packaged as an innocent 6 year old but as if she was a mature teenager.

And I'd be willing to bet money that if John had any idea that those pageant videos of his daughter were ever going to be seen by the general public, he never would let her dress like that. He refused to let her go to Las Vegas & I wonder if he was ever aware of what JB was wearing at those pageants.

[nuisanceposter]

Not Judge Carnes again...really, I take her opinion as seriously as you take Thomas's. She didn't even talk to him in person.

There's a lot more reason other the Rs were in the house at the time to implicate them as suspects in their child's murder. Things like their clothing fibers in the crime scene and on the body, their lack of cooperation, their immediate lawyering up, their inconsistent stories, their odd behavior in general, the ransom note that Patsy could never be excluded as the author of...

[LI_Mom]

And that moutain of evidence pointing to an intruder got smaller & smaller & smaller once the investigators were actually allowed to question the Ramseys.

Pineapple..... (Maybe the intruder worked for Dole? lol)

Flashlight...... belonged to Ramseys

Hi-Tek boots... Burke owned a pair

Santa Bear..... JB won the bear at a pageant

Baseball bat.... belonged to Burke

[LI_Mom]

Judge Carnes might have felt differently had she known that many of the mysteries of the crime scene that the Ramseys have pointed to as evidence of an intruder have long since been explained as having come from family members. The Ramseys didn't tell her about those discoveries, even when they knew about them.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-carnes.htm

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
And that moutain of evidence pointing to an intruder got smaller & smaller & smaller once the investigators were actually allowed to question the Ramseys.

Pineapple..... (Maybe the intruder worked for Dole? lol)

Flashlight...... belonged to Ramseys

Hi-Tek boots... Burke owned a pair

Santa Bear..... JB won the bear at a pageant

Baseball bat.... belonged to Burke

"Originally posted by LI_Mom



Unless you have official court transcripts that this happened, then we have no proof that it really happened. "

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom

Judge Carnes might have felt differently had she known that many of the mysteries of the crime scene that the Ramseys have pointed to as evidence of an intruder have long since been explained as having come from family members. The Ramseys didn't tell her about those discoveries, even when they knew about them.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-carnes.htm

Wolf had his chance to try to prove the Thomas theory (his case was based on the Thomas fairy tale) and couldn't just as Thomas couldn't prove his theory when the Ramseys sued him.

BTW there ARE court transcripts of this FACT.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Wolf had his chance to try to prove the Thomas theory (his case was based on the Thomas fairy tale) and couldn't just as Thomas couldn't prove his theory when the Ramseys sued him.

BTW there ARE court transcripts of this FACT.

It's not up to Wolf to prove Thomas's theory. He's not Thomas nor is his attorney representing Thomas.

How very interesting that quote LI_Mom gave us about the Ramseys being less than forthcoming in that civil case was. Nothing says you're liar more than being deceptive. If they nothing to fear, why didn't they disclose the true origin of items to Judge Carnes? Why omit that items were traced back to them if they're so innocent and can prove it?

The Rs didn't take their chance to prove their innocence when presented to them in the lawsuit with Steve Thomas. The Rs didn't have to offer a settlement (on Thomas's terms!!!), but they did. That says A LOT more to me than the fact that Thomas accepted it. After all, it turned out in his favor more than theirs. He's still speaking, still selling his book written as he wrote it, and he did NOT admit to any wrong-doing.

If their goal was to silence him and stop him from saying his opinion was that Patsy was the killer as John claimed on LKL, THEY FAILED.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Nothing relative to the above was ever proven so how is it evidence?

I don't get what you're getting at, rosyred. How was nothing relative to the pineapple, the flashlight, the HiTecs, the Santa bear, and the bat ever proven?

All of those items are evidence, and none of it proves anyone other than the Ramseys were in that house that night.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


It's not up to Wolf to prove Thomas's theory. He's not Thomas nor is his attorney representing Thomas.

How very interesting that quote LI_Mom gave us about the Ramseys being less than forthcoming in that civil case was. Nothing says you're liar more than being deceptive. If they nothing to fear, why didn't they disclose the true origin of items to Judge Carnes? Why omit that items were traced back to them if they're so innocent and can prove it?

The Rs didn't take their chance to prove their innocence when presented to them in the lawsuit with Steve Thomas. The Rs didn't have to offer a settlement (on Thomas's terms!!!), but they did. That says A LOT more to me than the fact that Thomas accepted it. After all, it turned out in his favor more than theirs. He's still speaking, still selling his book written as he wrote it, and he did NOT admit to any wrong-doing.

If their goal was to silence him and stop him from saying his opinion was that Patsy was the killer as John claimed on LKL, THEY FAILED.

Wolf sued the ramseys using the Thomas theroy that Patsy was guilty. He could not and did not prove it. :rolleyes:

"Early in her order, Carnes noted that Wolf's allegations mirrored those of Thomas, the former Boulder detective assigned to JonBenét's murder investigation from January 1997 through June 1998. He subsequently left the Boulder Police Department and co-authored a book, "JonBenét: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation," in which he laid out his theory that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note claiming her daughter had been kidnapped to cover up the murder.

Patsy Ramsey, according to that theory, discovered that JonBenét had wet her bed and grew so angry that, while in her daughter's bathroom, she "slammed" JonBenét's head against a hard surface, possibly the tub, and inflicted a fatal head wound. Then she staged the kidnapping, strangulation and sexual assault of her daughter to hide the crime.

Carnes's order scoffed at that scenario, dismissing it as "merely speculation."

http://www.truthinjustice.org/ramsey.htm


You sure are confused. Team Thomas paid, not the Ramseys! :rolleyes: They did NOT settle on his terms. He said he was going to prove them guilty and all he proved was he couldn't prove anything except he was all mouth and no proof. WHY if he had any proof would he or his publisher pay the Ramseys? Because they just liked them? :rolleyes: Use your head!

BTW, I'm sure you have heard of the first ammendment, haven't you? The Ramseys can't take that away from Thomas but they CAN and DID make him pay for saying it because he couldn't prove what he said.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I don't get what you're getting at, rosyred. How was nothing relative to the pineapple, the flashlight, the HiTecs, the Santa bear, and the bat ever proven?

All of those items are evidence, and none of it proves anyone other than the Ramseys were in that house that night.

There is NO proof the boots or bat was Burkes.
How does any of that prove the ramseys are guilty? :rolleyes: :shrug:

[nuisanceposter]

Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tecs. That was proven, he said so himself.

As for the bat - Patsy, stoned on Valium and whatever else, didn't recognize it, but she didn't recognize the Santa bear either, and that was proven to have been theirs.

Did Burke Ramsey specifically say the bat did not belong to him?

What about the other items listed? The pineapple, the flashlight, and the bear?

None of those prove an intruder was there. Quite the opposite - they prove only Ramseys were there and tell inconsistent stories, not recognizing their own possessions whenever convenient.

[nuisanceposter]

The Ramseys sued Thomas for libel and defamation.

Considering they didn't prove that and he's able to continue speaking, continue selling his book without alterations, did not admit to any wrongdoing at all, and did not pay even one penny personally to the Rs tells me they did NOT win against him where it counted the most - proving he did them wrong by stopping him from speaking and selling his book.

They settled their lawsuit on Thomas's terms, meaning they did not silence him. He's still able to say what he said before they sued him. He was within his Constitutional rights to say what he said and they did not get anywhere trying to silence him.

The Rs did not need to settle that case, but they did. Like I said before, them offering the settlement says a lot more to me than his accepting it. He was unable to keep up financially with the lawsuit - he lost his house and life savings. That doesn't mean he could not prove his theory in court, as you like to suggest. You'd think the Rs would have kept up, but then they'd have to prove their innocence in court, and they simply can't do it.

Wolf's allegations "mirroring" those of Thomas is not the same as Thomas presenting and defending his theory to Judge Carnes. I'd think you guys would be able to figure that out, but you're so lost in trying to prove points by quoting Carnes that I doubt you actually think about the quotes you provide and how they can be interpreted.

The fact is, Judge Carmes did not see all of the evidence discounting an intruder theory. She did not see some 40,000 pages of police documents countering the intruder theory. She was not able to make a completely informed decision based on the entire scope of evidence because she only saw what the Ramseys wanted her to see - and that was only evidence that made them look innocent.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tecs. That was proven, he said so himself.

As for the bat - Patsy, stoned on Valium and whatever else, didn't recognize it, but she didn't recognize the Santa bear either, and that was proven to have been theirs.

Did Burke Ramsey specifically say the bat did not belong to him?

What about the other items listed? The pineapple, the flashlight, and the bear?

None of those prove an intruder was there. Quite the opposite - they prove only Ramseys were there and tell inconsistent stories, not recognizing their own possessions whenever convenient.

No, Burke did NOT say so himself. Cops said he said so but of course we know cops have said all sorts of untrue things to try to "smoke out the Ramseys".

What about the "other" items? NOTHING is proven for crying out loud. If they had all thie circumstantial evidence it would have been proven in court and it wasn't.

Strange when it is convenient to you you dismiss real evidence and quote all the cops BS as if it is fact. :rolleyes:

[LI_Mom]

If Judge Carnes was the one who handled the OJ civil case, she would have ruled that since OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial, it's up to the Goldmans to PROVE OJ killed their son.

She would have ruled that there was evidence that the police planted evidence and that the DNA was inadmissable and poor OJ was being framed for murder. :biggrin:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The Ramseys sued Thomas for libel and defamation.

Considering they didn't prove that and he's able to continue speaking, continue selling his book without alterations, did not admit to any wrongdoing at all, and did not pay even one penny personally to the Rs tells me they did NOT win against him where it counted the most - proving he did them wrong by stopping him from speaking and selling his book.

They settled their lawsuit on Thomas's terms, meaning they did not silence him. He's still able to say what he said before they sued him. He was within his Constitutional rights to say what he said and they did not get anywhere trying to silence him.

The Rs did not need to settle that case, but they did. Like I said before, them offering the settlement says a lot more to me than his accepting it. He was unable to keep up financially with the lawsuit - he lost his house and life savings. That doesn't mean he could not prove his theory in court, as you like to suggest. You'd think the Rs would have kept up, but then they'd have to prove their innocence in court, and they simply can't do it.

Wolf's allegations "mirroring" those of Thomas is not the same as Thomas presenting and defending his theory to Judge Carnes. I'd think you guys would be able to figure that out, but you're so lost in trying to prove points by quoting Carnes that I doubt you actually think about the quotes you provide and how they can be interpreted.

The fact is, Judge Carmes did not see all of the evidence discounting an intruder theory. She did not see some 40,000 pages of police documents countering the intruder theory. She was not able to make a completely informed decision based on the entire scope of evidence because she only saw what the Ramseys wanted her to see - and that was only evidence that made them look innocent.

Once again, check out the first ammendment. ANYONE, including Thomas has the right to lie. If he could prove it wasn't lies he nor the publishing company would have "settled". Settling in favor of the plaintiff (the Ramseys) IS admitting wrongdoing on the part of Thomas BECAUSE he could NOT prove what he said wasn't lies. :rolleyes: The Ramsyes didn't have to settle either but they couldn't prove a negative and therefore by settling in their FAVOR with monetary damages they DID win and Thomas LOST. Live with it!

Maybe Carnes did not see all the evidence the police had but Keenan DID and she agreeded with Carnes. The Ramseys were NOT the only ones who presented a case, Wolf also presented his side. Are you really that gullible to think when HE sued them, he woudln't be able to present his side of the case? :rolleyes: Use your head!

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
If Judge Carnes was the one who handled the OJ civil case, she would have ruled that since OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial, it's up to the Goldmans to PROVE OJ killed their son.

She would have ruled that there was evidence that the police planted evidence and that the DNA was inadmissable and poor OJ was being framed for murder. :biggrin:


You have a link to that? :rolleyes:

Of course not, just more wild speculation on your part.

[LI_Mom]

I guess jameson is lying and full of b.s. too?



jameson:

In response to message #8

Patsy remembered JonBenét getting a teddy bear but her memory of it was different - that it was dressed different, not as Santa.

The woman from the pageant recognized it and told authorities. Photos taken at the event showed it was that Santa bear.

So it was a mystery, is no longer, and honestly has nothing to do with the case.

I take it back.

It is indicative of the confusion that takes over when people are totally overwhelmed, a perfect example of how memories get muddy as time passes.

http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?forum=DCForumID101&mark=1620&az=next_topic&archive=yes

:biggrin:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


Was it one of Thomas's "terms" that he be sued? Was this something he was happy about? Was this his goal in writing a book with lies, to be sued? Geez, you need to find yourself another "hero."


:lol: According to some here, I guess so. Some people like bad EX cops who did everything against their oath of being a police officer.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I guess jameson is lying and full of b.s. too?



jameson:

In response to message #8

Patsy remembered JonBenét getting a teddy bear but her memory of it was different - that it was dressed different, not as Santa.

The woman from the pageant recognized it and told authorities. Photos taken at the event showed it was that Santa bear.

So it was a mystery, is no longer, and honestly has nothing to do with the case.

I take it back.

It is indicative of the confusion that takes over when people are totally overwhelmed, a perfect example of how memories get muddy as time passes.

http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?forum=DCForumID101&mark=1620&az=next_topic&archive=yes

:biggrin:

YOU are the only one that talked about the teddy bear. :rolleyes: Therefore IMO it is YOU who is full of BS, not Jameson.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234



You have a link to that? :rolleyes:

Of course not, just more wild speculation on your part.

But I notice you didn't disagree. :biggrin:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


YOU are the only one that talked about the teddy bear. :rolleyes: Therefore IMO it is YOU who is full of BS, not Jameson.


Oh so when I say the bear was not evidence of an intruder, I'm full of bs.

When jameson says the same thing..... I'm the only one talking about the bear & I'm full of bs? If this is an example of your critical thinking skills, I can definitely see why you are so sure the Ramseys were unfairly victimized by everyone. :biggrin:


It's obvious you have NO intentions of discussing the case in any halfway reasonable manner. You are here ONLY to continually repost links to various civil lawsuits and to slander Steve Thomas and anyone else who doesn't fall for the intruder theory.

[nuisanceposter]

How is LI_Mom full of bs but not Jameson when Jameson's quote from her own board backs up exactly what LI_Mom just said about the bear?

Breezy doesn't want to and is unable to discuss the Ramsey case without resorting to distraction tactics and baiting others with insults. She hasn't read even the basic books pertinent to the case due to personal opinion affecting her objectivity - namely her unabiding hatred of Steve Thomas. She dismisses every thing she disagrees with as lies and gossip, no matter what links you provide, and continually provides links to biased and uninformed officials as her proof.

If it wasn't for the entertainment factor and the fact that I like to debate, I wouldn't even bother trying to talk to her at all.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


If it wasn't for the entertainment factor and the fact that I like to debate, I wouldn't even bother trying to talk to her at all.

That's the only thing keeping me at this thread also.

[LI_Mom]

HI-TEC Boots:


"And the mystery of the Hi-Tec boot imprint was solved in grand jury testimony. Prosecutors disclosed in the 2000 interviews of the Ramseys that Burke and one of his friends had told jurors that Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots — something his parents said they somehow overlooked or forgot when they told authorities no one in the family owned such a boot, even though there is a distinctive compass on the boot."

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm



Aug. 29, 2000 <--------

Atty. Bruce Levin & John Ramsey


Q. We have been provided, and again, one of the sources of this information is confidential grand jury material I can tell you in the question, but we have been provided information from two sources that your son Burke, prior to the murder of your daughter, owned and wore Hi-Tec boots that had a compass on them, which makes them distinctive. Do you recall -- if you don't recall that they actually were Hi-Tec, do you remember Burke having boots that had a compass on the laces?

A. Vaguely. I don't know if they were boots or tennis shoes. My memory is they were tennis shoes, but that is very vague. He had boots that had lights on them and all sorts of different things.

Q. But you do have some recollection that he had some type of footwear that had compasses attached to them?

A. I don't, I don't specifically remember them, but my impression is that he did, in my mind, yeah. But my impression was that they were tennis shoes.

Q. Sneakers?

A. Sneakers. Yeah. Ask Burke if he remembers it. I said, ask Burke, perhaps he -- well, we could certainly ask Burke.

http://www.webbsleuths.com/john2000.txt




Aug. 24, 2002 !!!! :biggrin: :biggrin:

" Attorney Lin Wood of Atlanta, who represents JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey , said his clients do not dispute the palm-print findings, but he said the family disagrees that the footprint came from Burke.

"Burke Ramsey does not and has never owned a pair of quote, unquote, trademarked Hi-Tec sneakers that the Ramseys are aware of," he said. "I would think they know what shoes he has owned."

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail02.asp?ID=25


--

I wonder if Lin Wood was knowingly LYING when he made that statemnt or whether he just didn't know what his clients were doing & saying?

Either way, not one of his best days. :biggrin:

[LI_Mom]

Wait!!!!!!

What if the mysterious intruder had planned JB's kidnapping for a long time....

I think the mysterious intruder might have bought Burke those Hi-Tec shoes without his parents knowledge & simply waited long enough for Burke to wear them in the basement.

As soon as Burke left the footprint, the mysterious intruder contacted the "small foreign faction" and let them know that they were ready to commence with the kidnapping of JB.

All that was left was to buy the fresh pineapple.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



Oh so when I say the bear was not evidence of an intruder, I'm full of bs.

When jameson says the same thing..... I'm the only one talking about the bear & I'm full of bs? If this is an example of your critical thinking skills, I can definitely see why you are so sure the Ramseys were unfairly victimized by everyone. :biggrin:


It's obvious you have NO intentions of discussing the case in any halfway reasonable manner. You are here ONLY to continually repost links to various civil lawsuits and to slander Steve Thomas and anyone else who doesn't fall for the intruder theory.

Jameson was here posting TODAY? :no:

It's obvious you do not want to discuss anything except BS and What YOU think is evidence, not the real evidence.

Slander Steve Thomas? LOL It is NOT slander when it is a proven FACT he is full of bull of BS and did NOT prove Patsy is guilty like he said he would. You can fall for his BS all you wish, no skin off my nose. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
How is LI_Mom full of bs but not Jameson when Jameson's quote from her own board backs up exactly what LI_Mom just said about the bear?

Breezy doesn't want to and is unable to discuss the Ramsey case without resorting to distraction tactics and baiting others with insults. She hasn't read even the basic books pertinent to the case due to personal opinion affecting her objectivity - namely her unabiding hatred of Steve Thomas. She dismisses every thing she disagrees with as lies and gossip, no matter what links you provide, and continually provides links to biased and uninformed officials as her proof.

If it wasn't for the entertainment factor and the fact that I like to debate, I wouldn't even bother trying to talk to her at all.

DUH, Jameson was NOT here posting a thing about the teddy bear.................NOR was anyone else EXCEPT LI_Mom.
It seems I am trying to talk to a bunch of nursery school kids that change the subject constantly, make things up constantly and expet those of us who are posting facts to disprove their gossip. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
HI-TEC Boots:


"And the mystery of the Hi-Tec boot imprint was solved in grand jury testimony. Prosecutors disclosed in the 2000 interviews of the Ramseys that Burke and one of his friends had told jurors that Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots — something his parents said they somehow overlooked or forgot when they told authorities no one in the family owned such a boot, even though there is a distinctive compass on the boot."

http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

DUH, GJ testimony is SECRET.

Aug. 29, 2000 <--------

Atty. Bruce Levin & John Ramsey


Q. We have been provided, and again, one of the sources of this information is confidential grand jury material I can tell you in the question, but we have been provided information from two sources that your son Burke, prior to the murder of your daughter, owned and wore Hi-Tec boots that had a compass on them, which makes them distinctive. Do you recall -- if you don't recall that they actually were Hi-Tec, do you remember Burke having boots that had a compass on the laces?

A. Vaguely. I don't know if they were boots or tennis shoes. My memory is they were tennis shoes, but that is very vague. He had boots that had lights on them and all sorts of different things.

Q. But you do have some recollection that he had some type of footwear that had compasses attached to them?

A. I don't, I don't specifically remember them, but my impression is that he did, in my mind, yeah. But my impression was that they were tennis shoes.

Q. Sneakers?

A. Sneakers. Yeah. Ask Burke if he remembers it. I said, ask Burke, perhaps he -- well, we could certainly ask Burke.

http://www.webbsleuths.com/john2000.txt




Aug. 24, 2002 !!!! :biggrin: :biggrin:

" Attorney Lin Wood of Atlanta, who represents JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey , said his clients do not dispute the palm-print findings, but he said the family disagrees that the footprint came from Burke.

"Burke Ramsey does not and has never owned a pair of quote, unquote, trademarked Hi-Tec sneakers that the Ramseys are aware of," he said. "I would think they know what shoes he has owned."

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail02.asp?ID=25


--

I wonder if Lin Wood was knowingly LYING when he made that statemnt or whether he just didn't know what his clients were doing & saying?

Either way, not one of his best days. :biggrin:

DUH, GJ testimony is SECRET. IF prosecuters repeated GJ testimony they would be prosecuted.

No one was lying except those who said they "leaked" GJ testimony. Ye gads, brush up on the law before you repeat this gossip as fact.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
Wait!!!!!!

What if the mysterious intruder had planned JB's kidnapping for a long time....

I think the mysterious intruder might have bought Burke those Hi-Tec shoes without his parents knowledge & simply waited long enough for Burke to wear them in the basement.

As soon as Burke left the footprint, the mysterious intruder contacted the "small foreign faction" and let them know that they were ready to commence with the kidnapping of JB.

All that was left was to buy the fresh pineapple.

Proof, I am talkling to a nursery school child. :shrug:

[nuisanceposter]

Lol, LI_Mom. That was hilarious.

Check back, breezy, no one said jameson was posting here today. LI_Mom linked the post jameson made saying the same thing about the bear and said it's from her own webbsleuths board.

Sounds like you need divert attention away from the fact that you were wrong about the bear onto who said what where - enough to make two posts in a row arguing it. Classic.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


DUH, Jameson was NOT here posting a thing about the teddy bear.................NOR was anyone else EXCEPT LI_Mom.
It seems I am trying to talk to a bunch of nursery school kids that change the subject constantly, make things up constantly and expet those of us who are posting facts to disprove their gossip. :rolleyes:

*speaking real nice & slow*

Breezy...

that's YOU....

says I'm full of bs because I'm lying about the bear.


LI_Mom....

that's ME.....

shows that even jameson knows the bear was NOT left by an intruder.

Breezy....

that's (still) YOU ...

says.....

Oh, so Jameson was here? She was talking about that HERE?


So Breezy, the only way you'll admit that my statement was NOT bs is if I can convince people to come here & post it themselves.



You're showing severe signs of critical thinking meltdown again, Breezy. Turn on the a/c, maybe.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


DUH, GJ testimony is SECRET. IF prosecuters repeated GJ testimony they would be prosecuted.

No one was lying except those who said they "leaked" GJ testimony. Ye gads, brush up on the law before you repeat this gossip as fact.


I think it would be fun to see the prosecuters prosecuted.

I wonder why the Ramsey attornies forget to immediately OBJECT & to ask the court to intervene? Gee, maybe because it was perfectly legal?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Lol, LI_Mom. That was hilarious.




It's as logical as the rest of the intruder theories they throw around.
:D

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


How was breezy wrong about the bear?

She had nothing had been proven about those other items (one of those items being the bear), and then LI_Mom showed it had with jameson's post.

jameson:

In response to message #8

Patsy remembered JonBenét getting a teddy bear but her memory of it was different - that it was dressed different, not as Santa.

The woman from the pageant recognized it and told authorities. Photos taken at the event showed it was that Santa bear.

So it was a mystery, is no longer, and honestly has nothing to do with the case.

I take it back.

It is indicative of the confusion that takes over when people are totally overwhelmed, a perfect example of how memories get muddy as time passes.

http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/...pic&archive=yes



Wow, jameson was able to take it back...will breezy be able to?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


So proof please that the bear was not left by an intruder?

I reiterate with jameson's post, from her own board.


jameson:

In response to message #8

Patsy remembered JonBenét getting a teddy bear but her memory of it was different - that it was dressed different, not as Santa.

The woman from the pageant recognized it and told authorities. Photos taken at the event showed it was that Santa bear.

So it was a mystery, is no longer, and honestly has nothing to do with the case.

I take it back.

It is indicative of the confusion that takes over when people are totally overwhelmed, a perfect example of how memories get muddy as time passes.

http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/...pic&archive=yes

[LI_Mom]

NP, if they didn't understand it the FIRST time, I don't have hope they'll understand it the second or thousandth time.

They refuse to admit, in public, any bit of information that they think might make the Ramseys look less than stellar.

But it's enough that they KNOW the truth, (even though they are too hardheaded to admit they do).

[nuisanceposter]

Yes, rosyred, they call it Ramnesia. It's the uncanny ability they have to remember anything not related to the investigation with precision, but anything that directly ties into their daughter or the day she died is completely unclear.

Patsy has no idea what her daughter ate Christmas Day or whether she took a bath or not, but she can remember in precise detail exactly which costume JonBenet wore to which pageant and who made and contributed what.

Patsy can't figure out if the bowl the pineapple was in is hers or not, can't tell if that's the flashlight John got for Christmas, but she can recall exactly which ornament came from where on the eight Christmas trees in her home for the Boulder Parade of Homes Tour.

Her standard answer to questions put to her during any interview is "I don't know" and "I can't recall", and when she does remember things, she ends up contradicting herself.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
NP, if they didn't understand it the FIRST time, I don't have hope they'll understand it the second or thousandth time.

They refuse to admit, in public, any bit of information that they think might make the Ramseys look less than stellar.

But it's enough that they KNOW the truth, (even though they are too hardheaded to admit they do).

I agree, and I'm satisfied that anyone else reading this will know it too.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Her standard answer to questions put to her during any interview is "I don't know" and "I can't recall", and when she does remember things, she ends up contradicting herself.

One would have to assume that their lawyers told them to be careful about specifics & to avoid direct answers to the best of their ability. Any decent lawyer would give their client this advice because their only goal is to protect the client NOT to worry about solving the murder.


Example:

'Yes, we had a flashlight just like the one found BUT I can't tell you for sure that this was ours.'


It's what any smart defendant would do when questioned by police or in court.

And who knows... there's a chance they are completely innocent but the way they legally slowed down &/or prevented the investigators from excluding them quickly makes them look like they are hiding some terrible, terrible secrets.

And by the time they finally handed over the clothes they were wearing that night.... it was practically useless to the case. And interestingly, they took so long that John claimed he didn't even know for sure what he wore that night so he sent everything he thought he MIGHT have been wearing. (Great. The investigators needed to waste even more time with 'evidence' that wasn't even connected to the case.)

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Actually, what you speak of is your version of the truth and I don't have to "buy" your version. I feel just as strongly about my position as you do.

No, Rosy, I was not telling you "my version".... I was telling you the version that is on the official records.

More than one person testified that Burke DID own a pair of Hi-Tecs.


I was telling you that the Santa Bear belonged to JB, she got it at a pegeant.

[LI_Mom]

BASEBALL BAT:

Aug. 29, 2000

Atty. Bruce Levin & John Ramsey

Q. If I can change gears for just a second, one of the things that you found significant, and, obviously since you found it significant, it was of great interest to us, was the baseball bat, the second baseball bat, aluminum bat. And we have, through confidential grand jury investigations, found that that bat, that second bat was Burke's. Was there anything else that you thought about, assuming that is true?

A. Well, I never have seen the bat, so -- and I think the best person to say whether it was Burke's or not is to ask Burke.

Q. Okay.

A. I don't know.

Q. That's it from your perspective --

A. No, there was nothing else I know about the bat.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-John-Interview-Complete.htm



As I've said more than once, most kids have more than one bat & it's understandable that a parent might not recognize EVERY bat their kid owns.

That's not to say the Ramseys were intentionally lying BUT it does tell us that an "intruder" did NOT leave the bat there. It was Burke's bat.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin



I don't want to reinvent the wheel, but I don't know what "official records" or testimony you are referring to. With regard to the bear, I don't doubt Patsy (or her sister) remembered the bear. We both know how much junk kids can accumulate.

Well I left links for everything.

And yes, maybe the Ramseys really didn't know BUT the point is only important because the bear was NOT left by an "intruder," the bear belonged in the house.

[nuisanceposter]

It just shows that the evidence of the intruder is yet more evidence of the Ramseys.

There is nothing in the Ramsey house that proves without a doubt that anyone other than the Ramseys were in their house that night.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
It just shows that the evidence of the intruder is yet more evidence of the Ramseys.

There is nothing in the Ramsey house that proves without a doubt that anyone other than the Ramseys were in their house that night.

Yes, and the mystery handprint was found to belong to Melinda, wasn't it?

[Jayelles]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Lol, LI_Mom. That was hilarious.

Check back, breezy, no one said jameson was posting here today. LI_Mom linked the post jameson made saying the same thing about the bear and said it's from her own webbsleuths board.

Sounds like you need divert attention away from the fact that you were wrong about the bear onto who said what where - enough to make two posts in a row arguing it. Classic.

jameson also said:-

jameson
Charter Member
13618 posts Nov-07-03, 10:45 PM (EST)

3. "RE: Patsy in Atlanta 8 - Santa Bear"
In response to message #2

LaDonna told the police - and she also told me - that she gave that Santa bear to JonBenet. No question. It seems Patsy had a false memory - thought it was dressed as an angel.

Memories are not cameras - not really - they can be confused.



http://www.webbsleuths.com/dcf/DCForumID107/64.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Lol, LI_Mom. That was hilarious.

Check back, breezy, no one said jameson was posting here today. LI_Mom linked the post jameson made saying the same thing about the bear and said it's from her own webbsleuths board.

Sounds like you need divert attention away from the fact that you were wrong about the bear onto who said what where - enough to make two posts in a row arguing it. Classic.

I was wrong? I said NOTHING about the bear at all. :rolleyes:

Wounds as if you need reading comprehension.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


So proof please that the bear was not left by an intruder?

More smoke screens by the gossips. I said NOTHING about the bear and they go off on a tangent that I did. :shrug: Who cares if Patsy remembered a bear or not. Teddy bears were not the most improtant thing on her mind but the gossips just know that they would remember EVERYTHING if one of their kids were murdered. VERY sad they are so gulllibe but that is how kids are.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Arrest made?

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=272116

Oh man, I pray the proof is there and all these gossips can shut up once and for all that Patsy is guilty. Team Thomas and his gang should hang their heads if this turns out to be the killer.

[Jayelles]

Originally posted by breezy1234


More smoke screens by the gossips. I said NOTHING about the bear and they go off on a tangent that I did. :shrug: Who cares if Patsy remembered a bear or not. Teddy bears were not the most improtant thing on her mind but the gossips just know that they would remember EVERYTHING if one of their kids were murdered. VERY sad they are so gulllibe but that is how kids are.

More name-calling?

[breezy1234]

DENVER - A suspect has been arrested in connection with the ten year-old mystery surrounding slain 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey, Denver’s KUSA reported Wednesday.

The suspect was detained in Bangkok, Thailand, Wednesday morning, the local NBC affiliate said, and was going to be brought to the U.S. within the next two days by a Boulder County District Attorney investigator.

Boulder officials, who would not give the identity of the suspect, were expected to hold a press conference later Wednesday.

JonBenet Ramsey was found beaten and strangled in her parents’ Boulder, Colo., basement on Dec. 26, 1996. A grand jury investigation ended with no indictments, and no arrests were made.

According to KUSA, the suspect in custody knew details about the murder that had not been made available to the general public.

Suspect held on unrelated charges
Federal officials familiar with the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the man was being held in Bangkok on unrelated sex charges.

JonBenet’s parents, John and Patsy said an intruder killed their daughter but a cloud of suspicion hung over the couple. The district attorney and a federal judge in Colorado have said it is likelier that an intruder was responsible.

JonBenet’s death became fodder for tabloids and the subject of books.

Patsy Ramsey, who died of ovarian cancer in June, said at the time of her daughter’s death that she found a ransom note on the back staircase of the family’s home demanding $118,000 for the safe return of JonBenet.

John Ramsey said he found his daughter’s body in a basement room, wrapped in a white blanket eight hours later.

This breaking news story will be updated.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14379566/

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Remember the comment that Patsy made to Lin Wood before she died, something to the effect of "hope they find who did this before I konk out." Maybe this is what she was talking about.

I'll try to find exact quote.

On Catherine Crier, it was reported that LE was talking to Patsy before she died about a possible arrest. Apparently, they've been following the guy for 2 months. Hopefully, Patsy realized she was possibly about to be vindicated.

[Jesfer_Chits]

Did I hear right? They gave his name? John Carr?
Teacher from here in U.S.

[breezy1234]

No more BS about pineapple, pageants and FALSE videos from those who THOUGHT they knew it all?

[Mormon_Guy]

AMAZING how quiet this thread got after the arrest.

I guess all the know-it-alls are too busy eating crow.

Congrats to all the vultures. You spen t 10 years torturing a fmaily that lost a daughter in a car accident, a daughter who was murdered, and had them & their son on deathrow.

Get a life to all the vultures.:cuss:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Mormon_Guy
AMAZING how quiet this thread got after the arrest.

I guess all the know-it-alls are too busy eating crow.

Congrats to all the vultures. You spen t 10 years torturing a fmaily that lost a daughter in a car accident, a daughter who was murdered, and had them & their son on deathrow.

Get a life to all the vultures.:cuss:

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you!:patriot:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Jesfer_Chits
Did I hear right? They gave his name? John Carr?
Teacher from here in U.S.

John Karr from Conyers, Georgia.

Once was a 2nd grade teacher.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Mormon_Guy
AMAZING how quiet this thread got after the arrest.

I guess all the know-it-alls are too busy eating crow.

Congrats to all the vultures. You spen t 10 years torturing a fmaily that lost a daughter in a car accident, a daughter who was murdered, and had them & their son on deathrow.

Get a life to all the vultures.:cuss:

Actually, I was at the mall & they didn't have any crow.

But let's remember... the fact remains.... the bear & the bat & the shoes were NOT left by an intruder.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I can't even begin to imagine how Patsy & John Ramsey felt for 10 long years.

This creep may have killed JonBenet but the creep that TRIED to kill the Ramseys with LIES is also beyond contempt IMO. :flamemad: He did everything in his power to ruin their lives with his BS fairytales and problaby hastened Patsy's death because of the stress. His "theories" have hounded them since the get go, even when he put his tail between his legs and chickend out of "proving" Patsy guilty in court, his lies were still repeated as gospel. I wonder if he will apologize to John and Burke Ramsey?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Actually, I was at the mall & they didn't have any crow.

But let's remember... the fact remains.... the bear & the bat & the shoes were NOT left by an intruder.

Groan, GROW up! You STILL don't know.:cuss:

[nuisanceposter]

I'm going to wait until I hear more about this guy and what ties him to the crime, such as the inside information he supposedly has.

If this guy really is the person who killed JonBenet, I'll be glad that he's been caught and will be very interested in any resulting trial.

[herlock h.]

I think Freshwater posted somewhere (I hope I'm not making a mistake!) on here that this fellow Karr was emailing John and Patsy with details about how he murdered their daughter. Evidently these were details that were not released to the public. If this is so, well, that's pretty damning evidence. I, too, will wait to hear the facts before I jump to any conclusions.

Herlock

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I'm going to wait until I hear more about this guy and what ties him to the crime, such as the inside information he supposedly has.

If this guy really is the person who killed JonBenet, I'll be glad that he's been caught and will be very interested in any resulting trial.

Nice you will "wait" to hear more about this guy but you sure didn't "wait" to spread gossip about the Ramseys. :no:

DNA match, knows details of the crime that wasn't public, e mails to Patsy and others about the crime and you will wait. :rolleyes:
WHY couldn't you "wait" for FACTS about the ramseys before gossiping?

[daffle]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Nice you will "wait" to hear more about this guy but you sure didn't "wait" to spread gossip about the Ramseys. :no:



The Ramseys have been the whipping boy of a voracious, bloodsucking media and a bunch of morons who don't know any better.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Nice you will "wait" to hear more about this guy but you sure didn't "wait" to spread gossip about the Ramseys. :no:

DNA match, knows details of the crime that wasn't public, e mails to Patsy and others about the crime and you will wait. :rolleyes:
WHY couldn't you "wait" for FACTS about the ramseys before gossiping? LOL!!!

Originally posted by breezy1234, when people posted about suspecting the Ramseys:

...I do know in this country a person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I replied, pointing out that that post might be misunderstood to mean that the presumption of innocence applies at all times even outside the courtroom, and said that the presumption of innocence actually applies only in the courtroom. Otherwise, there would at this moment be no criminals at all except for those who had already stood trial.

But you were insistent that unless there's a trial and a guilty verdict, no one is guilty of any crime. So you should probably keep that in mind now when gloating over the arrest, Breezy, since according to you the person they arrested is innocent! :rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Wow, Marc Klaas just made a good point on MSNBC - maybe this guy confessed to get to an American prison out of a Bangkok one.

Let's remember that arrested is not the same as charged.

Here's an interview with the ex-wife. She said she and Karr were living in Alabama at the time and that he there all through Christmas.


http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=4468925


His ex-wife also says her husband did a lot of research on the JonBenet Ramsey case and also on Petaluma's own Polly Klaas.

Laura Karr also tells us she's devastated and embarrassed by these murder charges, but she does not believe that her husband did it. She says that during Christmas season of 1996 when JonBenet Ramsey was strangled and beaten to death in Colorado, they were living in Alabama at the time and she was with him the entire Christmas season.



She says he did a lot of research. I'm very curious to know what he's confessed to that they said was confidential.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Bunny2
LOL!!!

Originally posted by breezy1234, when people posted about suspecting the Ramseys:

...I do know in this country a person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I replied, pointing out that that post might be misunderstood to mean that the presumption of innocence applies at all times even outside the courtroom, and said that the presumption of innocence actually applies only in the courtroom. Otherwise, there would at this moment be no criminals at all except for those who had already stood trial.

But you were insistent that unless there's a trial and a guilty verdict, no one is guilty of any crime. So you should probably keep that in mind now when gloating over the arrest, Breezy, since according to you the person they arrested is innocent! :rolleyes:

I HAVE kept that in mind. If you are too thick to understand if nothing else the BS has STOPPED and someone is actually investigating this crime. If this guy is in fact innocent and his DNA, knowledge of the crime no one else knows, been arrested for sexual child abuse/porn and sadistic torture of Patsy it will be a miracle. You on the other hand use pageants, pineapple wet bed, and only ones in the home as "evidence" Gee I wonder what evidence a jury would find more convincing. The Ramseys were NEVER arrested, indicted or convicted BTW.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by hohum


Well well well, look what crawled out of it's hole.

You are disgusting. Don't you have another murderer you want to help stay free by smearing innocent people. :flamemad:

It's nice to know I've truly earned my name in your estimation.

[herlock h.]

Originally posted by hohum


Well well well, look what crawled out of it's hole.

You are disgusting. Don't you have another murderer you want to help stay free by smearing innocent people. :flamemad:

Hey! That's not very nice. I think that all of us want the same thing - whoever killed JBR brought to justice! Stop with the nasty remarks, it gets boring and so predictable - the thread will be erased and posters banned. Everyone has an opinion and no one knows anything except for the murderer.

Herlock

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Wow, Marc Klaas just made a good point on MSNBC - maybe this guy confessed to get to an American prison out of a Bangkok one.

Let's remember that arrested is not the same as charged.

Here's an interview with the ex-wife. She said she and Karr were living in Alabama at the time and that he there all through Christmas.


http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=4468925


His ex-wife also says her husband did a lot of research on the JonBenet Ramsey case and also on Petaluma's own Polly Klaas.

Laura Karr also tells us she's devastated and embarrassed by these murder charges, but she does not believe that her husband did it. She says that during Christmas season of 1996 when JonBenet Ramsey was strangled and beaten to death in Colorado, they were living in Alabama at the time and she was with him the entire Christmas season.



She says he did a lot of research. I'm very curious to know what he's confessed to that they said was confidential.

wow,2 or 3 months ago and good hearted boulder police wasted their time and MORE money to investigate him and bring him back to the US because he "wanted" them to? He knew details of the crime by "guessing" hoping to come back to the US? :lol: What a stupid remark from Mark

The ex Mrs divorced him because of his porn but she doesn't think there is a chance he is guilty???? We will see where he was in dec 1996 tomorrow at the news conference. Sure hope the ex Mrs. isn't lying for him or to save face for her kids.

"Laura Karr filed for divorce in 2001, after he was charged with possessing pornography, the newspaper said."

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by herlock h.


Hey! That's not very nice. I think that all of us want the same thing - whoever killed JBR brought to justice! Stop with the nasty remarks, it gets boring and so predictable - the thread will be erased and posters banned. Everyone has an opinion and no one knows anything except for the murderer.

Herlock

READ the things that poster has said that she KNOWS and maybe then you will understand why hohim make that comment. She was right. That poster didn't want justice UNLESS she could make things up and gossip about the Ramseys about non issues about the most disgusting things about Jonbenet and Patsy.

[nuisanceposter]

Breezy, you can't jump all over this guy without knowing the details. Just because he was arrested does not mean he's guilty.

When I came to my conclusion that I thought the Rs were guilty it was because I spent time reading up on them and seeing the culmination of the evidence indicating them. I didn't just automatically assume that because the news saids they might be guilty that they were.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


READ the things that poster has said that she KNOWS and maybe then you will understand why hohim make that comment. She was right. That poster didn't want justice UNLESS she could make things up and gossip about the Ramseys about non issues about the most disgusting things about Jonbenet and Patsy.

That's not true, breezy. I've said before that I want justice for JonBenet. I think she deserves it, no matter who the killer is.

Breezy accuses everyone who disagrees with her of spreading lies and gossip.

[marzano]

I'm not eating crow I stand by my belief that Patsy did this.

Just because someone confesses to a crime that's been in the news for years doesnt' mean anything.

They'll probably railroad this guy and throw him in jail to make it look like they solved the crime.

I predict that either this will turn out to be a dead end or they'll throw him in jail with flimsy evidence to continue the hypocrasy.

If however it turns out he did it I will have to admit I was wrong.

That's assuming they have solid evidence.

If for example they link his dna with the crime scene yes that's solid and irrefutable.

E-mails from a crackpot is not.

People just can't believe that parents could kill their own children.

But they can.

Jeff Marzano

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Breezy, you can't jump all over this guy without knowing the details. Just because he was arrested does not mean he's guilty.

When I came to my conclusion that I thought the Rs were guilty it was because I spent time reading up on them and seeing the culmination of the evidence indicating them. I didn't just automatically assume that because the news saids they might be guilty that they were.

You've jumped all over the Ramseys just because they were "under the umbrella", not even arrested, so WHAT is the difference?

You have read gossip, not facts of the case. NOW maybe the facts will come out.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


That's not true, breezy. I've said before that I want justice for JonBenet. I think she deserves it, no matter who the killer is.

Breezy accuses everyone who disagrees with her of spreading lies and gossip.

Do you REALLY think it is justice for JonBenet to spread gossip about that obscene video that you or anyone else can prove by showing it? Do you think she deserves THAT? :flamemad:

[nuisanceposter]

Does the DNA match or not? Smeone posted this on another board.

DNA was found beneath JonBenet's fingernails and inside her underwear, but Wood said two years ago that detectives were unable to match it to anyone in an
FBI database. It was not immediately known Wednesday whether investigators had any DNA evidence against Karr.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_re_us/jonbenet_ramsey

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Does the DNA match or not? Smeone posted this on another board.

DNA was found beneath JonBenet's fingernails and inside her underwear, but Wood said two years ago that detectives were unable to match it to anyone in an
FBI database. It was not immediately known Wednesday whether investigators had any DNA evidence against Karr.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_re_us/jonbenet_ramsey

You should find out tomorrow so start thinking of how the DNA was "biased" or bought by the ramseys. :rolleyes:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Do you REALLY think it is justice for JonBenet to spread gossip about that obscene video that you or anyone else can prove by showing it? Do you think she deserves THAT? :flamemad:

I think justice for JonBenet is finding her killer and holding that person responsible.

Get over the video, breezy. It's not fault that people discussed it and said it looked like she was masturbating. I don't even remember ever seeing this video, and I don't want to - all I did was post part of a transcript where people discussed the video.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You should find out tomorrow so start thinking of how the DNA was "biased" or bought by the ramseys. :rolleyes:

Is Karr's DNA already in the database?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

*snipped*
Wow, Marc Klaas just made a good point on MSNBC - maybe this guy confessed to get to an American prison out of a Bangkok one.


U.S. authorities said Karr was initially taken into custody in Bangkok on unrelated sex charges. But Thai police Lt. Gen. Suwat Tumrongsiskul said he was unaware of any criminal charges the suspect faced in Thailand.

Thai police said Karr was arrested at his apartment in downtown Bangkok at the request of U.S. officials, and was being held until they arrived. Suwat said he expected U.S. officials to take Karr back to America in the next few days.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_re_us/jonbenet_ramsey

[breezy1234]

Lawrence Schiller, author of the 1999 book "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" about the case, said Wednesday he understood the man had been on a list of sexual offenders who were suspects for a long time.

"There are a lot of facts about her actual death that the public does not know." Schiller said. "If he did confess to some facts of the murder, to reveal those facts of the case, that would finish the puzzle."

Among the facts he said were not generally known was the murder weapon and what the killer did with it.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_re_us/jonbenet_ramsey

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


U.S. authorities said Karr was initially taken into custody in Bangkok on unrelated sex charges. But Thai police Lt. Gen. Suwat Tumrongsiskul said he was unaware of any criminal charges the suspect faced in Thailand.

Thai police said Karr was arrested at his apartment in downtown Bangkok at the request of U.S. officials, and was being held until they arrived. Suwat said he expected U.S. officials to take Karr back to America in the next few days.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_re_us/jonbenet_ramsey

All the more reason to reserve judgment. There are conflicting reports coming form news sources.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


All the more reason to reserve judgment. There are conflicting reports coming form news sources.


The conflicting reports when the Ramseys were under the umbrella didn't make you "reserve judgement". :no:

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234



The conflicting reports when the Ramseys were under the umbrella didn't make you "reserve judgement". :no:

I didn't make my decision about the Rs the first day I ever heard of them. You appear to have your mind made up that this guy Karr is guilty without hearing details.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I didn't make my decision about the Rs the first day I ever heard of them. You appear to have your mind made up that this guy Karr is guilty without hearing details.

I've heard more damning evidence against him than there ever was agaisnt the Ramseys.:rolleyes:

I have not made up my mind BTW but I AM thrilled that someone is doing somthing to sovle this case and to stop this stupid speculation and gossip against the Ramseys.

[Jacob]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I've heard more damning evidence against him than there ever was agaisnt the Ramseys.:rolleyes:

I have not made up my mind BTW but I AM thrilled that someone is doing somthing to sovle this case and to stop this stupid speculation and gossip against the Ramseys. Truer words were never spoken. The Ramsey's had their lives destroyed by rumor and inuendo. What was done to them was horrible and so unAmerican.

[TuscanDreams]

Is it for sure that this is the right guy? I mean, so much info has been leaked to the media that anyone could say something and have an inside knowledge of this crime.

I'm still appalled at all of the media leaks from the DA's office and the Boulder PD. That could be the reason that this guy walks- if he really is the perp.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


And I'm afraid even this arrest is not going to stop the rumors ad innuendos........ JMO

I agree. It is hard for some people to deprogram themselves form their brainwashing.

[nuisanceposter]

People need to wait for this story to develop, for details to come out, before they hang this guy.

There are so many conflicting stories right now - he was in Atlanta or he is Alabama Christmas Day, he has or has never been to Boulder, the DNA matches or it doesn't match (I heard that last night but no one's saying it today), he talked to Patsy via email but John Ramsey and Pam Paugh have never heard of him (I find it hard to believe Patsy was talking to a guy she thought was the killer and JR and Pam have never heard of him - especially when they were closing in for an arrest before she died), he was comminicating Tracey the past two years and Tracey thought he was the guy but made a doc saying a man named Gigax was the killer...

No one really knows the real story right now. Be fair - you didn't want people to rush to judge the Rs guilty when you said there wasn't enough evidence...give this guy the same. If he's the man that his DNA will match and so will his handwriting. If the DNA doesn't match then there's nothing placing him forensically inside the Ramsey house that night - unless he can produce the tape and cord.

[breezy1234]

""I was with JonBenet when she died," John Mark Karr told reporters afterward, visibly nervous and stuttering as he spoke. "Her death was an accident."

Asked if he was innocent of the crime, Karr said: "No."

Karr confessed to the killing after his arrest Wednesday at his downtown Bangkok apartment by Thai and American authorities, said Lt. Gen. Suwat Tumrongsiskul, head of Thailand's immigration police.

He said Karr insisted his crime was not first-degree murder but that she died during a kidnapping attempt that went awry.

"He said it was second-degree murder. He said it was unintentional. He said he was in love with the child, she was a pageant queen," Suwat said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_re_as/thailand_jonbenet_ramsey

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
People need to wait for this story to develop, for details to come out, before they hang this guy.

There are so many conflicting stories right now - he was in Atlanta or he is Alabama Christmas Day, he has or has never been to Boulder, the DNA matches or it doesn't match (I heard that last night but no one's saying it today), he talked to Patsy via email but John Ramsey and Pam Paugh have never heard of him (I find it hard to believe Patsy was talking to a guy she thought was the killer and JR and Pam have never heard of him - especially when they were closing in for an arrest before she died), he was comminicating Tracey the past two years and Tracey thought he was the guy but made a doc saying a man named Gigax was the killer...

No one really knows the real story right now. Be fair - you didn't want people to rush to judge the Rs guilty when you said there wasn't enough evidence...give this guy the same. If he's the man that his DNA will match and so will his handwriting. If the DNA doesn't match then there's nothing placing him forensically inside the Ramsey house that night - unless he can produce the tape and cord.

No one really knows the WHOLE story anymore today than we did last week but you were NEVER "fair" to the Ramseys. WHY do you think a man who said he was with JB when she died,that he was "in love with her" and her death was an accident and this guy was wanted in California for another child sex crime should get "fairness" but the parents who lost their daughter to a killer and had NO background of hurting their own or any other kids shouldn't???

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234
""I was with JonBenet when she died," John Mark Karr told reporters afterward, visibly nervous and stuttering as he spoke. "Her death was an accident."

Asked if he was innocent of the crime, Karr said: "No."

Karr confessed to the killing after his arrest Wednesday at his downtown Bangkok apartment by Thai and American authorities, said Lt. Gen. Suwat Tumrongsiskul, head of Thailand's immigration police.

He said Karr insisted his crime was not first-degree murder but that she died during a kidnapping attempt that went awry.

"He said it was second-degree murder. He said it was unintentional. He said he was in love with the child, she was a pageant queen," Suwat said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_re_as/thailand_jonbenet_ramsey

People have made false confessions before.

I'll wait and see what develops, just like I did with the Ramseys. I watched a lot of tv shows and read a lot of articles and books before I decided one of them sounded like the most likey killer.

If he was the killer, then they'll have the evidence to show for it. There's some question as to whether the DNA matches or not. I haven't seen any handwriting test results yet. I've seen nothing that proves that he was in the Ramsey house that night other than his word - and anyone could say that.

He may have gotten inside information on the Ramsey case during his book research and is using to claim he was the killer - but if he was, then the DNA, the handwriting will match.

They'll prove he was in Boulder that night with flight records, or credit card purchases or phone calls, even an eye witness.

Now of that has been done yet, so it's too soon to say this man is definitely the one.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


No one really knows the WHOLE story anymore today than we did last week but you were NEVER "fair" to the Ramseys. WHY do you think a man who said he was with JB when she died,that he was "in love with her" and her death was an accident and this guy was wanted in California for another child sex crime should get "fairness" but the parents who lost their daughter to a killer and had NO background of hurting their own or any other kids shouldn't???

I've never said that the Ramseys don't deserve fairness. I believe authorities were more than fair to them in this investigation - a lot more fair than the treatment the average guy down the block would be getting.

Thinking the evidence indicates the Ramseys are not telling everything they know and are covering up their daughter's murder for one of their own is not being unfair to them. My goodness, under that logic, no one should ever be considered a suspect because it's unfair to them. We better let Karr go, in fact, because it might be unfair to him to suspect he was the killer when it hasn't been proven in court yet.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


People have made false confessions before.

I'll wait and see what develops, just like I did with the Ramseys. I watched a lot of tv shows and read a lot of articles and books before I decided one of them sounded like the most likey killer.

If he was the killer, then they'll have the evidence to show for it. There's some question as to whether the DNA matches or not. I haven't seen any handwriting test results yet. I've seen nothing that proves that he was in the Ramsey house that night other than his word - and anyone could say that.

He may have gotten inside information on the Ramsey case during his book research and is using to claim he was the killer - but if he was, then the DNA, the handwriting will match.

They'll prove he was in Boulder that night with flight records, or credit card purchases or phone calls, even an eye witness.

Now of that has been done yet, so it's too soon to say this man is definitely the one.

Oh please you have been spreading gossip, lies and bad mouthing the Ramseys for weeks here. WHAT on earth makes you think you KNOW what has or has not been done as far as Karrs guilt yet? Do you really think Boulder cops and DA, homeland security, the FBI and others willy nilly have someone arrested in a foreign land and bring him back to the US on a whim? :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I've never said that the Ramseys don't deserve fairness. I believe authorities were more than fair to them in this investigation - a lot more fair than the treatment the average guy down the block would be getting.

Thinking the evidence indicates the Ramseys are not telling everything they know and are covering up their daughter's murder for one of their own is not being unfair to them. My goodness, under that logic, no one should ever be considered a suspect because it's unfair to them. We better let Karr go, in fact, because it might be unfair to him to suspect he was the killer when it hasn't been proven in court yet.

You have shown them NO fairness when you repeat lies and gossip about the ramseys and they have never even been arrested. READ what you said above! Are you really THAT brainwashed?

[nuisanceposter]

Not on a whim, but for questioning. They want him on other unrelated charges as well.

This guy is repulsive. He seriously needs to be taken off the street and away from children.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You have shown them NO fairness when you repeat lies and gossip about the ramseys and they have never even been arrested. READ what you said above! Are you really THAT brainwashed?

I have my opinion about where the evidence leads, just as you do. There's no need to make personal attacks.

I need to see more proof, just like I did with the Rs. I need to hear something that places him in that house that night. How did he get Patsy's email? Who was he talking to - Patsy or Tracey or both? Does the DNA match? Does his handwriting match? What pieces of clothing was he wearing that had fibers that consistent with Patsy's jacket and John's shirt? How did he get in and out?

I gave the Ramseys the same measure of questioining when deciding where the evidence pointed.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Not on a whim, but for questioning. They want him on other unrelated charges as well.

This guy is repulsive. He seriously needs to be taken off the street and away from children.

They arrested him for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, not for other charges. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I have my opinion about where the evidence leads, just as you do. There's no need to make personal attacks.

I need to see more proof, just like I did with the Rs. I need to hear something that places him in that house that night. How did he get Patsy's email? Who was he talking to - Patsy or Tracey or both? Does the DNA match? Does his handwriting match? What pieces of clothing was he wearing that had fibers that consistent with Patsy's jacket and John's shirt? How did he get in and out?

I gave the Ramseys the same measure of questioining when deciding where the evidence pointed.

You gave the Ramseys NO fairness.

[Crimespoof]

This seems to be the hot question of the moment.

I too have thought Someone in the household was guilty of this crime although I never directly pointed the finger at anyone. I guess my outrage was at the investigation. I have always thought it was the initial police investigation and the way it was handled that put the Ramsey's in the position they have been in for so long. If it had been handled properly they may have been spared the harshness of the public accussations.

Anyway I really hope this guy is the real killer because once and for all this little girl deserves justice. I know he has confessed to this crime and to some details and I am so hopefull that something solid links him to the crimescene and he can't wriggle out of it. I am going to reserve my apology for thinking someone inside the home did it for now, but when I know for absolute sure you can bet I will be the first one to say I am so sorry for even thinking it.

:rose: for Jon Benet in hopes you can finally rest in peace sweet angel

[nuisanceposter]

Wow. Someone needs to get their story straight. Someone at WS just pointed this out -

Suspect says kidnapping went awry
He said Karr insisted his crime was not first-degree murder but that JonBenet died during a kidnapping attempt that went awry.

“He said it was second-degree murder. He said it was unintentional,” Suwat said. He said Karr told Thai interrogators that he picked JonBenet up at her school and brought her to the family’s basement.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14379566/?GT1=8404

Hmmm, JonBenet wasn't at school Christmas Day. Her school wasn't even open that day.

Something here isn't right.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Wow. Someone needs to get their story straight. Someone at WS just pointed this out -

Suspect says kidnapping went awry
He said Karr insisted his crime was not first-degree murder but that JonBenet died during a kidnapping attempt that went awry.

“He said it was second-degree murder. He said it was unintentional,” Suwat said. He said Karr told Thai interrogators that he picked JonBenet up at her school and brought her to the family’s basement.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14379566/?GT1=8404

Hmmm, JonBenet wasn't at school Christmas Day. Her school wasn't even open that day.

Something here isn't right.

News "reports" just like when they were "reporting" the BS about the Ramseys. I thought you wanted "proof"??? :rolleyes:

[Helping Hand]

I hear Crime Library is going to be all over this case. Articles usually come out around noon right? I'm waiting to see what's next but I do think there is a HIGH probability they got their man because I doubt the CO DA would risk making a false arrest in THIS case.

[clueless_couch]

I'm amazed at how much stock people are putting into media reports. If all the media reports for the last 10 years were correct, the Ramseys would all be in jail for murder. This case should teach us all to take with a grain of salt what is put out to the media.

I'm eagerly awaiting the press conference. I'd like to hear what the DA has to say directly.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by breezy1234


News "reports" just like when they were "reporting" the BS about the Ramseys. I thought you wanted "proof"??? :rolleyes:

His confession is good enough for you but when a part of his confession is questioned that part is just bs?

I'll tell you what's bs - this guy's story. All of it.

[FoxySly]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


People have made false confessions before.

I'll wait and see what develops, just like I did with the Ramseys. I watched a lot of tv shows and read a lot of articles and books before I decided one of them sounded like the most likey killer.

If he was the killer, then they'll have the evidence to show for it. There's some question as to whether the DNA matches or not. I haven't seen any handwriting test results yet. I've seen nothing that proves that he was in the Ramsey house that night other than his word - and anyone could say that.

He may have gotten inside information on the Ramsey case during his book research and is using to claim he was the killer - but if he was, then the DNA, the handwriting will match.

They'll prove he was in Boulder that night with flight records, or credit card purchases or phone calls, even an eye witness.

Now of that has been done yet, so it's too soon to say this man is definitely the one.

I so hope this case is solved in my life time.

Still, I am waiting for evidence on this karr.

There have been sooooooooooooo many to claim to be the murderer in famous cases (link: the whole internet)

Also, so many cases where LE has feed suspects info to further their case (again same link. Also CTV Crime Library).

I will NEVER forget watching the show of how they got that little boy (Crow?) to confess to his sisters murder (those were BAD COPS and should have been punished).
Gezzzzzz, it still bring tears to my eyes what they put that child through when already he was suffering from the death of his sister.

I will also wait to see the evidents on this karr person.

The ramsey's, hummmmmm I still don't know.
My Son just turned 30. And if this happened to him at this age I would not only NOT hide from LE, I'd be right in their faces.
Dang, no telling what I would have done if something would have happened when he was only 6.

IMO
SLY

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Nice you will "wait" to hear more about this guy but you sure didn't "wait" to spread gossip about the Ramseys. :no:

DNA match, knows details of the crime that wasn't public, e mails to Patsy and others about the crime and you will wait. :rolleyes:
WHY couldn't you "wait" for FACTS about the ramseys before gossiping?

I have been watching this pretty closely since the story broke
and I haven't yet heard that the DNA matches. Obviously, if
it does it's damning. So far, all I've heard is he confessed, which
means nothing, plenty of nut cases do that, and that he
corresponded with Patsy.

I'm not saying he's innocent, but something here doesn't smell
right. EX, not current, wife saying he was with her and couldn't
have done it, for one. We'll see.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


READ the things that poster has said that she KNOWS and maybe then you will understand why hohim make that comment. She was right. That poster didn't want justice UNLESS she could make things up and gossip about the Ramseys about non issues about the most disgusting things about Jonbenet and Patsy.


I've read all the posts and Hohum is the one that is consistently
rude to any poster who disagrees with her. I'm surprised
the thread hasn't already been erased with the types
of responses she's made throughout. It seems to me
the NG's take this awfully personally.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by TuscanDreams
Is it for sure that this is the right guy? I mean, so much info has been leaked to the media that anyone could say something and have an inside knowledge of this crime.

I'm still appalled at all of the media leaks from the DA's office and the Boulder PD. That could be the reason that this guy walks- if he really is the perp.


Since he "confessed" this morning to a pack of journalists,
without the presence of counsel, I'd say there is a real
good chance this guy will walk, guilty or not. But, if the DNA
does match that should overide the need for a confession.
Assuming we don't end up with OJ's jury, of course.

[nuisanceposter]

There's no way this man Karr is telling the truth. He says he picked her up after school and took her to the basement and drugged her. That doesn't account for there being no school, the party at the Whites, and no drugs found in the toxicology. His ex-wife says he has with her, and there's no proof he was ever in Boulder.

And Wood said the DNA hasn't been matched.

[Helping Hand]

Come on.... there is no way the DA in THIS case is gonna make an arrest without some serious evidence. after what they did to the case from the start there is no way someone would be willing to DESTROY their career on flimsy evidence. THEY HAVE SOMETHING.

[nuisanceposter]

What? His confession that's full of holes?

His emails to Ramsey crockumentarian Micheal Tracey, who has pointed the finger at two other men in the past four years - as long as he said he's been talking to Karr?

They don't have a DNA match yet.

Until they match the DNA and the handwriting with a confession that holds water, I don't believe this guy is the real deal.

[clueless_couch]

I think there's way more going on here than just his "confession" this morning. His confession came AFTER his arrest, which was in the works for months. They didn't base the arrest on his confession.

I'm not basing my opinion of his involvement on what he said this morning, but rather on the fact that the DA arrested him at all. I, too, believe this case is too high profile for her to risk making a mistake. She's an elected official after all.;)

[nuisanceposter]

More on Mary Keenan.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7110

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by clueless_couch
She's an elected official after all.;) [/B]


Right. And we all know elected officials never mess up.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Helping Hand
Come on.... there is no way the DA in THIS case is gonna make an arrest without some serious evidence. after what they did to the case from the start there is no way someone would be willing to DESTROY their career on flimsy evidence. THEY HAVE SOMETHING.

I'm not yet so sure John Karr killed JonBenet. Being a pedophile, I think it's possible that he might have fantasized about being with JonBenet, and might have even sent Patsy Ramsey those graphic emails about what he'd done to her beautiful child. He appears to have been obsessed with JBR, doing extensive research of her murder.

I know there was a spot of blood found on JonBenet's underpants, which didn't match anyone who was DNA tested. If Karr's DNA matches that of the DNA found on that spot of blood, then I believe John Karr did, in fact, kill JonBenet.

IMO

[kelloggirl]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


I'm not yet so sure John Karr killed JonBenet. Being a pedophile, I think it's possible that he might have fantasized about being with JonBenet, and might have even sent Patsy Ramsey those graphic emails about what he'd done to her beautiful child. He appears to have been obsessed with JBR, doing extensive research of her murder.

I know there was a spot of blood found on JonBenet's underpants, which didn't match anyone who was DNA tested. If Karr's DNA matches that of the DNA found on that spot of blood, then I believe John Karr did, in fact, kill JonBenet.

IMO

Hey Paula, those are my feelings exactly. He seems to have been obsessed with these child killers. He is one sick individual, though, that seems clear.

I also felt that way after watching the press conference, which contained a very carefully worded statement about how certain circumstances such as "public safety" and "flight risk" can expedite an arrest. In light of the fact that Karr has traveled around a lot after fleeing the US, and given that he was supposed to start teaching at a Bangkok elementary school next week (I think, it was very soon though), I think they arrested him based heavily on these factors, in addition to the other evidence which they have.

However, I would really really doubt that they have tested his DNA yet, which to me, will be the lynchpin in the case. They are being very very careful here, and rightfully so.

For the record, I believed at first that the Ramseys were guilty. In the subsequent years and in educating myself about the case and the evidence and circumstances, I don't believe they have anything to do with it, and felt what happened to them was very very sad. I was very glad to hear of this arrest, but I'm a little less hopeful in light of some of the issues around his whereabouts at the time. I really really do hope this isn't a false confession.

[mendara]

Originally posted by
Here is Patsy, in her own voice, calling JonBenet "that child" while claiming she loved her daughter. (Yet, we have never heard Patsy refer to John as "that man" or Burke as "that boy.")

http://www.cnn.com/US/9705/01/ramsey/patsy.didnot.30sec.313k.wav

IMO - her referring to her daughter as "that child" was completely normal in the context of what she was trying to see. I look at my son playing and I will often say - "god I love that child with all my heart" -

it is ridiculous that anyone would think otherwise.

[noelsaloy]

About snow (http://wwwa.accuweather.com/news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&blog=voss&date=2006-08-01_12:21&month=8) cover. Interesting!

[bandit's mom]

Wowl, who would have though that Boulder could find a DA
that would look like a bigger idiot than Alex Hunter?

[Wolfmate]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Nothing that has been posted has changed my mind. I do not believe any Ramsey had anything to do with the death of JonBenet.

I believe there was an intruder and I think the bungled investigation & tunnel vision means we will never know who the murderer was.

JMO

Hi Rosy!!

I have to say that I am not certian whether they did or not. I hope they didn't. I haven't read all of the information, or seen all of the shows, but what I have read and seen, doesn't leave me with a clear picture of guilt or non guilt.

I think it is possible that one of them were involved, just as it is possible it was an intruder. I am not sure about this new arrest though, it seems that this man is unstable and his ex wife says he was with her, and his version of events doesn't make sense since JB's family was with her all evening.

Anyway, good to see you!:seeya:

[Wolfmate]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Good to see you too. I think he did it and all of his "mis-information" is to set himself up for an insanity defense. (I've posted this several times so if you read it, don't think I've lost it - there are just SO many threads.)

I am not sure. It is possible that he did do it, and is working on insanity, but it would seem that the DNA will have to prove it for sure. Unless they can place him there, I can't see why they would arrest him in the first place. There has to be more to this story than is being reported.

I am interested to know what information he gave to police that had been kept quiet. I don't think this DA would arrest anyone without probable cause, it would seem almost like career suicide.

I am however, unwilling to go whole hog on this until more information comes out. It is possible that he is just a nutty guy that wants the attn. It wouldn't be the first time for this type of thing to happen.

[rosebud]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chatwuann
[B]

The best evidence pointing to someone else is the house itself and the arrangement of the rooms. Not to mention the already broken window and the doors that were unlocked which meant he or they didn't have to break in. AAJMO


Thank you for mentioning the unlocked doors. I read that recently also that the police found more than one unlocked door in the house. What about the burglar alarm? Was it activated or in service? Do you know about that?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosebud
[QUOTE]Originally posted by chatwuann
[B]

The best evidence pointing to someone else is the house itself and the arrangement of the rooms. Not to mention the already broken window and the doors that were unlocked which meant he or they didn't have to break in. AAJMO


Thank you for mentioning the unlocked doors. I read that recently also that the police found more than one unlocked door in the house. What about the burglar alarm? Was it activated or in service? Do you know about that?

It was not activated and hadn't been for a long time because JonBenet set it off when she was younger.

[Athena]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
No one is denying there was a bowl of pineapple, but Patsy wasn't asked about the bowl of pineapple on the day of the murder or even the next day so she very well did not know anything about the bowl of pineapple. How many people were in that house the day of JonBenet's murder? Why only Patsy's &Burke's fingerprints? Who knows, who cares? JMO

Even if her fingerprints were on the bowl could it not be possible they would be if she just puts away dishes? I imagine my fingerprints would be found on every piece of glassware in my home. Too much emphasis on this bowl. Since I wasn't there wouldn't know for sure if Patsy or whoever killed JBR - but alot of the so-called evidence being spoken of is just speculation and conjecture. -- imo :shrug:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Athena


Even if her fingerprints were on the bowl could it not be possible they would be if she just puts away dishes? I imagine my fingerprints would be found on every piece of glassware in my home. Too much emphasis on this bowl. Since I wasn't there wouldn't know for sure if Patsy or whoever killed JBR - but alot of the so-called evidence being spoken of is just speculation and conjecture. -- imo :shrug:


Her prints would be on every piece IF she's the one who unloaded the dishwasher. We don't know if she did that chore or whether her housekeeper did it but I would guess she did it.

I think what makes the bowl interesting is because there was also a glass found on the table with only Burke's prints found.

So when Patsy & everyone there says nobody had a snack that night & have no idea where the pineapple came from, it seems a little suspicious.


1) Did an intruder give JB a snack before he/she killed her? Pretty weird to stop for a snack while the family is upstairs if you're planning on kidnapping a child.

2) Did JB and Burke have a snack & Burke LIED about being awake that night?

3) Did Patsy know about the pineapple but LIE because she wanted to point to 'evidence' of an "intruder?"


All these small & seemingly unimportant 'clues' need to looked at separately and then put together to form the whole puzzle.

[chatwuann]

The pineapple is one of the so-called pieces of the puzzle that isn't necessarily incriminating. And even if JonBenet was given pineapple that doesn't necessarily mean that a family member was the only one that could have given it to her. And why wouldn't the intruder give JonBenet pineapple. Intruders do strange things. Let's say for the sake of argument the intruder was a pedophile, I am not saying the intruder was a pedophile, but what if he was and gave JonBenet pineapple to get her to go with him quietly. Pedophiles do use things such as toys etc. to get their victims to go with them. The average intruder most likely wouldn't stay in an occupied house for fear of risking detection but if he was a Ted Bundy intruder then he most likely would.

As for the the glass that had a tea bag in it we don't know if it was put there by any member of the family and if any member of the Ramsey family drank tea iced or otherwise. And even if Burke did his fingerprint could have been put on there another time when he handled that particular glass. I don't know of any nine year old that drinks tea but it is possible some do. I would ask the question if Burke ever drank tea.

The pineapple is one of the so-called pieces of the puzzle that we just don't know where it fits in the whole puzzle and if it fits at all.

JMO

[Britches22]

Wouldnt you think that if JB was eating the pineapple (which she obviously did) that her fingerprints would be on the bowl of pineapple? I dont see how she could have gotten up in the middle of the night, got the pineapple out, and not leave any fingerprints on the bowl.

Unless....Burke was the one who got up and got the pineapple out, and JB heard him, and went downstairs....

If that was the case, I wonder why they wouldnt go back up to bed together :shrug:

JMO

[nuisanceposter]

Actually Burke was known to drink tea. The interesting thing about the spent tea bag is that it was in a water glass, not a coffee cup. Why would anyone make tea with a tea bag in a water glass? Some people speculate that the tea bag was in the glass as a receptacle, and that the tea was drank from another cup.

The pineapple and the bowl it was in are important becuase they show the Ramseys were lying. Patsy claimed to not recognize the bowl, but her prints were on it, and Burke and John recognized it. So why would Patsy lie?

The pineapple in JonBenet's intestine only comes across as a lie when considered with other evidence - such as the fact that Burke testified that JonBenet was awake when the Ramseys returned home Christmas night. He said she walked in the house ahead of their mother, contradicting the stories that John and Patsy gave saying she was carried in asleep. Now consider that both John and Patsy said that she was tucked in bed by them that night when first asked by police (in fact, Patsy said she sang to her and John said he read to her) only to chnange that story four months later to the carried in asleep story.

The pineapple was far enough digested in JonBenet's system that she had to have eaten it at least an hour before she was killed. Now if Patsy and John's second story about her being asleep is to be believed, an intruder came in, got JB up, fed her pineapple, and then waited at least an hour before he killed her.

Come on.

[Britches22]

There are so many things about the R's story that dont add up, nevermind the fact that their story has changed a million times.

Now, some whacko comes out of the wood work and says he is the one who killed JB.....

I am with you when you say


COME ON

JMO

[chatwuann]

The Ramseys could do nothing right in this investigation. If there weren't inconsistencies in their statments people would still think they were guilty.

I don't know that John Karr is the one who killed JonBenet or not and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But the similarity between the a d n and the double l's in his yearbook writing and the ransom note are difficult for me to just brush off. Plus the phrase Shall Be The Conquerer goes along well with the word Victory at the end of the Ransom note. It will be interesting if the current sample of John Karr's handwriting will have those similarities as well. And because of the time difference between Alabama and Colorado it was possible for John Karr to fly to Colorado and back to Alabama. If the prosecution produces a plane ticket that is dated Dec. 25th then that will clinch it. If the DNA matches then that will clinch it. I really don't believe in the DNA evidence because I think JonBenet's killer was too smart to leave blood with DNA in it behind. Not to mention John Karr's ex-wife cant produce a family photo with him in it that Christmas or a video recording. Of course dates on photos can be manipulated and so can the time and date on video recordings.

Of course John Karr is presumed innocent until proven guilty but he still has to be checked out. If he isn't guilty then that will come out. We'll just have to wait and see.

JMO

chatwuann

[chatwuann]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Actually Burke was known to drink tea. The interesting thing about the spent tea bag is that it was in a water glass, not a coffee cup. Why would anyone make tea with a tea bag in a water glass? Some people speculate that the tea bag was in the glass as a receptacle, and that the tea was drank from another cup.

The pineapple and the bowl it was in are important becuase they show the Ramseys were lying. Patsy claimed to not recognize the bowl, but her prints were on it, and Burke and John recognized it. So why would Patsy lie?

The pineapple in JonBenet's intestine only comes across as a lie when considered with other evidence - such as the fact that Burke testified that JonBenet was awake when the Ramseys returned home Christmas night. He said she walked in the house ahead of their mother, contradicting the stories that John and Patsy gave saying she was carried in asleep. Now consider that both John and Patsy said that she was tucked in bed by them that night when first asked by police (in fact, Patsy said she sang to her and John said he read to her) only to chnange that story four months later to the carried in asleep story.

The pineapple was far enough digested in JonBenet's system that she had to have eaten it at least an hour before she was killed. Now if Patsy and John's second story about her being asleep is to be believed, an intruder came in, got JB up, fed her pineapple, and then waited at least an hour before he killed her.

Come on.

The pineapple was far enough digested in JonBenet's system that she had to have eaten it at least an hour before she was killed. Now if Patsy and John's second story about her being asleep is to be believed, an intruder came in, got JB up, fed her pineapple, and then waited at least an hour before he killed her.

Come on. [/B][/QUOTE]

There's the possibility that that is exactly what happened and the Ramseys have been telling the truth all along.

JMO





chatwuann

[chatwuann]

I believe that the intruder entered the home earlier and was waiting for the Ramseys to get home and when they had and settled in he made his move. You know what mostly happened to JonBenet after that.

JMO




chatwuann

[Athena]

Originally posted by Jayelles


Something that always struck me was the fact that Steve Thomas spent Christmas away from his family and working on the case - such was his determination to find justice for JonBenet. <SNIP>

HOGWASH! Please, please before posting do some research. The police were not even at the house on Christmas Day and he was assigned two days after and had never worked on a homicide case before. :rolleyes:

[thecaptinswife]

Originally posted by chatwuann


Calling JonBenet "that child" may speak loudly to you but it doesn't to me. I think it has been blown out of proportion and has been given greater significance than it deserves. I asked the question because I was curious under what circumstances that child was used but it seems now that this is a sore point for a lot of people who lean toward the guilt of the Ramseys. AAJMO

I have referred to my children as "that child" many times. Just depends what context and the conversation I was having. My children are alive and well and unabused, sexually or otherwise!



armchair detective/trucrmbuf

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Britches22
There are so many things about the R's story that dont add up, nevermind the fact that their story has changed a million times.

Now, some whacko comes out of the wood work and says he is the one who killed JB.....

I am with you when you say


COME ON

JMO

So true. Ramsey supporters should read this before screaming that Karr wrote the ransom note:
http://www.acandyrose.com/02182003dh911motion.pdf

The similarity between Patsy's handwriting and the note is striking.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by rashomon


So true. Ramsey supporters should read this before screaming that Karr wrote the ransom note:
http://www.acandyrose.com/02182003dh911motion.pdf

The similarity between Patsy's handwriting and the note is striking.


Yes, I would say "striking" is the word at least. The number of similarities between Patsy's handwriting and the ransom note are highly suspicious.

[Lili007]

Rashomom, thank you for that amazing insight. I didn't quite know, but now there's no question - at least not in my mind.

I always thought JonBenet's murder was of a very personal nature.

Poor Patsy. I think she finally became jealous of her own daughter's beauty, even as she was making or encouraging JonBenet to be the beauty queen she thought she had been, at some stage in her life.

In the process, she forgot that JonBenet was only 6 and should never have been made up to look 20 years older, and pushed into becoming the beauty queen her sick mother aspired to.

Too bad that her mother turned out to be sick in the flesh, as well as in the mind. Much worse, that her daughter never even had a chance.

JMO,
Lili

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I have no trouble believing a parent could write the ransom note.

I DO have doubt when it comes to the garrote but I certainly wouldn't say that it is 100% IMPOSSIBLE.

I think people who face losing everything can do some pretty incredible/sickening things.

Losing your money/life-style might be pretty amazing motivation that causes sound reason to fly out the window.

If only one parent did it and it was Patsy then there would be no lifestyle or money to lose. John could have gotten the sympathy of the entire nation for having a screwed up wife an losing his daughter. Unless he was sooo in love with his wife that she was his entire world. My husband is awfully in love with me and might not leave me in this situation but, would not cover for me.
The only thing that makes sense is if Burke did it. I could see them covering for him. Then they would not have been in their right minds to write the note.
I think there must be missing piece of this puzzle that none has thought of yet.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


That's so true, Hohum. And they better stay away from my computer! :D:

I'm not saying that being strange PROVES a person is capable of crimminal activity.

I'm only pointing out things I read that caused me to look at Patsy & scratch my head.

Here we have millionaires, who do NOT use an alarm & they leave a toddler alone in the house at 1:00 am. Nobody is going to accuse them of being smart, that's for sure.

Not me, anyway. LOL

We do not know that he was alone. maybe one of John's older children were there.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


If only one parent did it and it was Patsy then there would be no lifestyle or money to lose. John could have gotten the sympathy of the entire nation for having a screwed up wife an losing his daughter. Unless he was sooo in love with his wife that she was his entire world. My husband is awfully in love with me and might not leave me in this situation but, would not cover for me.
The only thing that makes sense is if Burke did it. I could see them covering for him. Then they would not have been in their right minds to write the note.
I think there must be missing piece of this puzzle that none has thought of yet.


I have thought that Burke did it and the parents covered for him, but I no longer think that is possible. Burke was questioned alone without his parents very soon after the murder, and it might have even been on 26 Dec, the day JBR was found. He was also questioned some months later, also alone. He was only nine years old.

One thing this little discussion here has convinced me of is that Burke is not involved. I also think this rules out anyone else, like one of John's other children, being somehow in the house that night.

It was just the four of them there that night, and with a possible fifth, if you think an intruder was involved. If it was an intruder it was one who acted very strangely. He acted almost the opposite of how one would expect one to act. He could have fled with the little girl out of a door or a window. Instead he left the dead body in a room in the basement that had only one door and no windows. Why would an intruder even enter an empty room like that one?

[rosebud]

Learning that Burke was questioned alone also presents a problem for the theory that Patsy got into an altercation with JBR in a 2nd floor bathroom over bedwetting during the night.

It would seem that it might have awakened Burke, and either he slept through it, he covered for his mother, or it never happened, at least not on the second floor. The fact that Burke went to Fleet Whites on the 26 Dec away from his parents seems to me to show that they had nothing to fear about anything he might say to police. If it did happen on the 2nd floor there would be no way of knowing if he had slept through it. He might say something that would incriminate them if they did kill JBR. Apparently he did not say anything like that.

I am going to say Burke had nothing to tell about who might have killed JB. That would mean probably, to me anyway, that it all happened in the kitchen, the third floor, or the basement.

[irishlady]

i'm very new to the forums so please bear with me..i have followed this case on and off for the last decade and i just wondered if anyone finds it a coincidence that Patsy dies and then we have this "confession"?I have always felt that Patsy knew more than she was telling and looking at a link on another thread that shows the handwriting comparisons i feel justified in thinking that.I really do not believe that this person did this crime.I DO think he was there when it happened but in what capacity i don't know...jmo...thank you for bearing with me

[rosebud]

Originally posted by irishlady
i'm very new to the forums so please bear with me..i have followed this case on and off for the last decade and i just wondered if anyone finds it a coincidence that Patsy dies and then we have this "confession"?I have always felt that Patsy knew more than she was telling and looking at a link on another thread that shows the handwriting comparisons i feel justified in thinking that.I really do not believe that this person did this crime.I DO think he was there when it happened but in what capacity i don't know...jmo...thank you for bearing with me


I looked at what was probably the same handwriting comparison between Patsy and the ransom note. The comparison was very striking. I also saw a comparison between Karr's writing and the note. There are some similiarities, but it is no contest: Patsy wins hands down. Right now I am leaning to the "Patsy did it" theory.

I don't know why she did it and I cannot pin down what must have been the exact series of events that night, and just when John came on board (participated in the killing, got up and helped her with the note and the plan, the next day after the body was found?), but the handwriting comparison is compelling.

Against what seems to me all logic, I am thinking she must have done it. I am also giving new weight to the forensic evidence that indicated JBR was suffering from chronic sexual abuse from someone over a long period of time.

Then the million dollar question becomes, "what role does John Ramsey play in all of this, and why?"

[rashomon]

Originally posted by rosebud



I looked at what was probably the same handwriting comparison between Patsy and the ransom note. The comparison was very striking. I also saw a comparison between Karr's writing and the note. There are some similiarities, but it is no contest: Patsy wins hands down. Right now I am leaning to the "Patsy did it" theory.

I don't know why she did it and I cannot pin down what must have been the exact series of events that night, and just when John came on board (participated in the killing, got up and helped her with the note and the plan, the next day after the body was found?), but the handwriting comparison is compelling.

Against what seems to me all logic, I am thinking she must have done it. I am also giving new weight to the forensic evidence that indicated JBR was suffering from chronic sexual abuse from someone over a long period of time.

Then the million dollar question becomes, "what role does John Ramsey play in all of this, and why?"
I think it is possible that John had been abusing JB, Patsy caught him and struck out either at him, accidentally missing JB, or JB herself became the focus of her rage. It is not uncommon for mothers to direct thei rage against their daughters when finding out about the abuse by the father.

But even if John had nothing to do with the killing itself (suppose Patsy killed JB in a rage over wetting/soiling), I can still think of a plausible reason why John would help Patsy cover up her crime: Burke. He wanted to spare Burke the horrible experience of having his own mother exposed in public as the person who had killed his little sister in a rage.
I'm also convinced that, if there hadn't Burke been left to care for, Patsy would have killed herself after realizing what she had done.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by rashomon

I think it is possible that John had been abusing JB, Patsy caught him and struck out either at him, accidentally missing JB, or JB herself became the focus of her rage. It is not uncommon for mothers to direct thei rage against their daughters when finding out about the abuse by the father.

But even if John had nothing to do with the killing itself (suppose Patsy killed JB in a rage over wetting/soiling), I can still think of a plausible reason why John would help Patsy cover up her crime: Burke. He wanted to spare Burke the horrible experience of having his own mother exposed in public as the person who had killed his little sister in a rage.
I'm also convinced that, if there hadn't Burke been left to care for, Patsy would have killed herself after realizing what she had done.

REPLY: Your reason for John covering up for Patsy makes sense to me. Protecting Burke may very well have been the reason. Whether JBR was being sexually abused is something I wonder about. I am not sure what to think.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Rippage


Wild, crazy speculation lacking that terrifying concept known as "evidence".

Death by garroting doesn't support a sudden rage killing. It takes a little time to fashion that thing? yes. It does.

moo
I base my speculations on forensic and other circumstantial evidence. For example, fibers from PRs jacket were found on the duct tape and in the paint tray, and fibers from John's shirt were found in JB's genital area. This is very incriminating evidence.
The garrote btw was no real garrote, but a simple knot tied around JB's neck, and the long end of he cord was then wrapped around the paintbrush stick. But if you have tied a knot first, there is no need to pull at the end of a rope to tighten anything, for the knot is fixed. The garrote was therefore a bogus contraption, done for staging purposes to direct the attention away from the parents.
The cord was put around JB's neck when she was already nearing death, and the Ramseys probably thought she was already dead.
Neither does it take much time to fashion that thing, nor is it complicated in any way. A kindergartner can tie a knot like that and wrap some cord around a stick.

[Jayelles]

Originally posted by Athena


HOGWASH! Please, please before posting do some research. The police were not even at the house on Christmas Day and he was assigned two days after and had never worked on a homicide case before. :rolleyes:

Oh my. Seems YOU are the one who needs to check facts (and read posts more carefully)

I didn't SAY Thomas was at the Ramsey house. I said he spent Christmas away from his family working on the Ramsey case. I did NOT say which Christmas. You ASS-U-MEd I was referring to Christmas 1996 which would have been ridiculous because that was BEFORE any murder had taken place.

The source for my ACCURATE post is here:-

Page 275 of Thomas' book:-

After midnight on Christmas - the first annoversary of JonBenet's morder - I drove to the nearby suburb of Vinings and parked across the street from the Ramsey house. Security lights flooded the grounds, a single white rose was in the mailbox, and two great Christmas wreaths hung on the doors. I wanted to ring the bell and say "Let's talk". But I had been forbidden from doing so.

Instead I went back to my hotel room and called home. My wife was crying. She had been with me through thick and thin, but our arguments had become fierce over the past few months. I would spend all day at work and nights on the telephone with witnesses or writing reports, working through the weekends. The Ramseys had become part of our marriage, and she had cursed them both and me when I told her I would be away over Christmas.

She was lonely and depressed and had every right to be. After hanging up, I took a couple of aspirin for a headache that never left me and lay back on the hotel pillow. Christmas dinner was room service, and I watched a movie. Soon, I promised myself, it would get better. But deep down I was coming to realize that there might never be a resolution to this case that dominated my existence.

Apology accepted :-)

[trt]

Originally posted by hohum


With a kicking screaming six year old? Perhaps that is something the killer had not bargained on when he wrote the ransom note. How hard it would be to get the child out of the house. It was certainly a lot easier to leave her body behind once he decided to kill her rather than having to find a way to dispose of her body. It's obvious this guy didn't want to travel with a lot of extra "baggage" since he didn't even bring his own writing material.

Most who think the Ramseys are innocent subscribe to the stun gun theory, so if this were so, why would it be so hard to get her out of the house? Even if there are alarms in the house, its relatively easy to figure out which doors and windows do not have sensors on them from the inside.

[trt]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Not everyone subscribes to the stun gun theory that believe the Ramsey's are innocent. And, it hasn't been proven one way or the other if there was a stun gun used.

I agree, that's why I said most...Hohum is one of the ones that does believe in the theory, so I'm using that as the nexus for my question. I tend not to believe that there was because it wouldn't explain how JB got pineapple in her stomach a few hours before death(IMO).

[bullmoose]

Here is just a thought of mine: what if the pineapple was a red herring, what if Jonbenet got up that night and went to have a snack of pineapple. My daughters, at that age, did in fact, get up and have similar snacks after we had retired for the night. Maybe that is where she was accosted by the killer. Just a thought. bullmoose

[trt]

Originally posted by bullmoose
Here is just a thought of mine: what if the pineapple was a red herring, what if Jonbenet got up that night and went to have a snack of pineapple. My daughters, at that age, did in fact, get up and have similar snacks after we had retired for the night. Maybe that is where she was accosted by the killer. Just a thought. bullmoose


Hmm, maybe, but wasn't it stated that the bowl was at a point in the table where it couldn't be reached by JB? I thought I read that somewhere.

[rosebud]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I don't think the pineapple is a big mystery. If there was pineapple in the refrigerator that day I don't see why she couldn't have opened the door and eaten a bite or two without anyone in the house knowing. Maybe before she went out to ride her back, after she came back in, or maybe before they left for the Whites. I think I read that day that John went and checked the plane out, and Patsy dyed her hair so there was ample time for JonBenet to grab a snack. JMO


REPLY: rosy, it is my understanding that the reason the pineapple is a big deal is that JBR ate it about an hour before she died. And of course pineapple was found in the kitchen. It would seem that if someone shared the pineapple with JBR that night, that person would jump to the head of the class as the prime suspect.

[trt]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I don't think the pineapple is a big mystery. If there was pineapple in the refrigerator that day I don't see why she couldn't have opened the door and eaten a bite or two without anyone in the house knowing. Maybe before she went out to ride her back, after she came back in, or maybe before they left for the Whites. I think I read that day that John went and checked the plane out, and Patsy dyed her hair so there was ample time for JonBenet to grab a snack. JMO

But if that were the case, it was eaten BEFORE the cracked crab, then where would the cracked crab be? In most digestion timetables I've read, it has stated that veggies and fruits are the most easily digestable foods, which would also mean that it wouldn't have taken that long to digest. IMO

[trt]

Originally posted by hohum


We have a security system and there are no sensors visible on either the doors or windows. Beyond that it is dark in that house. It's night not day!

Yes, now that alarm systems have advanced. This was 1996, and they were not all that sophisticated systems(most didn't work on infrared lights or anything). Besides that, if you know a house has an alarm and you have a *pin light* as has been suggested, wouldn't you be looking to make sure that there was no censor? Further, wouldn't you reason that if you made it in without the alarm going off, that it wasn't on?

[trt]

Originally posted by hohum


You are asking the wrong person because I don't believe that the killer ever intended to take JB out of the house. And part of that is based on his using $118,000 in the ransom note. Had he intended this to be a kidnapping he would have asked for far more money. The $118,000 was used to throw suspicion on JR. Anyone who left so few clues behind was smart enough to ask for mega money in a "real" ransom note.

That wasn't really the point of my post. It was in response to you saying *with a kicking and screaming 6 year old* as if that would prevent the killer from taking her out of the house. My question is, if you believe in the stun gun theory, why would this be so hard to believe? How would he *not* use the stun gun to immobilize her and then get her out of the house? He had to prepare for her *kicking and screaming* because he brought the stun gun, according to your theory, correct?

[trt]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I have read that it had been eaten 3 - 4 hours prior to death because of where it was in the digestive process. Not knowing for sure when she died complicates things, too.

So then eating it before going to the whites really isn't an option, right? Because given that time frame, saying that she died *sometime after 11* we would know that she had to eat the pineapple at at least 7 or 8? Since the Whites didn't have any pineapple at their party, we are forced to believe that the pineapple was eaten after that. So I think that it is a bigger deal than we may be thinking.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
I don't think the pineapple is a big mystery. If there was pineapple in the refrigerator that day I don't see why she couldn't have opened the door and eaten a bite or two without anyone in the house knowing. Maybe before she went out to ride her back, after she came back in, or maybe before they left for the Whites. I think I read that day that John went and checked the plane out, and Patsy dyed her hair so there was ample time for JonBenet to grab a snack. JMO
The forensic evidence says that JB did not eat the pineaple before leaving for he Whites. Even Lou Smit was aware of that. JB ate the pineapple after she got home, and a good time elapsed until she was killed.

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by rashomon

I base my speculations on forensic and other circumstantial evidence. For example, fibers from PRs jacket were found on the duct tape and in the paint tray, and fibers from John's shirt were found in JB's genital area. This is very incriminating evidence.
The garrote btw was no real garrote, but a simple knot tied around JB's neck, and the long end of he cord was then wrapped around the paintbrush stick. But if you have tied a knot first, there is no need to pull at the end of a rope to tighten anything, for the knot is fixed. The garrote was therefore a bogus contraption, done for staging purposes to direct the attention away from the parents.
The cord was put around JB's neck when she was already nearing death, and the Ramseys probably thought she was already dead.
Neither does it take much time to fashion that thing, nor is it complicated in any way. A kindergartner can tie a knot like that and wrap some cord around a stick.

No truth in the fiber evidence. :no:

[rashomon]

Originally posted by DixieChick

No truth in the fiber evidence. :no:
There you are wrong. Fibers consistent with the jacket Patsy wore the night before were found in the paint tray and on the sticky side of the duct tape, and fibers from John's shirt were found in JB's genital area.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by DixieChick


No truth in the fiber evidence. :no:

Some people can't understand that police questions to a suspect are not proof. We have heard NO testimony from an expert that tested the fibers that they were consitant with anything. Strange how some people are so unwilling to understand that it is legal for police to lie to suspects and tell them they have "evidence" against them to try to make them confess.

[Athena]

Originally posted by rashomon

The forensic evidence says that JB did not eat the pineaple before leaving for he Whites. Even Lou Smit was aware of that. JB ate the pineapple after she got home, and a good time elapsed until she was killed.

From PMPT:

"Some experts agree that the pineapple could have been eaten as early as 4:30."

It is not absolutely certain it was even pineapple in her system. The coroner knew they found a bowl of pineapple -- autopsy report says "consistent" with pineapple not that it was definitely pineapple. Consistent means no contradiction within a set of known facts. jmo

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Some people can't understand that police questions to a suspect are not proof. We have heard NO testimony from an expert that tested the fibers that they were consitant with anything. Strange how some people are so unwilling to understand that it is legal for police to lie to suspects and tell them they have "evidence" against them to try to make them confess.
You perfectly well know that the Colorado CBI tested the fibers and came up with a match. Your are trying to throw sand into posters' eyes who are not familiar with the case.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

You perfectly well know that the Colorado CBI tested the fibers and came up with a match. Your are trying to throw sand into posters' eyes who are not familiar with the case.

No I do NOT KNOW that. Prove to me there is a match. Show the
Colorado CBI report.

[Athena]

Originally posted by breezy1234


No I do NOT KNOW that. Prove to me there is a match. Show the
Colorado CBI report.

I'd like to see proof as well. The transcripts I have read indicate Wood stopped the quetioning re: the fibers because they did not have any reports nor would they state they were a "match" when questioned by Wood and the BPD stopped. IMO they lied during the questioning to make them believe they had something which they had done all along. jmo

[rashomon]

JMOConsistent with" does not equate to "same as." Anyway, it was Patsy's and John's house, their clothes, their child.........Why would you expect to find their fibers throughout the house? JMO
JFYI: forensic scientists use the term "consistent with" when they have found a match.
So if lab analysis found the fibers to be consistent with clothing worn by the Ramseys, this is very damaging evidence.
Trying to muddy the waters by claiming that fibers from the Ramseys' clothing could have been 'everywhere' is a lame attempt by Ramsey advocates, for these fibers were all found in very incriminating locations: fibers matching John's shirt were found in JB's genital area (even inside inside her genitals!), and fibers matching the jacket Patsy
had worn to the Whites' Christmas party were found on the sticky side of the duct tape which covered JB's mouth in the paint tray and in the wrappings of the garrote handle.)

i

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234


No I do NOT KNOW that. Prove to me there is a match. Show the
Colorado CBI report.
Not every lab report can be accessed online, Breezy. Needless to remind you of that. Steve Thomas mentions the CBI lab's findings in his book (which you refuse to read, and I can't understand why) and before you start to rant against Thomas, keep in mind that if he had stated anything wrong in his book about the CBI, they would have gone public and screamed from the rooftops that he misquoted them. But the CBI never said that Thomas misquoted them.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

Not every lab report can be accessed online, Breezy. Needless to remind you of that. Steve Thomas mentions the CBI lab's findings in his book (which you refuse to read, and I can't understand why) and before you start to rant against Thomas, keep in mind that if he had stated anything wrong in his book about the CBI, they would have gone public and screamed from the rooftops that he misquoted them. But the CBI never said that Thomas misquoted them.


:lol: Steve Thomas???? His book is full of lies, half truths and innuendo's and you expect anyone to believe that piece of tabloid trash? ROFL Unless you can prove what you say it is just more unproven gossip and you KNOW that.

Now you are *****uming to know what CBI would do? LOL

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Athena


I'd like to see proof as well. The transcripts I have read indicate Wood stopped the quetioning re: the fibers because they did not have any reports nor would they state they were a "match" when questioned by Wood and the BPD stopped. IMO they lied during the questioning to make them believe they had something which they had done all along. jmo

Wood stopped the questioning every time he felt that this was going to get dangerous for his client. Typical defense lawyer tactic applied in every country which has a democatic jusice system. Nothing to write home about.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234



:lol: Steve Thomas???? His book is full of lies, half truths and innuendo's and you expect anyone to believe that piece of tabloid trash? ROFL Unless you can prove what you say it is just more unproven gossip and you KNOW that.

Now you are *****uming to know what CBI would do? LOL
How can you claim that Thomas' book is full of lies if you haven't even read it?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

How can you claim that Thomas' book is full of lies if you haven't even read it?


You don't have to read a book to understand him when he is speaking on TV. His face and stupid lies and half truths were all over the media when JonBenet was first killed. You don't have to read a book when you have read Judge Carnes decision in the Wolf trial. You also don't have to read a book when you have read his deposition. He LIED and fudged the truth.

[Athena]

Originally posted by rashomon

How can you claim that Thomas' book is full of lies if you haven't even read it?

Because his own depo contradicts what the wrote. jmo

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234

You don't have to read a book to understand him when he is speaking on TV. His face and stupid lies and half truths were all over the media when JonBenet was first killed. You don't have to read a book when you have read Judge Carnes decision in the Wolf trial. You also don't have to read a book when you have read his deposition. He LIED and fudged the truth.
Info for all posters not familiar with the case: this poster stubbornly refuses to read one the of the basic books on the case.
And she believes Judge Carnes' ruling on the case is gopspel, although it has been pointed out to her that Carnes got her info mainly from the Ramsey's defense team.

I encourage everyone not familiar with the case to study the original documents and also to visit important JB forums like Websleuths, Forums for Justice, Crime and Justice and Crimeshots.
Interesting also that Breezy does not post on these forums which are full of people who have done awesome research on this case.

[bullmoose]

I have read Steve Thomas' book and my opinion of what he wrote is that he should consider getting a job at the Globe. His book has similarly high journalistic standards. bullmoose:lol:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

Info for all posters not familiar with the case: this poster stubbornly refuses to read one the of the basic books on the case.
And she believes Judge Carnes' ruling on the case is gopspel, although it has been pointed out to her that Carnes got her info mainly from the Ramsey's defense team.

I encourage everyone not familiar with the case to study the original documents and also to visit important JB forums like Websleuths, Forums for Justice, Crime and Justice and Crimeshots.
Interesting also that Breezy does not post on these forums which are full of people who have done awesome research on this case.

How childish can you get? I don't agree with you because I read actual court documents and court decisions instead of a tabloid book and "forums" that THINK they know everything so you stomp you feet and "suggest" what others should do????? :lol:

In case you are forgetting the grand jury did NOT indict, the ONLY other testimony under oath was in a civil case and that judge found that there was more evidence that an intruder was guilty AND the Ramseys have NEVER been charged with a crime but you "stubbornly" think tabloid trash is gospel and try to get others to think as childishy as you do. Try to act a little grown up and realize that others DO have opinions different than yours and they are based on facts as they see them. NOT everyone is going to agree with you no matter what they read because they are able to understand the difference between facts and gossip.


Read it and weep.

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm

[bullmoose]

:lol: Amen:lol: bullmoose

[Athena]

Originally posted by rashomon

Info for all posters not familiar with the case: this poster stubbornly refuses to read one the of the basic books on the case.
And she believes Judge Carnes' ruling on the case is gopspel, although it has been pointed out to her that Carnes got her info mainly from the Ramsey's defense team.

I encourage everyone not familiar with the case to study the original documents and also to visit important JB forums like Websleuths, Forums for Justice, Crime and Justice and Crimeshots.
Interesting also that Breezy does not post on these forums which are full of people who have done awesome research on this case.

If Judge Carnes made her ruling on the Ramsey's team defense team then it is quite obvious that the Plaintiffs did not make their case and were lacking in credible information. Both sides submit their motons and supporting documentation so to say she did not have all the facts is misleading. Just one side's supporting arguments were alot stronger than the others and isn't that what a trial is all about? DA Keenan concurred with her decision. In addition to that, Judge Carners herself was a former Prosecutor.

And let us not forget that a Grand Jury did NOT indict.

As far as Thomas' book it is based on lies, innuendos and faulty theories which have been disproven over the years. His own deposition contradicts the information in his book much of which was discredited prior to its publication and I am sure the publisher who had to pay for his blunders are not too happy.

Forums are made up of people just like on this board and is subject to erroneous information as well - some do research and some don't. Misinformation is posted on those forums just like misinformation is posted here such as this one.

Personally, I believe the ONLY book in addition to the transcripts that is unbiased and lets you form your own conclusions is PMPT. JMHO

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Athena


If Judge Carnes made her ruling on the Ramsey's team defense team then it is quite obvious that the Plaintiffs did not make their case and were lacking in credible information. Both sides submit their motons and supporting documentation so to say she did not have all the facts is misleading. Just one side's supporting arguments were alot stronger than the others and isn't that what a trial is all about? DA Keenan concurred with her decision. In addition to that, Judge Carners herself was a former Prosecutor.

And let us not forget that a Grand Jury did NOT indict.

As far as Thomas' book it is based on lies, innuendos and faulty theories which have been disproven over the years. His own deposition contradicts the information in his book much of which was discredited prior to its publication and I am sure the publisher who had to pay for his blunders are not too happy.

Forums are made up of people just like on this board and is subject to erroneous information as well - some do research and some don't. Misinformation is posted on those forums just like misinformation is posted here such as this one.

Personally, I believe the ONLY book in addition to the transcripts that is unbiased and lets you form your own conclusions is PMPT. JMHO
Have you ever heard the term 'miscarriage of justice'? And that's exactly what happened in the JB case. The Ramseys have been given kid glove treatment right from the start. DA Hunter was a coward who let himself be intimidated by them and their lawyers. And Lacy is no better.
That is why this crime has not been solved - because pf people like Hunter, Lacy, DeMuth and Smit.
To claim that Steve Thomas' book is based on lies is typical Ramsey Spin Team propaganda, and sadly, many people have swallowed the RST propaganda. It was the Ramseys who have lied and given themselves away countless times in interviews. You may hate Thomas' book, but it will endure and forever remain a thorn in the side of the Ramsey advocates.
As for PMPT, it is a good book too. Especially interesting is the part where the FBIs CASKU experts point out to the Boulder police and DA that the killing of JB was an inside job and that the whole thing screams staging.

[Devotion]

Originally posted by rashomon

You perfectly well know that the Colorado CBI tested the fibers and came up with a match. Your are trying to throw sand into posters' eyes who are not familiar with the case.

:shrug: IMO: You noticed too? Spending hours 7 days a week throwing sand in others eyes, throwing a wrench in intelligent discussions. Seems to be a job with some?..jmo

[Devotion]

Originally posted by rashomon
JMO
JFYI: forensic scientists use the term "consistent with" when they have found a match.
So if lab analysis found the fibers to be consistent with clothing worn by the Ramseys, this is very damaging evidence.
Trying to muddy the waters by claiming that fibers from the Ramseys' clothing could have been 'everywhere' is a lame attempt by Ramsey advocates, for these fibers were all found in very incriminating locations: fibers matching John's shirt were found in JB's genital area (even inside inside her genitals!), and fibers matching the jacket Patsy
had worn to the Whites' Christmas party were found on the sticky side of the duct tape which covered JB's mouth in the paint tray and in the wrappings of the garrote handle.)


:shrug: IMO: Where can I read more on this fiber test?
When/ where was this tape put on JonB's
mouth?..jmo

[Devotion]

Originally posted by DixieChick


No truth in the fiber evidence. :no:

:shrug: IMO: Documents prove you are wrong.. Please show where you found this statement you are stating as "fact."....jmo

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by rashomon

You perfectly well know that the Colorado CBI tested the fibers and came up with a match. Your are trying to throw sand into posters' eyes who are not familiar with the case.

Let's see a link to the fiber test results we are supposed to "perfectly well know".

The only thing I've heard about it is posters speculating on various boards. Non of them have ever provided a link showing where they got that supposed information.

Can you?

Steve Thomas even said he thought the fibers on JohBenet's genital area were from a washcloth.

I've seen nowhere any official report of them being from John's shirt from the Colorado CBI or anyone else.

I believe the BPD told John that to get him to confess, but he knew it wasn't true so he didn't fall for it.

Here's a link to the transcript on LKL of the recording where the PD interrogate's John about those supposed fibers from his shirt:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/lkl.00.html

[MyrDawn]

By the way, here's a link to the complete transcript of John Ramsey's police interview on April 29, 2000.

After they start questioning John about finding the supposed fibers from his shirt and he tell them he doesn't believe them, his attorney challanges them to produce the report with the supposed test results on the fibers. He Mr. Levin several times to produce the report. Mr. Levin sidesteps it, and Wood finally "If that information means that much to this investigation, Bruce, you would not hesitate to give us that report, period. So let's move to something else."

Bruce Levin responds: " MR. LEVIN: Let's move on to another topic."

No report has ever been produced showing any match of those fibers from John's shirt.

[Athena]

More links to transcripts re: fiber - I know I've read a couple so will be posting them as I find them:

20 Q Were any fiber tests, forensic tests

21 conducted on those articles of clothing by the

22 Boulder Police Department?

23 A I don't know.

24 Q Would you have expected there to be?

25 A Again, without knowing the context and all

116

1 the information, it's difficult to answer.

2 Q The context of Chris Wolf being

3 investigated as an individual under the umbrella of

4 suspicion?

5 A Without knowing what the clothing is and

6 whether there was something that potentially could

7 match --

8 Q Blue cotton sweater?

9 A -- those things, I would expect that.

10 Q Because there were blue fibers found on

11 the crime scene?

12 A Yes.

13 Q So do we know whether the fiber test was

14 conducted on the blue cotton sweater and, if so, the

15 results of whether there was any type of consistency

16 in the fibers with the fibers found at the crime

17 scene?

18 A That I don't know.

19 Q Fiber evidence in and of itself would not

20 eliminate any individual as being under suspicion,

21 would it?

22 A In what way?

23 Q In any way.

24 A Well, fiber evidence -- it's not evidence

25 if it's not a match. So what do you mean by

117

1 evidence?

2 Q When you say it's not a match, that's

3 loose. I mean matches are rare in fiber analysis,

4 aren't they? What you generally come up with --

5 A I don't know how rare they --

6 Q -- is consistent with, isn't that what you

7 generally get?

8 A Yes.

9 Q Okay. Because it would take a very unique

10 fiber to say that we can absolutely tell you that

11 this is a match?

12 A Yes.

13 Q That's a very rare, if ever, occurrence,

14 true?

15 A Yes.

16 Q So if I have got Chris Wolf and he's got a

17 blue cotton sweater and he submits that to the

18 authorities and you check and you say, okay, we've

19 got a fiber from this sweater of Mr. Wolf's and it's

20 consistent with the blue cotton fiber that we found

21 at the crime scene, that doesn't tell you that Chris

22 Wolf was involved in the murder, does it?

23 A No.

24 Q And if it comes back that it's not

25 consistent with, that doesn't tell you that he was

118

1 not involved in the murder, does it?

2 A Correct.

3 Q But you would want to know, it would seem,

4 if he's under suspicion and he submits material to

5 you, in this case hypothetically blue cotton, you

6 would expect it to be analyzed because there were

7 blue cotton fibers found on the crime scene, true?

8 MR. MILLER: Objection. Asked and

9 answered.

10 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Am I right?

11 MR. MILLER: You can answer it again.

12 A Yes.

13 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Okay. To your knowledge,

14 have those blue fibers at the crime scene ever been

15 sourced?

16 MR. MILLER: Wait a minute. What is the

17 question?

18 MR. WOOD: To his knowledge, have the blue

19 fibers found at the crime scene ever been sourced.

20 A There are a lot of reports around on fiber

21 evidence. To the best of my recollection, no.

22 Q (BY MR. WOOD) Were there any other color

23 fibers found at the crime scene that had not been

24 sourced?

25 A That have not been sourced?

119

1 Q Yes.

2 A Yes.

3 Q What colors?

4 A Brown.

5 Q So blue, brown, anything else?

6 A Not off the top of my head, no.

7 Q That's something that could be ascertained

8 with research?

9 A Yes.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.htm

[Athena]

13 MR. WOOD: No, I don't. I

14 honestly do not.

15 MR. KANE: Well, I am telling

16 you, it is -- is it conclusive in the sense

17 that, that there is something unique about it

18 that could only come from a particular item,

19 then the answer is no.

20 Is it that it is identical in all

21 respects to the fibers off of the jacket,

22 then the answer is yes.

23 Now, does that mean it is

24 conclusive?

25 MR. WOOD: It doesn't sound like

0188

1 it to me.

2 MR. KANE: Then you have got your

3 answer.

4 MR. WOOD: It sounds like to

5 me --

6 MR. KANE: Then you have your

7 answer.

8 MR. WOOD: Then it is a matter

9 of opinion. It is not a matter of fact.

10 MR. KANE: Then you have your

11 answer.

12 MR. WOOD: I want to make sure,

13 because this is an area that you are asking

14 her to explain something that may or may not

15 be a fact because you are representing to

16 her, Ms. Ramsey, a fiber from your red and

17 black and gray jacket was found in the paint

18 tray, how do you explain it.

19 I mean, if it is a matter of

20 fact, I will let her answer that.

21 MR. LEVIN: Well, Mr. Wood, let

22 me -- I thought I made it as clear as

23 possible. I will try to clarify for you.

24 I assume that, in your practice,

25 that you have dealt with --

0189

1 MR. WOOD: Don't assume anything

2 about my practice. I am asking you a

3 question. You used the term in your

4 question, Mr. Levin, you used the term in

5 your question, and I am sure that you have

6 precisely framed your questions. You said

7 appears.

8 Now, "appears to be" and "is," in

9 my practice, are two different things. I

10 want to make very clear what the question is

11 before I let her answer. That is all I am

12 asking.

13 MR. LEVIN: Given -- and I want

14 to answer your question. I am going to try

15 to answer your question before I phrase it

16 to your client.

17 Given the status of fiber

18 analysis, the state of the art, that fiber

19 is identical in all respects to fibers from

20 your client's coat; however, as is the case

21 with any type of scientific evidence, even

22 DNA evidence, where you get numbers that say,

23 for example, the likelihood of a random match

24 would be 1 in, say, 14 trillion. An expert

25 is not going to get up, they'll talk about

0190

1 numbers, but they are not going to get up

2 and say that that is the DNA from that man.

3 MR. WOOD: Maybe you should give

4 us the numbers on this fiber.

5 MR. LEVIN: There are no numbers

6 on the fiber.

7 MR. WOOD: Give us that, whatever

8 you got, and we will look at it.

9 MR. LEVIN: Do you understand

10 what I'm saying? I don't want to, I don't

11 want to mislead you because scientific

12 evidence is always subject to --

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

[Athena]

9 What I'm asking you is do you know if there

10 was ever any forensic evidence indicating that

11 any article of clothing that Patsy wore was

12 found as a particle in that panty area of

13 JonBenet?

14 A. No, I am unaware of any forensic

15 or fiber evidence from Patsy Ramsey's clothing

16 to the victim's under clothing or underwear.

17 Q. Do you know if there was any

18 forensic evidence of Patsy Ramsey's clothing

19 at all besides the duct tape area on

20 JonBenet?

21 A. As we sit here now, no, I don't

22 recollect any other fiber evidence, other than

23 what we have discussed linking the mother to

24 JonBenet.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm

[Athena]

15 MR. WOOD: Because your people

16 have been saying it. I am not calling your

17 name. I don't know who it is linked to.

18 I don't know who gave the ransom note to

19 Vanity Fair. I'm not suggesting it is you.

20 But don't sit here and tell me that because

21 Bruce Levin hasn't been quoted that this

22 investigation from the Boulder Police

23 Department and the district attorney's office

24 is a lily white when it comes to talking

25 about this case in the media because that is

0062

1 false, and you know it.

2 MR. LEVIN: Now, Mr. Wood, if I

3 can just respond very briefly, and I want

4 Mr. Ramsey to listen to this because it's

5 important, the suggestion is that I am

6 suggesting that the only explanation for that

7 question is sinister. I am a part of a

8 team conducting an investigation into your

9 daughter's death, and an innocent explanation

10 that would help us further that investigation

11 is very welcome. I am not looking for a

12 sinister answer or innocent answer.

13 MR. WOOD: If you are looking for

14 that, then give us the test result and let

15 us know what it says.

16 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood, the fact

17 of --

18 MR. WOOD: No, Bruce. If you

19 wanted the answer so badly, you would give

20 us the test result instead of representing

21 what the test result is. I, for the life

22 of me, do not understand the logic.

23 You say we can tell you what the

24 test result is, but we can't show you the

25 test result. So trust us, Mr. Ramsey, and

0063

1 answer this hypothetical question.

2 If that information means that

3 much to this investigation, Bruce, you would

4 not hesitate to give us that report, period.

5 So let's move to something else.

6 MR. LEVIN: Let's move on to

7 another topic.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-John-Interview-Complete.htm

[docg]

I think we can assess the importance of the fiber evidence from the extreme manner in which Lin Wood reacts. The match between John's fibers and fibers found in JonBenet's panties are particularly damaging because, unlike Patsy's fibers, which could have been innocently transferred, the father's fibers in his daughter's privates could NOT. I say match, because this was a shirt made in Israel, something very unusual, so if they are consistent it's hard to see anything but a match.

Wood is way out of line demanding to see the report. The BPD had already supplied the Ramseys with far too many reports, reports NO suspect is allowed to have access to until AFTER he is indicted. Wood knew that. He is grandstanding.

Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever that the police used any deceitful tactics in questioning the Ramseys. And they were not trying to get him to admit to anything. If you read the transcript you will see they were looking for an innocent explanation.

Wood says he looked into this matter and learned that the match report was a lie. Sorry, but I've looked into many assertions Wood has made and determined that HE routinely has either lied outright or deliberatly misled the public concerning the evidence in this case. His ridiculous story about "seven open windows and doors" is a case in point.

The police interrogator stated in no uncertain terms that they had found a match between John's fibers and fibers found on JonBenet. I see no reason to doubt that. Wood can grandstand all he wants but he had no right to see any police report and he knows that.

[Athena]

Originally posted by docg
I think we can assess the importance of the fiber evidence from the extreme manner in which Lin Wood reacts. The match between John's fibers and fibers found in JonBenet's panties are particularly damaging because, unlike Patsy's fibers, which could have been innocently transferred, the father's fibers in his daughter's privates could NOT. I say match, because this was a shirt made in Israel, something very unusual, so if they are consistent it's hard to see anything but a match.

Wood is way out of line demanding to see the report. The BPD had already supplied the Ramseys with far too many reports, reports NO suspect is allowed to have access to until AFTER he is indicted. Wood knew that. He is grandstanding.

Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever that the police used any deceitful tactics in questioning the Ramseys. And they were not trying to get him to admit to anything. If you read the transcript you will see they were looking for an innocent explanation.

Wood says he looked into this matter and learned that the match report was a lie. Sorry, but I've looked into many assertions Wood has made and determined that HE routinely has either lied outright or deliberatly misled the public concerning the evidence in this case. His ridiculous story about "seven open windows and doors" is a case in point.

The police interrogator stated in no uncertain terms that they had found a match between John's fibers and fibers found on JonBenet. I see no reason to doubt that. Wood can grandstand all he wants but he had no right to see any police report and he knows that.

"The match between John's fibers and fibers found in JonBenet's panties are particularly damaging because, unlike Patsy's fibers, which could have been innocently transferred, the father's fibers in his daughter's privates could NOT." (from your post)

Ah but they could have been innocently transferred. JonBenet had on a dress -- her underwear were oversized -- fiber is light and could have "floated". I do believe this could be possible and an innocent explanation had it gone that far.

I have a cat -- I have found cat hair in some unusual places. LOL jmo

[Ames]

Originally posted by


Here is the answer: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The Ramsey's hired an attorney from the beginning of this case. They refused to meet with the police, they lied and said they'd start a foundation in the name of their murdered daughter and didn't...and- what are they doing to find the "real killer?"

A good site for info on this case is: www.acandyrose.com

AND...they didn't want the FBI to administer the lie detector test! What is WRONG with this picture??

[Athena]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


There were no fibers on JonBenet's private area that could be linked to any clothes owned by John or Patsy Ramsey. (PM/PT - Page 514)

Yep. Which means the police deliberately lied in the interview. My response above was just trying to show there could have been an innocent transfer JMO

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by docg
I think we can assess the importance of the fiber evidence from the extreme manner in which Lin Wood reacts. The match between John's fibers and fibers found in JonBenet's panties are particularly damaging because, unlike Patsy's fibers, which could have been innocently transferred, the father's fibers in his daughter's privates could NOT. I say match, because this was a shirt made in Israel, something very unusual, so if they are consistent it's hard to see anything but a match.

Wood is way out of line demanding to see the report. The BPD had already supplied the Ramseys with far too many reports, reports NO suspect is allowed to have access to until AFTER he is indicted. Wood knew that. He is grandstanding.

Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever that the police used any deceitful tactics in questioning the Ramseys. And they were not trying to get him to admit to anything. If you read the transcript you will see they were looking for an innocent explanation.

Wood says he looked into this matter and learned that the match report was a lie. Sorry, but I've looked into many assertions Wood has made and determined that HE routinely has either lied outright or deliberatly misled the public concerning the evidence in this case. His ridiculous story about "seven open windows and doors" is a case in point.

The police interrogator stated in no uncertain terms that they had found a match between John's fibers and fibers found on JonBenet. I see no reason to doubt that. Wood can grandstand all he wants but he had no right to see any police report and he knows that.


Ah, but UNTIL it is testified to in court it is NOT evidence at all. :rolleyes: The GJ DID hear the evidence and they did NOT indict so therefore IMO the cops DID lie about John's shirt fibers.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Athena


"The match between John's fibers and fibers found in JonBenet's panties are particularly damaging because, unlike Patsy's fibers, which could have been innocently transferred, the father's fibers in his daughter's privates could NOT." (from your post)

Ah but they could have been innocently transferred. JonBenet had on a dress -- her underwear were oversized -- fiber is light and could have "floated". I do believe this could be possible and an innocent explanation had it gone that far.

I have a cat -- I have found cat hair in some unusual places. LOL jmo
Floated? LOL! You really believe that fibers fibers could have 'floated' inside JB's genitals?? To be precise, fibers from John's shirt were also found inside the folds of JB's labia. This is extremely damaging evidence.

And btw, the panel of medical experts who agreed that JB had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse were not 'talking heads', but these experts had been shown slides of the damaged vaginal tissue of the child. Among them was Dr. McCann, a world-renowned pediatric expert on the subject of sexual child abuse.

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by breezy1234



Ah, but UNTIL it is testified to in court it is NOT evidence at all. :rolleyes: The GJ DID hear the evidence and they did NOT indict so therefore IMO the cops DID lie about John's shirt fibers.

But breezy,
Do any of us know with certainty that the GJ did NOT vote to indict? after all, they are sworn to secrecy for life.

I hate to keep repeating things I have posted in the past, but I remember watching the A&E special, and I recall the controversy surrounding the GJ's decision when it was announced that there would be no indictment.

Alex Hunter was asked about the controversy, and the rumor swirling around that the GJ had voted to indict but he stepped in and wouldn't allow that to happen. Mr. Hunter gave no direct answer, he only brought up past high profile cases such as OJ and another where he felt the D.A was to quick to file charges and lost those cases, and he didn't feel as if that's what JonBenet would want him to do in this case.

I remain suspicious of the Grand Jury's decision based on Alex Hunters response.

IMO

[bullmoose]

To Hopeintown: I am a bit confused here, If the GJ voted to indict, how would that decision not be honored by the DA? If Alex Hunter somehow had the right to disregard the GJ's decision; which I do not find credible, then I think that someone on that grand jury, sworn to secrecy for life or not, would have long ago spilled the beans to the press, out of frustration at having a yearlong session totally thwarted. How could have Alex Hunter interferred with the process so totally and so secretly?:confused: bullmoose

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by rashomon

Floated? LOL! You really believe that fibers fibers could have 'floated' inside JB's genitals?? To be precise, fibers from John's shirt were also found inside the folds of JB's labia. This is extremely damaging evidence.

snip...

Where did that come from? In the link the interview docg gave a link to, the police said the fibers were in JonBenet's underwear. That is the only place I've ever seen anything about John's shirt fibers.

Please give a link to the report that says they were found inside her genitals.

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


But breezy,
Do any of us know with certainty that the GJ did NOT vote to indict? after all, they are sworn to secrecy for life.

I hate to keep repeating things I have posted in the past, but I remember watching the A&E special, and I recall the controversy surrounding the GJ's decision when it was announced that there would be no indictment.

Alex Hunter was asked about the controversy, and the rumor swirling around that the GJ had voted to indict but he stepped in and wouldn't allow that to happen. Mr. Hunter gave no direct answer, he only brought up past high profile cases such as OJ and another where he felt the D.A was to quick to file charges and lost those cases, and he didn't feel as if that's what JonBenet would want him to do in this case.

I remain suspicious of the Grand Jury's decision based on Alex Hunters response.

IMO

I don't know about GJs in Colorado but in my state it is very common for newspapers to list cases that the GJ true billed and list the ones where they did a "no bill".:shrug:

While the GJ proceedings are secret the results (no bill or true bill) are not.

IMO

Ocean

[Athena]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Where did that come from? In the link the interview docg gave a link to, the police said the fibers were in JonBenet's underwear. That is the only place I've ever seen anything about John's shirt fibers.

Please give a link to the report that says they were found inside her genitals.

There are no links. Posters are posting comments made on other forums without supporting documentation. All speculation. I'd like to further add that Steve Thomas is quoted in many of them. :rolleyes: IMO

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by bullmoose
To Hopeintown: I am a bit confused here, If the GJ voted to indict, how would that decision not be honored by the DA? If Alex Hunter somehow had the right to disregard the GJ's decision; which I do not find credible, then I think that someone on that grand jury, sworn to secrecy for life or not, would have long ago spilled the beans to the press, out of frustration at having a yearlong session totally thwarted. How could have Alex Hunter interferred with the process so totally and so secretly?:confused: bullmoose

I was VERY confused, as well as suspicious when the D.A. (Alex Hunter) answered the question in the manner in which he did. I'm not certain when that A&E special was made, but I do believe it was quite some time after the Grand Jury's decision. I would think that it would have been an opportune moment for Mr. Hunter, sitting face to face with the interviewer that had asked him that question to once and for all clear the air surrounding the controversy and "rumors", but he didn't. He gave the answer that I posted above.

As far as someone "breaking the silence", I don't know. I'm not even sure what the oath is that you take when you sit on a Grand Jury, or the penalty's that are involved if the silence is broken.

All I know is that I remain "suspicious".

IMO

[Jayelles]

Transcript of Mary Lacy Press Conference is here:-

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7715

[rashomon]

Fibers from John's shirt were found inside JBS underpants - this is very damaging evidence.

8-29-00 John Ramsey videotaped interview, Source: http://www.acandyrose.com/atl2000-interviews-john-ramsey.txt


7 Q. (By Mr. Levin) I've got some
8 questions, Mr. Ramsey, that deal with fiber
9 evidence, and this is probably going to be
10 questions that your lawyer is going to advise
11 you not to answer, but I would like to pose
12 them to you.
...
21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is
22 our belief based on forensic evidence that
23 there are hairs that are associated, that the
24 source is the collared black shirt that you
25 sent us that are found in your daughter's
0058
1 underpants, and I wondered if you --
2 A. Bull****. I don't believe that.
3 I don't buy it. If you are trying to
4 disgrace my relationship with my daughter --
5 Q. Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to
6 disgrace --
7 A. Well, I don't believe it. I
8 think you are. That's disgusting.

I suppose that in line 23 this was a typo, and it should read 'fibers' and not 'hairs', for the question was about fiber evidence.



From the Bonita papers:
"During the vaginal examination, small dark colored fibers were found on JonBenet's external labia. A faint area of purple discoloration was noted on the right labia major. Vascular congestion was found along the inner membrane of the vaginal vault, and red water fluid, appearing to be blood, was present. The hymeneal opening had a mild abrasion, and the hymen appeared to have been torn. Dr. Meyer noted that the trauma to JonBenet's vaginal area was consistent with digital, rather than penile penetration. He was not able to determine if there had been previous trauma to the vaginal area. Dr. Meyer stated that it appeared that JonBenet's pubic area may have been cleaned, or at least wiped by someone using a towel or piece of clothing. Small dark blue fibers, consistent with a cotton towel, were recovered from the vaginal area."

Are those 'small dark colored fibers' the same as the 'dark blue fibers' consistent with a cotton towel?

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by rashomon
Fibers from John's shirt were found inside JBS underpants - this is very damaging evidence.

<snip>


8-29-

No fibers belonging to either of the Ramseys' clothes were identified. It was a police ploy that did not work. PM/PT

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by rashomon

snipped...

Are those 'small dark colored fibers' the same as the 'dark blue fibers' consistent with a cotton towel?

Yes. Some times they are described as dark, and times blue, and the LE called them "black" in John's 2000 interview, in an attempt to trick him, IMO. It didn't work.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


No fibers belonging to either of the Ramseys' clothes were identified. It was a police ploy that did not work. PM/PT
Not true. For example:
JonBenet, p. 254:

"The colorado Bureau of Investigtion labs ran comparison tests and reported that four fibers that had been discovered on the tape were chemicaly and miscroscopically consistent with the fibers of Patsy's jacket."

Could you please give the page on PMPT where Schiller says that no fibers were identified.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by rashomon

Not true. For example:
JonBenet, p. 254:

"The colorado Bureau of Investigtion labs ran comparison tests and reported that four fibers that had been discovered on the tape were chemicaly and miscroscopically consistent with the fibers of Patsy's jacket."

Could you please give the page on PMPT where Schiller says that no fibers were identified.

Consistent with does not mean identical. It's never been stated definitively that Patsy's jacket fibers were found near the crime scene. And, Priscilla White had a very similar jacket, so I'd bet fibers from that would be consistent, too. No, I don't believe it was Priscilla, so don't go down that path.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Consistent with does not mean identical. It's never been stated definitively that Patsy's jacket fibers were found near the crime scene. And, Priscilla White had a very similar jacket, so I'd bet fibers from that would be consistent, too. No, I don't believe it was Priscilla, so don't go down that path.
'Consistent with' is the language lab techs use when they have actually found a match.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Consistent with does not mean identical. It's never been stated definitively that Patsy's jacket fibers were found near the crime scene. And, Priscilla White had a very similar jacket, so I'd bet fibers from that would be consistent, too. No, I don't believe it was Priscilla, so don't go down that path.

You're right. Consistent with does not mean "same as."

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by rashomon


snip>

Could you please give the page on PMPT where Schiller says that no fibers were identified.

No, I took the book back to the library, but a link has been posted before.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


You're right. Consistent with does not mean "same as."
Lab techs never use the words 'same as' - they always use the words 'consistent with'. Therefore if lab analysis finds fiber A to be chemically and microscopically 'consistent with' fiber B, they have actually found matching fibers in laypeople's words.

[Poster]

Originally posted by rashomon

Lab techs never use the words 'same as' - they always use the words 'consistent with'. Therefore if lab analysis finds fiber A to be chemically and microscopically 'consistent with' fiber B, they have actually found matching fibers in laypeople's words.

Have you ever thought about why they never say "same as" and say things like "microscopically consistent with"

The reality of it is that there is no such thing as a proof positive fiber match;it's not DNA or fingerprints.

That is, there is no way to prove 100% that a certain fiber came from a particular shirt, towel, or whatever. Thus the best they can do is show that the fibers are "microscopically similar" or "consistent with"

[Poster]

Here is some info regarding the issue from the FBI

"It is argued that the large volume of fabric produced reduces the significance of any fiber association discovered in a criminal case. It can never be stated with certainty that a fiber originated from a particular garment because other garments were likely produced using the same fiber type and color. The inability to positively associate a fiber with a particular garment to the exclusion of all other garments, however, does not mean that the fiber association is without value."

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/deedric3.htm#Fiber%20Evidence

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Poster


Have you ever thought about why they never say "same as" and say things like "microscopically consistent with"


Yes, I have thought about that. And although fiber analysis is not like DNA, it doesn't mean that it is without value, like the FBI quote in your following post says. Therefore if fibers 'consistent with' a suspect's garment have been found in incriminating locations, as was the case with Patsy's and John's fibers, this is pretty damaging evidence.
There exist criminal cases where people have been convicted on fiber evidence alone.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Yes. Some times they are described as dark, and times blue, and the LE called them "black" in John's 2000 interview, in an attempt to trick him, IMO.
The interviews with the Ramseys were conducted by attorneys, and NOT police officers.
Attorneys are covered by a code of ethics. They can not lie to anyone during an interview, and that includes suspects. It's quite different than police officers, who are not bound by those ethics.



From Patsy's 2000 interview:

8 MR. LEVIN: I understand your
9 position.
10 In addition to those questions,
11 there are some others that I would like you
12 to think about whether or not we can have
13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
22 other areas that we have intended to ask
23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
24 explaining their presence in those locations.


Taking into account that Levin is a lawyer bound by a code of ethics which does not permit him to lie during an interview: so fibers matching a shirt of John's were found both in JB's underpants as well as in the crotch area itself. If this isn't totally incriminating evidence, what else is?

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by rashomon

The interviews with the Ramseys were conducted by attorneys, and NOT police officers.
Attorneys are covered by a code of ethics. They can not lie to anyone during an interview, and that includes suspects. It's quite different than police officers, who are not bound by those ethics.



From Patsy's 2000 interview:

8 MR. LEVIN: I understand your
9 position.
10 In addition to those questions,
11 there are some others that I would like you
12 to think about whether or not we can have
13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
22 other areas that we have intended to ask
23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
24 explaining their presence in those locations.


Taking into account that Levin is a lawyer bound by a code of ethics which does not permit him to lie during an interview: so fibers matching a shirt of John's were found both in JB's underpants as well as in the crotch area itself. If this isn't totally incriminating evidence, what else is?

Please like to where an attorney is bound by a code of ethics not to lie during an interview.

The only thing I've seen in the code of ethics for practicing attorneys about them not lying (making false statements)is in the "Discipline in relation to COURT cases" section and the "Relations with the publicty/Advertising" section.

An interview is neither a court case or advertising.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Please like to where an attorney is bound by a code of ethics not to lie during an interview.

The only thing I've seen in the code of ethics for practicing attorneys about them not lying (making false statements)is in the "Discipline in relation to COURT cases" section and the "Relations with the publicty/Advertising" section.

An interview is neither a court case or advertising.

QUOTE(Deja Nu @ FFJ post #61 on Post Legal Questions Here Thread)

"Trish, we know that police interrogators are permitted and frequently tell suspects information that is not necessarily true in order to elicit confessions. But attorneys are bound by Rules of Ethics and cannot knowingly or willingly lie to elicit confessions. Remember that the 2000 Atlanta interviews were just that, interviews, and not police interrogations, although police investigators were present during the interviews. These interviews were conducted by Levin and Kane unlike the Ramseys former interviews, conducted by police. I understand Kane and Levin to be of the highest caliber of lawyers and therefore draw the conclusions that if they addressed these fiber forensics in interviews they were not lying about it. I find it interesting though that no one has ever mentioned this evidence publicly, but Lacy took over the case shortly after the interviews and she refuses to disclose anything. Lin Wood and Tracy certainly wouldn't mention this evidence for obvious reasons. And it was derived after Drs. Lee and Wecht were involved in the case."

As far as I'm informed, this poster is an attorney herself. And since there are quite a few attorneys posting on true crime boards, I bet she would have received vehement protests from them if the information she posted wasn't accurate.

[Athena]

Originally posted by rashomon


QUOTE(Deja Nu @ FFJ post #61 on Post Legal Questions Here Thread)

"Trish, we know that police interrogators are permitted and frequently tell suspects information that is not necessarily true in order to elicit confessions. But attorneys are bound by Rules of Ethics and cannot knowingly or willingly lie to elicit confessions. Remember that the 2000 Atlanta interviews were just that, interviews, and not police interrogations, although police investigators were present during the interviews. These interviews were conducted by Levin and Kane unlike the Ramseys former interviews, conducted by police. I understand Kane and Levin to be of the highest caliber of lawyers and therefore draw the conclusions that if they addressed these fiber forensics in interviews they were not lying about it. I find it interesting though that no one has ever mentioned this evidence publicly, but Lacy took over the case shortly after the interviews and she refuses to disclose anything. Lin Wood and Tracy certainly wouldn't mention this evidence for obvious reasons. And it was derived after Drs. Lee and Wecht were involved in the case."

As far as I'm informed, this poster is an attorney herself. And since there are quite a few attorneys posting on true crime boards, I bet she would have received vehement protests from them if the information she posted wasn't accurate.

The issue I have with this post is that the DAs are given the reports by the BPD so they may not be aware of the lies. They only receive, analyze and interpret the information given to them. jmo

[Ames]

Originally posted by docg
I think we can assess the importance of the fiber evidence from the extreme manner in which Lin Wood reacts. The match between John's fibers and fibers found in JonBenet's panties are particularly damaging because, unlike Patsy's fibers, which could have been innocently transferred, the father's fibers in his daughter's privates could NOT. I say match, because this was a shirt made in Israel, something very unusual, so if they are consistent it's hard to see anything but a match.

Wood is way out of line demanding to see the report. The BPD had already supplied the Ramseys with far too many reports, reports NO suspect is allowed to have access to until AFTER he is indicted. Wood knew that. He is grandstanding.

Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever that the police used any deceitful tactics in questioning the Ramseys. And they were not trying to get him to admit to anything. If you read the transcript you will see they were looking for an innocent explanation.

Wood says he looked into this matter and learned that the match report was a lie. Sorry, but I've looked into many assertions Wood has made and determined that HE routinely has either lied outright or deliberatly misled the public concerning the evidence in this case. His ridiculous story about "seven open windows and doors" is a case in point.

The police interrogator stated in no uncertain terms that they had found a match between John's fibers and fibers found on JonBenet. I see no reason to doubt that. Wood can grandstand all he wants but he had no right to see any police report and he knows that.

Question for you....I have read in your posts, AND in other places, that the hair that was found, actually was one of Patsy's Underarm hairs. I posted this, to another poster, that was wondering where the hair came from. They would like a link, but NOW I cannot find it. Do you know where a link is that states that the hair was actually a underarm hair that belonged to Patsy. THANKS...

[Ames]

Originally posted by Athena


<snipped>

Ah but they could have been innocently transferred. JonBenet had on a dress -- her underwear were oversized -- fiber is light and could have "floated". I do believe this could be possible and an innocent explanation had it gone that far.

I have a cat -- I have found cat hair in some unusual places. LOL jmo

JonBenet was wearing a DRESS? You are mistaken, she wore pants to the White's Christmas Party, and had on long john pants when she died.

[diplomat]

Originally posted by Ames


Question for you....I have read in your posts, AND in other places, that the hair that was found, actually was one of Patsy's Underarm hairs. I posted this, to another poster, that was wondering where the hair came from. They would like a link, but NOW I cannot find it. Do you know where a link is that states that the hair was actually a underarm hair that belonged to Patsy. THANKS...

An underarm hair? I, too, am anxious to see the link where that is stated as evidence.

[docg]

Originally posted by Ames


Question for you....I have read in your posts, AND in other places, that the hair that was found, actually was one of Patsy's Underarm hairs. I posted this, to another poster, that was wondering where the hair came from. They would like a link, but NOW I cannot find it. Do you know where a link is that states that the hair was actually a underarm hair that belonged to Patsy. THANKS...

I'm sure I read that somewhere -- and NOT in a tab eiher, but mainstream press. But don't have time to track it down, sorry.

[Ames]

Originally posted by docg


I'm sure I read that somewhere -- and NOT in a tab eiher, but mainstream press. But don't have time to track it down, sorry.


Oh well, thanks for at least verifying that YOU TOO have seen that somewhere, other than a tab. I tried to find it, but couldn't...I will dig some more. Thanks!

[rashomon]

Originally posted by diplomat

An underarm hair? I, too, am anxious to see the link where that is stated as evidence.
I've read that somewhere too and also posted the question on other message boards but the replies I got were contradictory.
It seems that this is about the pubic hair which was found at the crime scene (on the blanket, I don't remember exactly). This hair had microscopic similarities with the pubic hair of Melinda Ramsey, but it seems that DNA analysis ruled her out. But then I read that this was in fact an underarm hair from Patsy, and elsewhere it was also said that it might be an 'underbelly' hair, whatever the writer meant by that. Pretty confusing. :confused:
I'd like to find out more about this hair too. The problem with the Ramsey case is that so many documents, original reports etc. still remain sealed.

[Sprocket]

Originally posted by Athena


The issue I have with this post is that the DAs are given the reports by the BPD so they may not be aware of the lies. They only receive, analyze and interpret the information given to them. jmo

So, you're certain that Kane, a highly respected attorney would not review the lab reports himself? That he did not familarize himself with the case file?

That the actual case file had inaccurate reports in it? That the reports in the case file are false, and that's what Kane relied on...false reports?

Find me one reputable source that supports this assumption.

That's pretty convoluted logic.

[wadahoot]

Originally posted by breezy1234


If I saw a video as described I would have remembered it. EVERY one of JonBenet's video's have been played over and over for the public on TV and NEVER was thre one like that. Even one of the "bibles" of the guity crowd that has videos on her site does NOT have that made up in a sick mind "video".

http://www.acandyrose.com/maketoastarchive.htm


You ARE spreading gossip and you have NOTHING to back it up!! I call that disgusting. IMO it is YOU who is like a child that has made up it's mind already and truth will not stop you from believeing what your sick mind WANTS to believe about a CHILD and her mother, both now dead. :cuss: Below contempt IMO.

Waaaay back on page 69, there was an argument back and forth about a video showing JonBenet at a senior citizen's home, and whether or not it existed. I wanted to point out a quote in "A Mother Gone Bad" by Andrew Hodges. On page 108 (Chapter 11 - subchapter "All in the Family: Sex Secrets") he states:
Dr. Julianne Densen-Gerber, who reviewed all the videotapes of JonBenet's routines, found a shocking performance JonBenet gave for a senior citizens group. Dressed as an elf, JonBenet put a saxophone between her legs and moved very suggestively - evidencing her instructions on how to be highly sexual.

So, apparently some people have seen this video, or else it's another part of the Great Conspiracy. :shrug:
I'm not trying to prove a point, or pick a fight, just put in a reference that may help.

Peace.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by wadahoot


Waaaay back on page 69, there was an argument back and forth about a video showing JonBenet at a senior citizen's home, and whether or not it existed. I wanted to point out a quote in "A Mother Gone Bad" by Andrew Hodges. On page 108 (Chapter 11 - subchapter "All in the Family: Sex Secrets") he states:


So, apparently some people have seen this video, or else it's another part of the Great Conspiracy. :shrug:
I'm not trying to prove a point, or pick a fight, just put in a reference that may help.

Peace.

IMO "some people" with a vivid imagination THINK they saw this video and with their power of suggestion convinced others it exists but where is this damning "evidence"?? Where are the seniors or caretakers of the senior home who witnessed this "display"? Where is the proof JonBenet was sexually abused? Why didn't she display the symptoms of an abused child? Why didn't her doctor, teachers, church, friends, relatives pick up on it if it is true?

Continuing to come up with this garbage saying she was sexually abused is a great disservice to children who really are abused and is beyond disgusting IMO.
:cuss:

[rosebud]

Originally posted by breezy1234


IMO "some people" with a vivid imagination THINK they saw this video and with their power of suggestion convinced others it exists but where is this damning "evidence"?? Where are the seniors or caretakers of the senior home who witnessed this "display"? Where is the proof JonBenet was sexually abused? Why didn't she display the symptoms of an abused child? Why didn't her doctor, teachers, church, friends, relatives pick up on it if it is true?

Continuing to come up with this garbage saying she was sexually abused is a great disservice to children who really are abused and is beyond disgusting IMO.
:cuss:


Actually the discussion here of JB's toilet habits lead me to suspect that she WAS being sexually abused. Since most childhood sexual abuse probably goes on undetected anyway, why is it so hard to believe that others missed it in JB?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosebud



Actually the discussion here of JB's toilet habits lead me to suspect that she WAS being sexually abused. Since most childhood sexual abuse probably goes on undetected anyway, why is it so hard to believe that others missed it in JB?

A discussion HERE with no proof gives you reason to suspect? :rolleyes: If this happened to your child would you want others to "assume" she was sexually abused because some cases of sexual abuse in children is undetected?

I can't understand WHY some people want to assume the worst of parents with no proof rather than following leads to others who may have killed JonBenet. :shrug:

[rosebud]

Originally posted by breezy1234


A discussion HERE with no proof gives you reason to suspect? :rolleyes: If this happened to your child would you want others to "assume" she was sexually abused because some cases of sexual abuse in children is undetected?

I can't understand WHY some people want to assume the worst of parents with no proof rather than following leads to others who may have killed JonBenet. :shrug:

No I suspect JB was being sexually abused because for one, several imminent forensic pathologists have stated that they believe she was being sexually abused chronically before she died, and because JB allowed ANYONE who was an adult, apparently including men, to wipe down her privates which is very odd, and because her chronic bedwetting, which extended apparently into daytime also, seemed to come and go and had recently reappeared.

On top of that she was murdered and sexually abused on the night she died.

That is why I suspect she was being sexually abused.

Some people on the other hand will NEVER believe the possibility that any child was sexually abused, even after they are murdered. Those people are a child molesters dream.

JMO

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosebud


No I suspect JB was being sexually abused because for one, several imminent forensic pathologists have stated that they believe she was being sexually abused chronically before she died, and because JB allowed ANYONE who was an adult, apparently including men, to wipe down her privates which is very odd, and because her chronic bedwetting, which extended apparently into daytime also, seemed to come and go and had recently reappeared.

On top of that she was murdered and sexually abused on the night she died.

That is why I suspect she was being sexually abused.

Some people on the other hand will NEVER believe the possibility that any child was sexually abused, even after they are murdered. Those people are a child molesters dream.

JMO

Suspect away if it makes you feel good but the evidence does not back up your suspicions.

"12 The bleeding in JonBenet's genital area indicates she was alive when she was assaulted. (SMF 48; PSMF 48.) Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF 48-49; PMSF 48-49.) No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF 50; PSMF 50.) "

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Suspect away if it makes you feel good but the evidence does not back up your suspicions.

"12 The bleeding in JonBenet's genital area indicates she was alive when she was assaulted. (SMF 48; PSMF 48.) Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF 48-49; PMSF 48-49.) No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF 50; PSMF 50.) "

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm
This shows that Judge Carnes has never read the autopsy report. JB's hymen was not 'torn': the hymen consisted only of a rim of tissue going from the two to ten o'clock position. In short: there was hardly any hymen left in JB.
And it is a blatant lie to allege that no evidence exists that JB was the victim of prior sexual abuse. Shame on such a judge, who ruled on important things and didn't even bother to read Dr. McCann's report. Simply incredible. Justice, Boulder style.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

This shows that Judge Carnes has never read the autopsy report. JB's hymen was not 'torn': the hymen consisted only of a rim of tissue going from the two to ten o'clock position. In short: there was hardly any hymen left in JB.
And it is a blatant lie to allege that no evidence exists that JB was the victim of prior sexual abuse. Shame on such a judge, who ruled on important things and didn't even bother to read Dr. McCann's report. Simply incredible. Justice, Boulder style.

Yeah "shame" on anyone who doesn't agree with you. You know more than the judge who saw the evidence. :rolleyes:


SMF - Statement of Material Fact

"12 The bleeding in JonBenet's genital area indicates she was alive when she was assaulted. (SMF 48; PSMF 48.) Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF 48-49; PMSF 48-49.) No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF 50; PSMF 50.) "

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Yeah "shame" on anyone who doesn't agree with you. You know more than the judge who saw the evidence. :rolleyes:


Don't you know that posters, who haven't seen the evidence, should always be believed over officials that have seen the evidence? :D

MOO

[rosebud]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Yeah "shame" on anyone who doesn't agree with you. You know more than the judge who saw the evidence. :rolleyes:


SMF - Statement of Material Fact

"12 The bleeding in JonBenet's genital area indicates she was alive when she was assaulted. (SMF 48; PSMF 48.) Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF 48-49; PMSF 48-49.) No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF 50; PSMF 50.) "

Several respected medical examiners were asked to look at the autopsy evidence on JB and they concluded that JB HAD BEEN chronically sexually abused before death.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosebud


Several respected medical examiners were asked to look at the autopsy evidence on JB and they concluded that JB HAD BEEN chronically sexually abused before death.

SMF - Statement of Material Fact

"12 The bleeding in JonBenet's genital area indicates she was alive when she was assaulted. (SMF 48; PSMF 48.) Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF 48-49; PMSF 48-49.) No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF 50; PSMF 50.) "

[rosebud]

Originally posted by breezy1234


SMF - Statement of Material Fact

"12 The bleeding in JonBenet's genital area indicates she was alive when she was assaulted. (SMF 48; PSMF 48.) Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF 48-49; PMSF 48-49.) No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF 50; PSMF 50.) "

What is your point? The fact remains that in the opinion of some forensic experts she had been chronically abused. Other forensic experts said she had not. You have not proved a thing.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Don't you know that posters, who haven't seen the evidence, should always be believed over officials that have seen the evidence? :D

MOO
And some posters don't seem to know what everyone only halfway familiar with the case knows:

"Judge Carnes' ruling was based only on the facts presented by the Ramseys and their lawyer, Lin Wood, and Wolf and his lawyer Darnay Hoffman, and not on a compreheinsive review of the investigators' 40,000 plus pages of evidence .

Judge Carnes' ruling was based almost entirely on the testimony of Lou Smit." (P. Lakin, Journey Beyond Reason, p. 5/6).

So much for Carnes. Her 93-page ruling was issued when she dismissed a libel-slander suit brought against the Ramseys by Boulder journalist Chris Wolf.

And Breezy, you can quote the nonsense about JB's hymen being torn during the attack until the cows come home, but you won't change the fact one iota that a panel of renowned pediatric experts had come to the conclusion the JB had been the victim of prior sexual abuse.

But the person who spread the false info about JB's hymen being torn had an agenda of course: he wanted to make it appear as if JB's intact hymen had been torn by a sexual predator.
Again: JB's hymen was NOT torn. The hymen consisted only of a rim of tissue. But you close your eyes to the autopsy report, for obvious reasons.

[chatwuann]

I don't put a lot of stock in forensic experts or medical experts after a local crime that took place about 45 minutes from where I live. It was a case about a man accused of killing his wife and children. The first expert said that the bloody footprints showed that he had killed her and the children and then left by the back door out to his shop that was near the garage. A coat was hanging by the door that had blood on it if I remember right. Another expert testified and gave the explanation for the bloody footprints being that of the children trying to get away from their knife weilding mother. She was a paranoid schizophrenic. After this expert testified the jury aquited the husband and father. I believe the jury made the right descision. And besides every case has two experts one working for the defense and one for the prosecution and the experts are going to give separate testimony depending on which side they're on. This is just my opinion only. But that is why I don't totally trust medical experts or forensic experts. And again this is just me. IMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by chatwuann
I don't put a lot of stock in forensic experts or medical experts after a local crime that took place about 45 minutes from where I live. It was a case about a man accused of killing his wife and children. The first expert said that the bloody footprints showed that he had killed her and the children and then left by the back door out to his shop that was near the garage. A coat was hanging by the door that had blood on it if I remember right. Another expert testified and gave the explanation for the bloody footprints being that of the children trying to get away from their knife weilding mother. She was a paranoid schizophrenic. After this expert testified the jury aquited the husband and father. I believe the jury made the right descision. And besides every case has two experts one working for the defense and one for the prosecution and the experts are going to give separate testimony depending on which side their on. This is just my opinion only. But that is why I don't totally trust medical experts or forensic experts. And again this is just me. IMO

I have served on a jury three times - two of them criminal cases. The two had experts like you say for both sides and honestly at least the juries I sat on -- we actually just threw the experts' opinions aside as they just negated each other. We did discuss it for a bit - but when all was said and done - was just put to the side. I would suspect that I would consider an expert's opinion if he/she can prove that the other side did something unethical to come to their conclusion much like Don Foster, Steve Thomas' handwriting expert as he totally discredited himself. jmo

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by rosebud


What is your point? The fact remains that in the opinion of some forensic experts she had been chronically abused. Other forensic experts said she had not. You have not proved a thing.

I read the autopsy report and the only thing chronic that was stated there was about anatomy which has nothing to do with the chronic people use in everyday language.

[chatwuann]

Originally posted by Athena


I have served on a jury three times - two of them criminal cases. The two had experts like you say for both sides and honestly at least the juries I sat on -- we actually just threw the experts' opinions aside as they just negated each other. We did discuss it for a bit - but when all was said and done - was just put to the side. I would suspect that I would consider an expert's opinion if he/she can prove that the other side did something unethical to come to their conclusion much like Don Foster, Steve Thomas' handwriting expert as he totally discredited himself. jmo

:) I might consider an expert's opinion under the circumstances above named as well.

[MaryD]

It's all about the money folks

I have a sister whose husband took their son. His family was fairly well off and did everything in their power for her not to get custody. I think he had him for two years. My sister hooked up with a wealthy guy and weeks later her son was back with her. All about the money!!

[Louisadelmar]

RE JonBenet's hymen - What Meyer said was:

"The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen. "

From his description it sounds like she had a very common crescent shaped hymen. (From 2 o'clock to 10 o'clock) He mentions the abrasion and how it involves the hymen. He would not be saying that if the hymen wasn't there. Furthermore - at the big meeting with Lee and Scheck etc Meyer never says her hymen is eroded or missing. He says there was abrasion and hemorrhaging in the vagina. Also irritation and chronic inflammation in the vaginal vault. He said he was "unsure whether the cause was infection, digital manipulation, lying in urine or even the very unlikely event of self manipulation. It was inconsistant with penile penetration, but chronic vaginal abuse was a possibility." ST ppbk p166. There is also an earlier bit in ST's book where he tells what Meyer told him after the autopsy and nothing is said about a missing hymen. You know if her hymen was gone or nearly gone Steve Thomas would have been shouting it from the rooftops.

We know from her medical records there were 3? 4? times she was seen for the catch-all phrase 'vaginal irritation.' Once was related to diarrhoea. Once it was suggested bubble bath (a know culprit) could have caused it. We also know little girls are prone to this problem because of the pH in the prepubescent vagina. I think whatever "chronic" irritation she had probably had a benign cause.

Anyway - I think if she'd had "hardly any hymen left" Meyer would have mentioned it.

[MissOtisRegrets]

PMPT (pb) pg. 305:

The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse.