General Discussion /Post Karr

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Just call me nosey. I always want to know "why." :)

Oh, absolutely!! If and when the person is found, it's going to be fascinating to hear why, whoever he/she is!

[noelsaloy]

This may sound minor, but another thing that makes me not suspect Patsy is that she said, "she's blond!" twice on the 911 call. That seems like exactly what someone would do if she thinks her daughter is missing- describe her physically. And she's in such a panic she can only think of that one characteristic...that she's blond.

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I hope you keep posting - I enjoy reading other peoples' observations. You just mentioned something I hadn't thought about.

Thanks! This is such a fascinating case. So bizarre. I really hope it gets solved at some point while I'm still alive!:)

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by breezy1234
You certainly DID put words in my mouth. I NEVER said "there is no criminal"!! I DID say ""no indictment, no arrest, no trial = innocent"" and that is completely different!! Hmmm. So, by your heated denial ("I NEVER said 'there is no criminal'") you are apparently finally admitting that there are criminals--guilty persons--who have not been indicted, arrested or tried. But then you continue to insist that anyone who has not yet been indicted, arrested or tried for a crime is innocent of that crime. Very contradictory.

Sorry, but it is completely and totally false that "no indictment, no arrest, no trial=innocent." Just because someone has not been indicted, arrested or been tried does not mean that the person is innocent.

[beller]

Originally posted by hohum


If Patsy killed JonBenet why would she use her own pen and paper and then leave it lying around the house to trace back to her? IMO she would not be that stupid.

What was she going to do? Run to a store and buy pen and paper at 1 am or whatever?

[f0rTyLeGz]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I take it you aren't the Jameson the Ramsey talk about in their book? JMO
actually... interestingly enough, I believe that is Jameson , long time... back then my handle was tall-p :)

[f0rTyLeGz]

... and good eye rr for spotting her... look only one post :)

[GrrlPwer]

Originally posted by Levi90

Patsy's handwriting was never ruled out. They know that the paper and the pen came from inside the house. The pen belonged to Patsy. I think that Patsy wrote the ransom note. I don't care if she passed a polygraph. Polygraphs are as reliable as astrology unlike handwriting experts and comparing handwriting. That is a real science IMO. I completely agree

[rashomon]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Breezy - as always - is doing just fine. What information do you have to add about the case?
I disagree: an great-grandmother like Breezy (at least that's what she says she is) who on this forum is throwing temper tantrums like Donald Duck, is not 'doing fine', but obviously has not grown up yet despite her advanced age.

And just curious: what information do you have to add about the case, robin? Do you believe that there ever was a 'small foreign faction'? (The idiocy of that term alone makes me lol).
Who did it and why? Have you ever tried to come up with a time line of events of that night? And remember a time line has to include everything, from the ransom note to the pineappe JB had shortly before her death.

The problem you people have with the Ramsey case is that you are not prepared to think the unthinkable: that Patsy Ramsey could have killed her daughter.
"But what parent would garrote their child?" I hear you, Breezy & co. say. I agree with you on that: Patsy Ramsey did not garrote JonBenet, but killed her in a rage and then tried to cover it up. The garrote scene was then staged to make it look like a sexual pervert had committed the crime.

Even indulgent parents can fly off the handle if their buttons are pushed at the wrong time. And Patsy was under a lot of stress at that time. Suppose she angrily grabbed JB by the collar, yanked her around violently and her head crashed against a hard object.
Why do you people think this couldn't have happened?

And remember that Patsy also had a very aggressive side in her, which e. g. shows in the interview with Tom Haney. The classic 'steel magnolia': a Southern Belle who in reality wasn't at all that soft and sweet as she appeared.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by noelsaloy
As to the accident/cover-up scenario and why I doubt it: I've never had any problem with motive - for anyone. Frankly, anyone can have a reason to kill anyone else, anywhere, and at any time. Besides, you simply never can know about family dynamics. And any speculation about Patsy's jealousy, Burke's envy, etc., is just speculation, and really futile. It only becomes worth looking at as a curiousity when you know, for sure, who did it. Also, accidents happen, and the perpretator of the accident could be mother, father, or brother.

There are, however, problems I see with accident/cover-up (no matter whether Burke or Patsy or John was involved in the accident): First, the garotte (hitting by accident, even strangling with bare hands in a fit of fury, yes, but to fashion a sophisticated, thought-out device?) Second, the ransom letter (what kind of cover-up would include a lengthy note with ample fodder for handwriting analysis, and all sorts of superfluous details?) Third, the stun gun, if there actually was one (what sort of parent needs a stun gun to control his kid, or what sort of 9-yr-old knows how to use one?) Fourth, the DNA evidence indicating another person (provided, of course, the DNA analysis is not the result of "stutter.") Were it not for these 4 issues, I'd say it was Burke, Patsy, or John.
Noelsaloy:Good point about family dynamics. For one just never knows who would do what to whom under certain circumstances. So there's one big argument Ramsey advocates always bring up ("people like the Ramseys could not have killed their child") which bites the dust here.

In terms of the 4 issues you raised:

1) The garrote: if one sees the garrote as a mere staging device, which was applied after JB was thought to be dead to misdirect the investigators, then this garrote contraption makes sense for the stager of the scene: a parent who wanted to do a cover-up to make it look like a pervert had done the crime.
Remember also that duct tape was put on JB's mouth when she was already dead. This screams staging too.

2) The ransom letter: what kidnapper would not take the body but still leave behind a ransom note with ample fodder for handwriting analysis? This doesn't make sense at all.
And don't forget that the note was written with pen and paper from the Ramsey home. This is extremely damaging evidence pointing to the Ramseys. So the foreign faction sat down at the Ramseys' kitchen table, obviously without any fear of getting caught, and wrote a three-page ransom note?

3) The stun gun: stun gun experts (Stratbucker and Tuttle for example) said Lou Smit's stun gun theory doesn't hold any water, and that they believe no stun gun had been used on JB. According to them, the marks on JB looked in no way like the many stun gun marks they had seen in their profession.
They also said stun guns never produce these blue lines Smit was talking about.

4) the DNA: JB's own DNA was fresh, but why then was the minuscule foreign DNA degraded which was found in her clothes? If this DNA was from her attacker, why wasn't it as fresh as JonBenet's if both he and JB shed DNA at the same time?

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234


With a mother killing a baby you are dealing with post partum depression or psychosis. JonBenet was 6 years old and post partum was well over. :rolleyes:

What "stresses" do you think Patsy was under and what "mood altering medication was she taking and who tesitfied to it? :shrug:
Breezy: your assumption that mothers killing their baby always have to suffer from either post-partum depression or psychosis is wrong. There are cases in which the mother suffers from neither. Remember the many 'shaken baby' cases where mothers flew into a rage because the child's crying was getting on their nerves?
And how often these mothers then do exactly what the Ramseys did: they lie to the doctors about what happened!
As a great-grandmother, surely you have experience with children and will admit that wonderful as they are, there are days when they can be very unnerving. And I have yet to see the mother who at one point has not become very, very angry at her child. Such is life. And in some tragic cases, if the child gets hit, such tragedies can happen. They can happen to slum district people, to middle class people as well as to multimilionaire families.
But if some bad-smelling and toothless slum-dwellers had been found with their dead child in the home and such a silly ransom note, the handcuffs would have been around their wrists right away, Breezy. That's the big difference.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by Solace


That looks like it Bunny; So according to Breezy unless you have been arrested, you are an upstanding member of society.

I've just been lurking but do find this theory fascinating. If
I'm following the logic here Osam Bin Laden is a really
upstanding guy, because hey, no arrest, no conviction, right?
OJ must also be innocent seeing as he went to trial and
was acquitted by a brain dead jury.

It is an interesting philosophy.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by breezy1234
You really are having a hard time understanding English AND the Constitution, aren't you?No, none whatsoever. I can easily understand that the phrase "no indictment, no arrest, no trial=innocent" is false.You should be considered innocent until it can be proved that you are guilty.A person who has assaulted or murdered someone but who has yet to be indicted, arrested or tried has no given right to be considered "innocent" of that crime pre-arrest, pre-indictment or pre-trial. The people committing crimes as I write this are guilty of committing those crimes, period, notwithstanding any arrest, indictment or trial. The presumption of innocence applies only in the courtroom.If you are accused of a crime, you should always have the right to defend yourself. Nobody has the right to condemn you and punish you for something you have not done.Agreed! But of course that's not at all the same thing as saying "no indictment, no arrest, no trial=innocent." Since you finally seem to understand that there are indeed guilty persons in the world who have not yet been arrested, indicted or tried (and some who never will be), I think we can bring closure to this issue, since that's all I was trying to point out to you.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Another one that can't understand the constitution that all AMERICAN citizens are guaranteed.......................until it is you.



I don't think it's me that doesn't understand the constitution.
You are confusing the presumption of innocence at a trial,
with proof that the crime wasn't committed. Sirhan Sirhan
assasinated RFK in front of a crowd of people. There was
never any question that he pulled the trigger. Yet, under
the constitution, AT TRIAL, he was presumed innocent.
Doesn't mean he didn't pull the trigger.

This is a message board, not a courtroom.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by breezy1234
:rolleyes: Whatever, set your own rules. Just hope no one puts you "under the umbrella" without charging you or giving you the chance to face your accusers and let's see if then you will finally understand the constitution. :shrug:And let's hope that neither you nor anyone you know or care about is ever assaulted or murdered, since according to you, the person would be innocent of that crime even if never arrested, indicted or brought to trial.

And by the way, the constant flamebaiting in which you indulge isn't necessary. Just because you don't understand something or because you are corrected on an issue of fact doesn't mean you need to get nasty about it.

Also, by the way, you apparently haven't read the Constitution to which you constantly refer, since the phrase "no indictment, no arrest, no trial=innocent" doesn't appear anywhere in it.

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by rashomon

In terms of the 4 issues you raised:

1) The garrote: if one sees the garrote as a mere staging device, which was applied after JB was thought to be dead to misdirect the investigators, then this garrote contraption makes sense for the stager of the scene: a parent who wanted to do a cover-up to make it look like a pervert had done the crime.
Remember also that duct tape was put on JB's mouth when she was already dead. This screams staging too.

2) The ransom letter: what kidnapper would not take the body but still leave behind a ransom note with ample fodder for handwriting analysis? This doesn't make sense at all.
And don't forget that the note was written with pen and paper from the Ramsey home. This is extremely damaging evidence pointing to the Ramseys. So the foreign faction sat down at the Ramseys' kitchen table, obviously without any fear of getting caught, and wrote a three-page ransom note?

3) The stun gun: stun gun experts (Stratbucker and Tuttle for example) said Lou Smit's stun gun theory doesn't hold any water, and that they believe no stun gun had been used on JB. According to them, the marks on JB looked in no way like the many stun gun marks they had seen in their profession.
They also said stun guns never produce these blue lines Smit was talking about.

4) the DNA: JB's own DNA was fresh, but why then was the minuscule foreign DNA degraded which was found in her clothes? If this DNA was from her attacker, why wasn't it as fresh as JonBenet's if both he and JB shed DNA at the same time?

I can concede points 3 and 4, as to me they seem the shakiest under scrutiny, and those are good points you make. I'll even add to #4 (DNA) that it could be DNA from an entirely innocent encounter maybe from horseplay with another kid at the party.

As for #1: If it's true that the garotte was the actual COD, that makes it sound less like a staging device. Additionally, the garotte was really squeezed tightly (you can see this in the autopsy photos). In the accident/scover-up scenario a parent would have to squeeze that around his/her child's neck, and for an extended period of time, all the while distraught about what's just happened. He/she would also have to construct it.

One possibility occurs to me (although it's flimsy): That the parents were into some conubial erotic asphixiation that the son observed/walked in on and tried to mimic it with his sister. I know kids, epecially of opposite sex, can try to mimic adult behavior. Also, I've seen photos where Patsy keeps her neck covered.....

As for #2: I'm certainly not suggesting an actual "foreign faction" wrote the note. The note need not be either totally false and written by the parents or totally true and written by the killer(s). An intruder could be making stuff up to sound more threatening. And still, as the parents, why put in all those bizarre details. If you've got some time to really coldly try to cover up an accident, it might occur to you to do things that point to a bizarre pedophile, but not in a few hours, while you're panicked and grieving. That takes some analytical thinking, and some research.

I have my own theory about what kind of person did it, but I've gone on too long in this post!

[debbmos]

Originally posted by Will05
They didn't find OJ guilty but does that mean he didn't do it? I think not.

You"re right BUT he had a trial and was found not guilty. If they had any proof that Pasty did it they would charged her. My thoughts

[Crimespoof]

I am fairly new at posting so I hope I don't step on anyone's toes here. This case has always haunted me from the moment it happened. That poor little beautiful girl taken so young. I have to admit that I truly believe someone in that home commited this crime. I have always thought that and I have never believed anyone has come up with anything substantial enough to prove otherwise.

This case was bungled by the police from the very onset. The scene was compromised by everyone and there brother, the eveidence was contaminated, no legal procedures were followed at all. It was almost as if it were a keystone cop situation. I know the Boulder Police had never dealt with a murder crime scene or maybe even a kidnapping, but come on any cop should know how to contain a crime scene. The way this was handled was just ridiculous. I think somebody with just common sense and little or no police training might have handled the scene better.

In any case I think because of all of the mistakes that were made we may never know the truth of what really happened. I mean honestly if John had never found her and the Ramsey's hadn't contaminated the forensic crime evidence on her body we may have had a clearer picture. As it stands at this point we may never have a 100% assurance on who did this. I like everyone else have my beliefs based on what we do know but as for being able to prove it with 100% assurance I don't think it will ever happen and I think we can thank the bungled investigation for that.

Of course this is all IMOO......

[debbmos]

Originally posted by Will05
I disagree. They had proof but the DA Alex Hunter was too weak to bring charges. I have always believed that Patsy was good for this.

Please show a link that the DA Alex Hunter was to weak to bring charges. Thank you

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by breezy1234
Yes I agree even if I was murdered unless they or Steve Thomas want to bes or armchair detectives could prove it, the person "under the umbrella" would be innocent. Really not hard to understand as I see it.So according to you, if you were murdered and no one was brought to trial (or indicted or arrested), there was no murderer (and furthermore, by extension, no murder). And according to you, there are no guilty people anywhere except for those who have been indicted, arrested and tried.

Police and detectives and investigators everywhere should know about this. They can clear their unsolved-cases files overnight, simply by using the Breezy Theory and declaring all the unfound murderers to be innocent. In fact, under the Breezy Theory, no one could ever even be arrested, since that goes entirely against the notion that the person is innocent! This probably wouldn't sit too well with victims' rights associations, but oh, well, into each life some rain must fall.

PLAIN LANGUAGE:
The phrase "no indictment, no arrest, no trial=innocent" is false.

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by breezy1234
THIS was her last public statement on the Ramsey case -- and it makes her position very clear... People charged with a crime are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in court. Since Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey have not even been charged, much less convicted, they must be presumed innocent and must be treated accordingly.LOL! I guess she didn't even realize how she worded things here, since she first talks about people being charged who should be presumed innocent (but if they're innocent, then why would they even be charged? Hmmmm.), then goes on directly to say that the Ramseys aren't part of that group (since they were never charged).

Presumption of innocence applies only in the courtroom. The Ramseys may be innocent or they may be guilty people who got away with a horrible crime. Regardless, under the Breezy Theory, no matter who murdered JonBenet, the murderer is innocent, so I guess that about wraps up the whole case, eh?

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by breezy1234


"People charged with a crime are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in court. Since Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey have not even been charged, much less convicted, they must be presumed innocent and must be treated accordingly."

http://listserv.co.boulder.co.us/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0304&L=bcpressrelease&T=0&P=576 Oh, are we supposed to repeat things on this forum? I didn't know that; sorry. OK, then:

LOL! I guess she didn't even realize how she worded things here, since she first talks about people being charged who should be presumed innocent (but if they're innocent, then why would they even be charged? Hmmmm.), then goes on directly to say that the Ramseys aren't part of that group (since they were never charged).

[Bunny2]

Originally posted by breezy1234
Yes UNTIL they can prove someone guilty.Sorry, Breezy, but the person is still guilty, otherwise no murder at all has even occurred because everyone in the world is innocent of this crime according to you. :rolleyes:
Too bad you disagree with the law of the land. :shrug:Too bad you don't understand that a person who commits a murder is still guilty of committing that murder notwithstanding any finding in court, and that there is a distinction between presuming everyone to be innocent across the board and a verdict in a court of law, and that presumption of innocence applies only in the courtroom.

The more I read here, the more I've now become convinced of the Ramseys' involvement. Anyone who believes there are no criminals except for those who have been indicted, arrested and tried certainly isn't someone who's going to give me much faith in anything else he or she might say, so I'm putting more faith in Rash, Solace and other knowledgable people here now. Thanks for helping sway me off the fence.

Thanks to Rash and Solace also! :)

[rashomon]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin

Actually, Breezy is the one who posts LINKS with what she is saying.

For example links to biased newspaper articles whose authors know very little about the case, lol.

Breezy: you allege that JonBenet was murdered. Typical Ramsey spin. Who says she was murdered? An enraged parent yanking JB's body around and bashing her head in would have been charged with voluntary manslaughter, not murder. And the following cover-up would be obstruction of justice.
The Ramseys did everything in their following staging to make it look like she was murdered, which is a whole different story.
I'll give the Ramseys the benefit of the doubt in believing they thought JB was already dead when they put the cord around the neck. So again, no murder. You can't murder a person you believe dead.
Can you come up with a time line of events? A time line which contains the crucial pieces of evidence?
Your fanatism reminds me of the fanatism of posters on the Jeffrey MacDonald forum who also believe he didn't murder his family. They fly off the handle and play the attack dog, just like you. Been there, read that!

[debbmos]

Originally posted by Will05
Debsmom: You said please show a link that Alex Hunter was too weak?? What are you talking about??:lol:

How can you call the DA weak when you cant prove your statement? And its Debbmos

[debbmos]

Originally posted by Will05
Hohum & Debsmom are the type that would have found OJ not guilty. If they were on a jury you would have to have the crime on tape for them to convict & even then I don't know if they would convict. Ridiculous.


You know nothing about me so its ridiculous to say I am the type to find OJ not guilty.FYI I do think OJ was guilty. My thoughts

[sisu]

How can anybody claim that the Ramsays were the perfect loving parents? Children's beauty pageants are a repulsive phenomenon and the parents who take their babies to them are weird to say the least.
Did this little girl ever have a normal. carefree childhood? Obviously she was very stressed with ongoing infections and bedwetting. Poor child with her made-up face and blonded curls!

[sisu]

Ofcourse it's just my opinion. Isn't this a discussion board?

Why does one need to present a link to every single sentence?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
Was JonBenet's hair pulled into three hair ties the night of her death when the previous morning picture shows her with her hair left for more comfortable sleeping?

Were JonBenet's hair ties scattered over her bath and bedroom floor?

Was her bed head board drape in disarray?

Was her body wiped down and her clothes found to be those other than the ones Patsy claimed she wore to bed?

Was JonBenet's vaginal area wiped clean and her panties stained with blood left with her?

What substance, other than blood, did the killer try to remove?

Was the neck noose pulled tightly around her neck and the wrist cord loose?

Was Burke's voice heard in the background of the 911 call to the police when the Ramsey's said he was asleep at that time?

Was pineapple found in JonBenet's intestines when Patsy Ramsey said JonBenet ate no pineapple?

Were flashlight batteries found in a flashlight in the kitchen wiped clean of fingerprints.

Were all elements of the murder left at the scene except the cord and the tape?

Did Pam state that "unfortunately" there is no perfect murder, realize her mistake and change the wording to "fortunately."

Were fibers connected to Patsy Ramsey's clothing found on the murder duct tape?

Did Patsy's Mother and Father remain in Atlanta choosing not to personally comfort their daughter when they heard of JonBenet's murder?

Were books missing from the Ramsey bedside to be discovered later in crime scene photos.

Why were photos of JonBenet found in the trash left at the Boulder house after the move to Atlanta?

Was there the smell of peroxide in JonBenet's bathroom when the police arrived? Go to your own bathroom and smell your bottle of peroxide. There is no odor. There would be odor if the peroxide was mixed with other chemicals for hair color.

Why did Patsy Ramsey tell Judith Phillips that it was the Michigan Sun that bleached JonBenet's hair?

Did John Ramsey mention that he didn't visit JonBenet's grave because of the presence of video cameras and recorders? Would that stop you?

Why didn't the Ramsey's tell the police that construction workers remodeled the kitchen prior to Thanksgiving and may have gone to the basement for tools and water? Were they afraid the "shoeprints" would be identified?

Why is John Ramsey forming yet another investigative team to find the "intruder" just prior to the end of the Grand Jury term? What happened to the first investigative team he promised?

Why has Pam now retracted her original statement about talking with Patsy about the murder, now saying "who says I didn't tell her?"

Why did John Ramsey disturb the body and carry it upstairs when Detective Arndt told him to touch nothing that he may find out of place?

John Ramsey placed a 911 call for an ambulance, why did it take them 15 minutes to arrive at the house because they were "lost" a block away from the house?

Why was Detective Arndt refused "backup" when she found herself alone in the house with the parents, the Whites, the Furnies, and the Minister?

Why is there no showing of Ramsey support from any of the people who were alone in the house when John Ramsey "found the body"?

Why did John Ramsey ask Detective Arndt if his daughter was dead when he had been alone with her in the basement and carried her rigid cold body to the first floor?

The Tabloids have openly accused the Ramseys of murdering their daughter. Why is no legal action pending?

Why has John Ramsey shifted his focus from "finding the killer" to "exposing the media"?

I have posted links disproving many of your questions. Check them out. The Ramseys DID sue the tabloids AND Thomas and others and won or settled every time. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
No thanks. Breezy's posts don't impress me. Get your head out of the sand & read.

Links are not meant to "impress you". They are posted to give facts of the case. Here is one I think you should ponder.

"Through the prism of a defamation suit, a federal judge in Atlanta has examined the 1996 murder case of 6-year-old Colorado beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey and determined there is "virtually no evidence" to support theories that her parents killed her.

U.S. District Judge Julie E. Carnes, a former federal prosecutor, ruled that there is "abundant evidence" to support assertions by JonBenét's parents, John B. and Patricia P. "Patsy" Ramsey, "that an intruder entered their home at some point during the night of Dec. 25, 1996, and killed their daughter."

PROOF OF AN INTRUDER

Carnes' order also lists a series of largely uncontested facts that suggest an intruder entered the Ramsey home and murdered JonBenét. Among them:

• At least seven windows and a door in the Ramsey home were found open or unlocked after JonBenét disappeared. The alarm was off and windows were accessible from the ground level, including three that opened into the basement.

• Evidence suggested that an intruder climbed through a basement window and walked through the room where JonBenét was found.

• JonBenét's body was bound with complicated rope slipknots and a garrote that the order described as "sophisticated bondage devices" by someone "with an expertise in bondage." No evidence suggests the Ramseys knew how to tie such knots.

• Black duct tape found on JonBenét's mouth was never found in the Ramsey home, although evidence suggested "it came from a roll of tape that had been used before."

• Nothing in the Ramsey home matched dark animal hairs found on the duct tape and JonBenét's hands.

• Newly made, unidentified shoeprints, including one with a HI-TEC brand mark, were found on the basement floor. None of the Ramseys' shoes matched those prints.

• A palm print on the wine-cellar door where JonBenét's body was found does not match the Ramseys' palm prints and has never been identified.

• A baseball bat found outside the house with fibers consistent with fibers found on the carpet in the basement where JonBenét's body was found did not belong to the Ramseys.

• Brown cotton fibers found on JonBenét's body, the paintbrush used as a garrote, the duct tape and the ligature around her neck did not match anything in the Ramsey home.

• Male DNA found under JonBenét's fingernails and in her underwear does not match that of any Ramsey and has not been identified yet.

• A pubic hair found on the blanket covering JonBenét's body did not match that of any Ramsey.

• Injuries found on the child's body are consistent with the use of a stun gun, according to a forensic pathologist. The Ramseys swore they had never owned or operated a stun gun and none was found in their home. Carnes cited testimony by A. Louis "Lou" Smit, a homicide detective originally hired by the Boulder Police Department to investigate JonBenét's death but who later began working for the Ramseys. Smit has said he believes JonBenét was subdued by a stun gun.

Carnes reserved special criticism for Thomas, the former Boulder detective upon whose theories the Wolf complaint was based. "Whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas' theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support," she wrote.

"Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case. In short, the plaintiff's evidence that the [Ramseys] killed their daughter and covered up their crime is based on little more than the fact that defendants were present in the house during the murder," Carnes wrote.



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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Levi90

Patsy's handwriting was never ruled out. They know that the paper and the pen came from inside the house. The pen belonged to Patsy. I think that Patsy wrote the ransom note. I don't care if she passed a polygraph. Polygraphs are as reliable as astrology unlike handwriting experts and comparing handwriting. That is a real science IMO.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............
At first this question might seem like a great opportunity to lay out the difference between science and pseudoscience. On the one hand we have forensic handwriting analysis, in which an expert decides whether two or more samples were written by the same person, e.g., whether a signature was forged. On the other we have graphology, in which some sage tries to divine a subject's personality traits from his or her handwriting. While graphology enjoys about the same prestige as palm reading, forensic handwriting analysis has helped send people to jail since the days of the Lindbergh kidnapping. But in the eyes of the law, the credibility of such analysis is on the wane. Thanks to a landmark Supreme Court ruling in the early 90s, more and more federal judges are deciding that while forensic handwriting analysis may not be quackery, it's not exactly science either.

No forensic technique has taken more hits than handwriting analysis. In one particularly devastating federal ruling, United States v. Saelee (2001), the court noted that forensic handwriting analysis techniques had seldom been tested, and that what testing had been done "raises serious questions about the reliability of methods currently in use." The experts were frequently wrong--in one test "the true positive accuracy rate of laypersons was the same as that of handwriting examiners; both groups were correct 52 percent of the time." The most basic principles of handwriting analysis--for example, that everyone's handwriting is unique--had never been demonstrated. "The technique of comparing known writings with questioned documents appears to be entirely subjective and entirely lacking in controlling standards," the court wrote. Testimony by the government's handwriting expert was ruled inadmissible.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030418.html

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234


NARRATOR - By now, at the DA's office, there was a growing belief in the Ramseys' innocence. One reason was they now believed they knew how JonBenét had been killed.

LOU SMIT - This is not a simple little blow to the head followed by massive staging. This is brutal first degree murder

NARRATOR - The killer first placed the garrotte low on JonBenét's neck - throttling but not killing her. As the garrotte was pulled tighter, it rode higher up her neck.
LOU SMIT - When you look at the injuries on the front of JonBenét's neck, you can see the amount of force that was exerted on that garrotte and that man pulling that handle, because it abraded the skin all the way up into the furrow of that garrotte..

But the most significant part of this particular photograph is that there's half moon abrasions direction above the ligature. These most likely are fingernail marks where JonBenét was trying to get the garrotte from her neck. She tried to save her own life. She tried everything she could to scream and to get away from that. And whoever did that to JonBenét had to see her doing this and feel her doing this to try to get that garrotte off of her neck. This is a very brutal killing. Nothing in the family background would indicate to me that they're this brutal a people at all, not even for one night.

Head wounds normally bleed very profusely. If someone is hit on the head with any force at all it will either swell or it will bruise or it will bleed. In the case of JonBenét, even the coroner did not see a head wound. There was no swelling, there was no bleeding that was visible, there was no bruising.

If JonBenét was hit on the head first there would be some length of time between the time you would even think of staging this crime - then you would have to go out and you would have to find duct tape, you would have to find cord and you would have to construct a garrotte and you would have to tie her hands, and you would have to bring her down into the basement. That would have taken all that time to do this, there would have been massive bleeding. So, it's ludicrous even to think the head blow came first. That did not happen. The head blow came last, almost at the time of death "

http://www.jameson245.com/doc2usa.htm Originally posted by breezy1234


NARRATOR - By now, at the DA's office, there was a growing belief in the Ramseys' innocence. One reason was they now believed they knew how JonBenét had been killed.

LOU SMIT - This is not a simple little blow to the head followed by massive staging. This is brutal first degree murder

NARRATOR - The killer first placed the garrotte low on JonBenét's neck - throttling but not killing her. As the garrotte was pulled tighter, it rode higher up her neck.
LOU SMIT - When you look at the injuries on the front of JonBenét's neck, you can see the amount of force that was exerted on that garrotte and that man pulling that handle, because it abraded the skin all the way up into the furrow of that garrotte..

But the most significant part of this particular photograph is that there's half moon abrasions direction above the ligature. These most likely are fingernail marks where JonBenét was trying to get the garrotte from her neck. She tried to save her own life. She tried everything she could to scream and to get away from that. And whoever did that to JonBenét had to see her doing this and feel her doing this to try to get that garrotte off of her neck. This is a very brutal killing. Nothing in the family background would indicate to me that they're this brutal a people at all, not even for one night.

Head wounds normally bleed very profusely. If someone is hit on the head with any force at all it will either swell or it will bruise or it will bleed. In the case of JonBenét, even the coroner did not see a head wound. There was no swelling, there was no bleeding that was visible, there was no bruising.

If JonBenét was hit on the head first there would be some length of time between the time you would even think of staging this crime - then you would have to go out and you would have to find duct tape, you would have to find cord and you would have to construct a garrotte and you would have to tie her hands, and you would have to bring her down into the basement. That would have taken all that time to do this, there would have been massive bleeding. So, it's ludicrous even to think the head blow came first. That did not happen. The head blow came last, almost at the time of death "

http://www.jameson245.com/doc2usa.htm
Jameson's forum, lol! The most biased pro Ramsey forum on the net, owned by psychopath Susan Bennett aka jameson who is a die-hard Ramsey advocate. It was jmeson btw who sold the Ramsey police interviews to the tabloids for a lot of money, and I doubt the Ramseys liked her much anymore after that. In fact they were furious at jameson.
So much for jameson.
Lou Smit is right in that the blow to the head was very strong, but this does not make it a first-degree murder. How often does it happen that one person hits another person in a total rage with deadly results? Quite often. JB was a child and and it doesn't take much force for an enraged adult to produce an injury like that.
JB's brain had bruised and extensively hemorrhaged inside. Read Dr. Meyer's report.
Some time must elapse for a brain to bruise, so it is logical to assume that the head blow came first. This is also Dr. Spitz's opinion, one of the experts consulted on the case.

If JB had tried to get rid of the garrote, a lot of her own skin would be found under her fingernails, which was not the case.
The cord around JB's neck was perfectly circular and only a little higher where the knot was tied, not when any handle of the garrote was pulled. D. England wrote that Lou Smit knew no more about garrotes than the bungling amateur who had constructed that contraption.
For multiple loops around a stick will in fact make garroting ineffective. Try it yourself Breezy. Wrap multiple loops around a stick and see if these this multiple looping will help you in pulling a slip knot tight. It won't. It is completely unnecessary, for all you would need is pull at the cord with one hand, and the knot will slip tight. In short, these loops are redundant.
That Smit was a detective does not automatically make him an expert on stun guns and garrotes. And obviously he did not find it necessary to consult experts. The result was this total BullSMIT. No wonder the police detectives called Smit a "delusional old man".
Lou Smit: "I see someone taking that handle and pulling it very violently and pulling and killing her."

Poor old Louie. Has it ever occurred to him that he "saw" exactly what the stager of the scene wanted him to see?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

Jameson's forum, lol! The most biased pro Ramsey forum on the net, owned by psychopath Susan Bennett aka jameson who is a die-hard Ramsey advocate. It was jmeson btw who sold the Ramsey police interviews to the tabloids for a lot of money, and I doubt the Ramseys liked her much anymore after that. In fact they were furious at jameson.
So much for jameson.
Lou Smit is right in that the blow to the head was very strong, but this does not make it a first-degree murder. How often does it happen that one person hits another person in a total rage with deadly results? Quite often. JB was a child and and it doesn't take much force for an enraged adult to produce an injury like that.
JB's brain had bruised and extensively hemorrhaged inside. Read Dr. Meyer's report.
Some time must elapse for a brain to bruise, so it is logical to assume that the head blow came first. This is also Dr. Spitz's opinion, one of the experts consulted on the case.

If JB had tried to get rid of the garrote, a lot of her own skin would be found under her fingernails, which was not the case.
The cord around JB's neck was perfectly circular and only a little higher where the knot was tied, not when any handle of the garrote was pulled. D. England wrote that Lou Smit knew no more about garrotes than the bungling amateur who had constructed that contraption.
For multiple loops around a stick will in fact make garroting ineffective. Try it yourself Breezy. Wrap multiple loops around a stick and see if these this multiple looping will help you in pulling a slip knot tight. It won't. It is completely unnecessary, for all you would need is pull at the cord with one hand, and the knot will slip tight. In short, these loops are redundant.
That Smit was a detective does not automatically make him an expert on stun guns and garrotes. And obviously he did not find it necessary to consult experts. The result was this total BullSMIT. No wonder the police detectives called Smit a "delusional old man".
Lou Smit: "I see someone taking that handle and pulling it very violently and pulling and killing her."

Poor old Louie. Has it ever occurred to him that he "saw" exactly what the stager of the scene wanted him to see?

"The Elite - Court TV - November 7th, 2002"

CTV is biased too? :rolleyes:

Has it ever occured to you that you "see" exactly waht Thmas wants you to see? :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
If Steve Thomas was such a bad & inexperienced investigator as you say then why did the FBI heavily recruit him?

Link?

[LI_Mom]

John went downstairs alone around 10:00 am without telling anyone & DID find an open window in the basement. He closed it & went back upstairs & didn't say a word.

Remember, the note said to expect contact between 8 & 10.

First of all, it's odd that John wouldn't be standing next to the phone waiting for the most important call of his life but would be wandering around so close to zero hour.

If that's not strange enough, he thinks his daughter has been kidnapped & yet an open window in the basement isn't even worth mentioning to the police? Why wouldn't he be concerned that one or more intruders might still be in the house?



As far as the Ramseys denying feeding JonBenet any pineapple, it makes perfect sense IF a person wants to make sure an intruder was in your home.

Not only did they deny feeding her the pineapple, they denied even HAVING the (fresh cut) pineapple in their home & insisted it was brought by the kidnapper.



Another thing that bothered me: was some framed pictures in the Ramsey house had black duct tape in the back. Samples of the discovered tape were traced to the man who framed the pictures and were compared to the tape used on JonBenet and were NOT compatible. But I wonder if ALL the artwork in their home was tested for any pictures that might have had tape removed & were a match?

As far as not finding rope in the home that matched the rope used on the child.... it's entirely possible they used all the rope they had and there was none left over.

In any event, the Ramseys were probably NOT frisked & searched before they left to go to Fleet's home & they could have taken these incriminating things with them & disposed of them in the next couple of days.

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by rashomon

Some time must elapse for a brain to bruise, so it is logical to assume that the head blow came first. This is also Dr. Spitz's opinion, one of the experts consulted on the case.

Wasn't there evidence of petichiae, indicating that she was alive during the strangulation? I could see that if the blow came first, and she was not quite dead while the "staging" of the garotte happened, there would be petichiae. But in a staging, why pull the rope that tight?

In a staging scenario, I envision parents who are screwed up (and probably it's a dysfunctional, somewhat screwed up family whether they killed her or not) but they love her just the same. When parents kill in a fury, by accident, and try to cover things up, the cover-up is "loving." They don't tighten a rope so hard as to make petichail hemorages... or for that matter have the presence of mind to fashion a device, however amateurishly.

Also.... They don't leave the arms above the head in an unnatural position that doesn't mimic the position of a sleeping child. They want her to look peaceful, so as to quell their own guilt.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
Thanks for the religious essay but I already believe in God & have for a long time. I judge from the facts of the case. I was just curious to know how you know that Patsy is with JonBenet.

Btw, you or the links never disproved anything.


IMO you are ignoring the facts of the case.

BTW, you are entitled to your opinion but then so am I. I believe the links DID disprove your or should I say Thomas's fairy tales. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
John went downstairs alone around 10:00 am without telling anyone & DID find an open window in the basement. He closed it & went back upstairs & didn't say a word.

Remember, the note said to expect contact between 8 & 10.

First of all, it's odd that John wouldn't be standing next to the phone waiting for the most important call of his life but would be wandering around so close to zero hour.

If that's not strange enough, he thinks his daughter has been kidnapped & yet an open window in the basement isn't even worth mentioning to the police? Why wouldn't he be concerned that one or more intruders might still be in the house?



As far as the Ramseys denying feeding JonBenet any pineapple, it makes perfect sense IF a person wants to make sure an intruder was in your home.

Not only did they deny feeding her the pineapple, they denied even HAVING the (fresh cut) pineapple in their home & insisted it was brought by the kidnapper.



Another thing that bothered me: was some framed pictures in the Ramsey house had black duct tape in the back. Samples of the discovered tape were traced to the man who framed the pictures and were compared to the tape used on JonBenet and were NOT compatible. But I wonder if ALL the artwork in their home was tested for any pictures that might have had tape removed & were a match?

As far as not finding rope in the home that matched the rope used on the child.... it's entirely possible they used all the rope they had and there was none left over.

In any event, the Ramseys were probably NOT frisked & searched before they left to go to Fleet's home & they could have taken these incriminating things with them & disposed of them in the next couple of days.

Reputable links please.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I saw that interview (replayed recently) and as I said before - IMO - if Patsy Ramsey had been left along with Steve Thomas she would have ripped him to shreds. Also, Steve Thomas was so emotional that he could not "concentrate" and looked like he might burst into tears at any minute. He decided at the very beginning of his investigation that the Ramsey were involved and did not have the maturity or experience to broaden his investigation. Again.......JMO.

:beer: I agree. He is all talk and no action IMO. When he had his chance to prove his fairy tale he "settled" instead. The judge saw right throgh him.

"Carnes reserved special criticism for Thomas, the former Boulder detective upon whose theories the Wolf complaint was based. "Whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas' theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support," she wrote.

"Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case. In short, the plaintiff's evidence that the [Ramseys] killed their daughter and covered up their crime is based on little more than the fact that defendants were present in the house during the murder," Carnes wrote."

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

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Will05
Yeah you might be right that Patsy would have ripped him to shreds but not with her mouth. It would have been in a physical, psychopathic outburst like she had on JonBenet.

LOL!!! :beer:

Strange that Patsy's anger was directed at the people trying to solve her daughter's murder & not towards any of the people who had personal connections to 'Team Ramsey.'

Also strange that given the Ramseys deep hatred towards the media, they didn't seem at all upset that the DA and their own team were courting & using the media & tabloids from the beginning of the case.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
Breezy: They don't have to post 'links'. Who are you? You aren't the final say on this case.:no:

You're the one that needs to post reputable links not us.

If you can't or won't post links add "in your opinion" otherwise it is against the rules of this forum.

I do post links and if you chose to not read them, that is your choice. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


LOL!!! :beer:

Strange that Patsy's anger was directed at the people trying to solve her daughter's murder & not towards any of the people who had personal connections to 'Team Ramsey.'

Also strange that given the Ramseys deep hatred towards the media, they didn't seem at all upset that the DA and their own team were courting & using the media & tabloids from the beginning of the case.

How could they solve the murder when they wouldn't look at any evidence pointing away from the Ramseys?:rolleyes: Gee, do you really think they should have welcomed the media who was so willing to lie about them before checking their facts.

"But Amy's dad says that when he told the police detectives about the information he had, "they were completely uninterested in it."

"They were very frustrated," says Peterson. "It was difficult to get them to do anything much less, you know, beyond taking a report."

But not only did the Boulder police dismiss any link to the Ramsey case, they didn't even bother to use the mother's eyewitness description to make a composite sketch. That's when Amy's family hired Peterson. What he has uncovered in his investigation may not only solve Amy's case, but also help lead to the capture of JonBenet's killer.



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

"Julie Hayden, a television reporter for Denver's Channel 7, also covered the story on the same day and drew the same conclusion. She later explained that from her first exposure to the case, the police had made it very clear that they were not scouring the area looking for "some mad kidnapper" but instead, concentrating their efforts on John and Patsy Ramsey."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/index_1.html

" lead detective in the JonBenet Ramsey homicide case was the primary source for a scathing 1997 magazine article that rocked the investigation.
Steve Thomas, who quit the Boulder Police Department in frustration in 1998, admitted in a September 2001 deposition to being an anonymous police informant for the Vanity Fair article, "Who Killed JonBenet?" by Ann Louise Bardach.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1965510,00.html

[LI_Mom]

I'm afraid I can't post specific links for each point because I've read so many books on the case they all blur together.

I've read:

The Ramsey book (which was basically a rant against the media & everyone connected to the case who was NOT in the DA's office)

Steve Thomas' book

Stephen Singular's book (which was promoting his theory that the case should center on the pageant angle & child porn)

The best book of them all was:

L. Schiller's book which did NOT offer a conclusion but only stated the facts he gathered during his extensive investigation.



As for the pineapple, I was only explaining why it made perfect sense to me that a guilty person would want to deny knowing anything about the
mystery pineapple.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
Most of them aren't reputable links though Breezy.

Really, tell CTV their Crime Library, Rocky Mountain News, CBS news, Boulder County Government on line and Law.com their sites are not reputable.:rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I'm afraid I can't post specific links for each point because I've read so many books on the case they all blur together.

I've read:

The Ramsey book (which was basically a rant against the media & everyone connected to the case who was NOT in the DA's office)

Steve Thomas' book

Stephen Singular's book (which was promoting his theory that the case should center on the pageant angle & child porn)

The best book of them all was:

L. Schiller's book which did NOT offer a conclusion but only stated the facts he gathered during his extensive investigation.



As for the pineapple, I was only explaining why it made perfect sense to me that a guilty person would want to deny knowing anything about the
mystery pineapple.

What in your opinion did the pineapple prove? If you think Patsy did it what difference would it make if she gave JonBenet pineapple or not???

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


How could they solve the murder when they wouldn't look at any evidence pointing away from the Ramseys?:rolleyes: Gee, do you really think they should have welcomed the media who was so willing to lie about them before checking their facts.

"But Amy's dad says that when he told the police detectives about the information he had, "they were completely uninterested in it."

"They were very frustrated," says Peterson. "It was difficult to get them to do anything much less, you know, beyond taking a report."

But not only did the Boulder police dismiss any link to the Ramsey case, they didn't even bother to use the mother's eyewitness description to make a composite sketch. That's when Amy's family hired Peterson. What he has uncovered in his investigation may not only solve Amy's case, but also help lead to the capture of JonBenet's killer.



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

"Julie Hayden, a television reporter for Denver's Channel 7, also covered the story on the same day and drew the same conclusion. She later explained that from her first exposure to the case, the police had made it very clear that they were not scouring the area looking for "some mad kidnapper" but instead, concentrating their efforts on John and Patsy Ramsey."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/index_1.html

" lead detective in the JonBenet Ramsey homicide case was the primary source for a scathing 1997 magazine article that rocked the investigation.
Steve Thomas, who quit the Boulder Police Department in frustration in 1998, admitted in a September 2001 deposition to being an anonymous police informant for the Vanity Fair article, "Who Killed JonBenet?" by Ann Louise Bardach.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1965510,00.html


Amy's intruder story:

"Before going to bed, Amy's mother turned on the burglar alarm. Around midnight, Amy woke up to find a man standing over her bed, his hand over her mouth. "She remembered the intruder addressing her by her name," says Peterson. "He said, 'I know who you are.' He repeated those things a few times, apparently. 'I'll knock you out. Shut up.'"


Why no stun gun or other weapon? The Ramsey side was SURE JonBenet was silenced by a stun gun.... which they didn't own. I'd think it is much easier to subdue a 6 year old than an 14 year old & especially if the parents bedroom is on the same floor in this case.



As far as Thomas talking to Vanity Fair, what does prove? Everyone was talking to the media... the police, the DA, the Ramsey's lawyers, the Ramsey's P.I. Everyone.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


What in your opinion did the pineapple prove? If you think Patsy did it what difference would it make if she gave JonBenet pineapple or not???

I was simply replying to people who thought the Ramseys had no logical reason for denying knowing anything about the pineapple.

Denying the pineapple definitely lends credence to their intruder theory. So they WOULD have a motive to lie about that.

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I was simply replying to people who thought the Ramseys had no logical reason for denying knowing anything about the pineapple.

Denying the pineapple definitely lends credence to their intruder theory. So they WOULD have a motive to lie about that.

:beer: It's a HUGE piece of evidence, IMO, and shows that Patsy lied.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



Amy's intruder story:

"Before going to bed, Amy's mother turned on the burglar alarm. Around midnight, Amy woke up to find a man standing over her bed, his hand over her mouth. "She remembered the intruder addressing her by her name," says Peterson. "He said, 'I know who you are.' He repeated those things a few times, apparently. 'I'll knock you out. Shut up.'"


Why no stun gun or other weapon? The Ramsey side was SURE JonBenet was silenced by a stun gun.... which they didn't own. I'd think it is much easier to subdue a 6 year old than an 14 year old & especially if the parents bedroom is on the same floor in this case.

Just a lead that was NOT investigated.



As far as Thomas talking to Vanity Fair, what does prove? Everyone was talking to the media... the police, the DA, the Ramsey's lawyers, the Ramsey's P.I. Everyone.

Read the rest of the link . :rolleyes:

Had Thomas been discovered, he would have been removed from the case and possibly fired, testified current Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner in a Nov. 26, 2001, deposition.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Former Juror


:beer: It's a HUGE piece of evidence, IMO, and shows that Patsy lied.

:lol: Such as "huge" piece of evidence, but lying about leaks is find and dandy, other suspects leaving evidence should be over looked, huh? :rolleyes: BTW, has anyone close to you ever died??? Have you remembered everything you did and said around that time? If you did you are rare indeed.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I was simply replying to people who thought the Ramseys had no logical reason for denying knowing anything about the pineapple.

Denying the pineapple definitely lends credence to their intruder theory. So they WOULD have a motive to lie about that.

Really? You think they would have to make up pineapple to prove an intruder when the intruder left DNA and other evidence? :rolleyes: Whatever. Mind telling me how they knew how long it would take for the pineapple to pass though Jon Benet's system or that it would be found at autopsy?

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by breezy1234


:lol: Such as "huge" piece of evidence, but lying about leaks is find and dandy, other suspects leaving evidence should be over looked, huh? :rolleyes: BTW, has anyone close to you ever died??? Have you remembered everything you did and said around that time? If you did you are rare indeed.

With all due respect, we all know who the Boulder PD believed did it. We know there is evidence against the Ramseys that cannot be explained away no matter how hard you try. The PD screwed up, plain and simple. Because of that, the DA's office had little to work with that could not have been attacked by a high-powered defense attorney. Alex Hunter's office wasn't any more competent than the PD, IMO. (And, please, the 'new' DA who befriended the Ramseys is no better.)

Had Linda Arndt and company been halfway competent, Patsy would have lived the remainder of her days in a prison cell, IMO.

We can exchange barbs from here to eternity, but the fact is that a little girl's murder will NEVER be solved in a legal sense. Not because LE doesn't know who did it, but because they screwed up in the initial hours of the investigation. How sad for Jonbenet.

IMO

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by Former Juror


:beer: It's a HUGE piece of evidence, IMO, and shows that Patsy lied.

LOL! Hardly. I forget what I have and don't have in my pantry all the time. Doesn't make one a liar.

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


If I'm not mistaken - and I well could be - I don't believe Patsy was asked about the pineapple until someone showed her a picture of the pineapple bowl and a tea glass - some time after the autopsy- and asked her about it. She said they did not feed JonBenet pineapple when they got home from the Christmas party and she did not know anything about the pineapple bowl and tea glass. Also, the tea glass had a tea bag in it and she stated that no one in the family made tea that way. From PM/PT.

Also, her Burke's fingerprints were on the tea glass and pineapple bowl, Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl only. Explanation - could mean the "intruder" wore gloves. Could also explain why there were no finger prints on the flashlight found on the counter that police thought might have been used to hit JonBenet on the head.

JMO........

Agreed. Patsy's prints were on it most likely because she did the dishes. If she were going to lie about the bowl and glass, surely she would have wiped them clean of fingerprints.

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by Lianasmom


LOL! Hardly. I forget what I have and don't have in my pantry all the time. Doesn't make one a liar.

I might not remember what's in my pantry, but I can guarantee I would know rather I laid my child in bed when I returned home from a Christmas party or if she was awake and ate a snack before going to bed.

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


There was never a question about this. Both John & Patsy stated that they put JonBenet to bed when they got home - no snack.
From PM/PT.............

Correct. But, the point is that I believe they were both lying. Jonbenet had pineapple in her stomach when she died, and there was a bowl of pineapple on the counter. She obviously had pineapple at home, after the party.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


There was never a question about this. Both John & Patsy stated that they put JonBenet to bed when they got home - no snack.
From PM/PT............. Originally posted by bandit's mom

All that said, Patsy's adamance about not feeding the pineapple
has always been one thing that made me doubt her guilt.
If you're guilty, you simply say, "yeah, I gave her some when
we got home". Mystery solved and no one would still
be discussing the pineapple 10 years later!

But remember that admitting she fed JB pineapple when they got home would contradict Patsy's previous statement that JB was asleep when they got home. Imo that's exactly why Patsy was so adamant about not feeding JB pineappple - she could not backpedal because of her previous statement.

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Why after the party? Why not before the party? Why not after the intruder got her up from bed? JMO

The pineapple/time of death don't match for her to have eaten it before the party. Of course, an intruder could have gotten her up and fed her pineapple while everyone else slept, but that makes as much sense as an intruder writing and rewriting the ransom note on a notepad and pen from the home. :shrug:

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Intruder? Someone who saw them leave, went in when they left, still there when they returned. Hours to while away - decided to write as s/he waited for them to return. JMO

And, fed Jonbenet pineapple before she was brutally killed? I just don't buy it.

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
From The Smoking Gun - autopsy report -JonBenet

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet1.html

Thanks rosyred! By the way, another thing I was going to mention, about the suspiciousness of the 911 call that was placed on the 23rd, that the Ramseys said was someone trying to make a long distance call... That happened to me before. I meant to dial the prefix 011, and accidentally dialed 911, then hung up right away. Shortly thereafter a policewoman showed up....

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Maybe this person didn't mean to kill her.......things got out of hand? Just a thought........ JMO

That's my theory exactly, but I believe it was Patsy who 'accidentally' did it. IMO

[LI_Mom]

[i]Originally posted by breezy1234
As far as Thomas talking to Vanity Fair, what does prove? Everyone was talking to the media... the police, the DA, the Ramsey's lawyers, the Ramsey's P.I. Everyone.

Read the rest of the link .

Had Thomas been discovered, he would have been removed from the case and possibly fired, testified current Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner in a Nov. 26, 2001, deposition.


Considering Hunter was talking to Jeff Shapiro & Stephen Singular & had personal connections to many Ramsey lawyers, then he should have been fired too, right?



And let's face it, Thomas was not very flattering to the DA's office OR the PD by the time he turned in his badge.

I don't find it at all surprising that Beckner would find it politically smart to say he'd remove or fire an officer who had already resigned from the force. He had nothing to lose & everything to gain by that position.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Really? You think they would have to make up pineapple to prove an intruder when the intruder left DNA and other evidence? :rolleyes: Whatever. Mind telling me how they knew how long it would take for the pineapple to pass though Jon Benet's system or that it would be found at autopsy?

Nobody "made up" the pineapple.

I said it makes perfect sense to deny knowing WHERE IT CAME FROM.

'Gee officer, I never saw this pineapple before. Some intruder must have brought it to my house to feed to my kid before he strangled her & cracked her skull, left her in a back room of my basement & left a ransom note on my staircase..... BUT he forgot to take the body with him.'


As far as telling the time of death only by the stomach contents, that depends on various things but most importantly, how well the food was chewed. And in JonBenet's case, it was NOT chewed very thoroughly as they found many large chunks that were undigested.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234


"The Elite - Court TV - November 7th, 2002"

CTV is biased too? :rolleyes:

Has it ever occured to you that you "see" exactly waht Thmas wants you to see? :shrug:
I posted to you before that I don't agree with Steve Thomas' theory that the garrote was a 'real' garrote. Nor do I agree with his assumption that the injury to JB's vagina was inflicted as a punishment by an enraged parent. Imo all this was part of a staged scene.

CTV certainly has very biased articles on its Crime Library site. The article about convicted triple murderer Jeffrey MacDonald for example reads like a defense motion disguised as "objective journalism".

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Nobody "made up" the pineapple.

I said it makes perfect sense to deny knowing WHERE IT CAME FROM.

'Gee officer, I never saw this pineapple before. Some intruder must have brought it to my house to feed to my kid before he strangled her & cracked her skull, left her in a back room of my basement & left a ransom note on my staircase..... BUT he forgot to take the body with him.'


As far as telling the time of death only by the stomach contents, that depends on various things but most importantly, how well the food was chewed. And in JonBenet's case, it was NOT chewed very thoroughly as they found many large chunks that were undigested.

Where did you hear they found "many large chunks"? "yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable,fruit material which MAY represent fragments of pineapple, doesn't sound like "large chunks" to me. :shrug:

[rashomon]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by breezy1234


"The Elite - Court TV - November 7th, 2002"

CTV is biased too?

Has it ever occured to you that you "see" exactly waht Thmas wants you to see?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Breezy: I posted to you before that I don't agree with Steve Thomas' theory that the garrote was a 'real' garrote. Nor do I agree with his assumption that the injury to JB's vagina was inflicted as a punishment by an enraged parent. Imo all this was part of a staged scene.

CTV certainly has very biased articles on its Crime Library site. The article about convicted triple murderer Jeffrey MacDonald for example reads like a defense motion disguised as "objective journalism". See the thread 'Crime Library feature: Jeffrey MacDonald innocent?" on this board where posters complain about this article, which does not even take into account that recent DNA tests have even further implicated JMD as the killer.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
From JonBenet's autopsy (page 7)....

"small intestine contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple."


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet7.html

Notice the word "may." It's almost like the pineapple story has taken on a life of its own.
JMO

Opps, sorry, i didn't see your post before I posted.

I believe there was pineapple in a dish in the Ramsey home but no where can i find where Patsy denied ever having it in the home as they said here.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by breezy1234


"The Elite - Court TV - November 7th, 2002"

CTV is biased too?

Has it ever occured to you that you "see" exactly waht Thmas wants you to see?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Breezy: I posted to you before that I don't agree with Steve Thomas' theory that the garrote was a 'real' garrote. Nor do I agree with his assumption that the injury to JB's vagina was inflicted as a punishment by an enraged parent. Imo all this was part of a staged scene.

CTV certainly has very biased articles on its Crime Library site. The article about convicted triple murderer Jeffrey MacDonald for example reads like a defense motion disguised as "objective journalism". See the thread 'Crime Library feature: Jeffrey MacDonald innocent?" on this board where posters complain about this article, which does not even take into account that recent DNA tests have even further implicated JMD as the killer.

This is not the Mc Donald thread. If you want to discuss that case there is a thread for that. If you want to say CTV is "biased" because of the Mc Donald case I suggest you just watch them for a day or two. They are never "biased" in favor of a defendant as far as i see.

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by breezy1234
[B]

"The Elite - Court TV - November 7th, 2002"

CTV is biased too? :rolleyes:

FYI, CTV is extemely biased. Go read the nonsense they
have posted on Jeffrey MacDonald. Could have been written
by one of the murderers girlfriends it's so bad.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


I was simply replying to people who thought the Ramseys had no logical reason for denying knowing anything about the pineapple.

Denying the pineapple definitely lends credence to their intruder theory. So they WOULD have a motive to lie about that.



Actually, it's a pretty good theory. The pineapple always bothered
me because I couldn't figure out why the Ramseys would lie
about it. It really never occurred to me that it was an idea
to support the intruder theory. It's a pretty lame idea, IMO,
but considering the ransom note was also lame, you just
may be right.

I've pretty much been on the fence on this one for a long time.
Reading this, and a couple of other threads, on the case
over the last couple of weeks and seeing how informed many
of you are about the case, I have to say, IMO, the "guilty's"
are winning this debate, hands down. I'm now pretty
much convinced it was a Ramsey. I'm still not 100% that it
was Patsy, but I have little doubt that she was involved in
the cover up.

[noelsaloy]

Can anyone explain to me (whether or not you buy it) the "sex ring" theory, that the parent (or one parent) was somehow involved in it?

[rashomon]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
From JonBenet's autopsy (page 7)....

"small intestine contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple."


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet7.html

Notice the word "may." It's almost like the pineapple story has taken on a life of its own.
JMO
Not true. Even Lou Smit (who in that case obviously had consulted experts) said there's no doubt that it was pineapple.
So we would have an intruder who fed JonBenet pineapple in the Ramsey home and then waited for one to two hours until it was partly digested before killing her. LOL!

[LI_Mom]

Since I'm not a detective working on the case, I don't keep accurate records in front of me to cross check everything I remember reading.

As I said, I read 4 books about the case & of course, I can't PROVE the Ramseys are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt just as the police were unable to & just as the DA was reluctant to bring a case that was not a slam dunk.

Quibbling over the size of the undigested pineapple is meaningless. They found pineapple in her stomach & a bowl of pineapple on the counter & her parents swore they have no idea where that pineapple (fresh NOT canned) came from.



What evidence do they have that an intruder was in the house?

One unexplained footprint on a basement floor in a house that was open to the public for tours?

One smudge on a wall but nobody knows how long it might have been there or even whether John left it when he climbed in through the basement window the year before.

And a flashlight that might have belonged to the Ramseys or might not have been. They had a flashlight similar to the one found but didn't know for sure that the one on the table was theirs or not. Was it left by an officer or an intruder?

Yet, we never hear of the Ramseys locating their flashlight & proving the one in their house was from the outside.


JonBenet has DNA under her nails but it was from more than one person & not necessarily from that night. The coroner did NOT use separate clippers for each nail, so that evidence is also questionable & would be ripped apart in court.

The days of the week panties JonBenet wore were brand new & yet they found unmatched DNA. When an never before opened package of the same brand panties was tested, they also found DNA on the panties. Obviously, the factory where the garments were packaged was not a sterile environment.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


What an odd memory. Patsy said she did not feed JonBenet the pineapple. She didn't say it was not in the house. JonBenet wasn't 3 months old meaning she could have fed herself the pineapple. This is exactly the way rumors got started and perpetuated after the murder. It was like people were more interested in innuendo than finding the killer,no matter whether it was the parents or an intruder. Or even Santa.

I distinctly remember reading in one of the books that Patsy said she didn't even know where the pineapple came from that she didn't have any fresh pineapple in the house.... only canned.

Of course, JonBenet could feed herself. But if she did that then why weren't HER fingerprints found on the bowl? Only her mother's & brother's fingerprints were on the bowl.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
Since I'm not a detective working on the case, I don't keep accurate records in front of me to cross check everything I remember reading.

As I said, I read 4 books about the case & of course, I can't PROVE the Ramseys are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt just as the police were unable to & just as the DA was reluctant to bring a case that was not a slam dunk.

Quibbling over the size of the undigested pineapple is meaningless. They found pineapple in her stomach & a bowl of pineapple on the counter & her parents swore they have no idea where that pineapple (fresh NOT canned) came from.



What evidence do they have that an intruder was in the house?

One unexplained footprint on a basement floor in a house that was open to the public for tours?

One smudge on a wall but nobody knows how long it might have been there or even whether John left it when he climbed in through the basement window the year before.

And a flashlight that might have belonged to the Ramseys or might not have been. They had a flashlight similar to the one found but didn't know for sure that the one on the table was theirs or not. Was it left by an officer or an intruder?

Yet, we never hear of the Ramseys locating their flashlight & proving the one in their house was from the outside.


JonBenet has DNA under her nails but it was from more than one person & not necessarily from that night. The coroner did NOT use separate clippers for each nail, so that evidence is also questionable & would be ripped apart in court.

The days of the week panties JonBenet wore were brand new & yet they found unmatched DNA. When an never before opened package of the same brand panties was tested, they also found DNA on the panties. Obviously, the factory where the garments were packaged was not a sterile environment.



"Carnes' order also lists a series of largely uncontested facts that suggest an intruder entered the Ramsey home and murdered JonBenét. Among them:

• At least seven windows and a door in the Ramsey home were found open or unlocked after JonBenét disappeared. The alarm was off and windows were accessible from the ground level, including three that opened into the basement.

• Evidence suggested that an intruder climbed through a basement window and walked through the room where JonBenét was found.

• JonBenét's body was bound with complicated rope slipknots and a garrote that the order described as "sophisticated bondage devices" by someone "with an expertise in bondage." No evidence suggests the Ramseys knew how to tie such knots.

• Black duct tape found on JonBenét's mouth was never found in the Ramsey home, although evidence suggested "it came from a roll of tape that had been used before."

• Nothing in the Ramsey home matched dark animal hairs found on the duct tape and JonBenét's hands.

• Newly made, unidentified shoeprints, including one with a HI-TEC brand mark, were found on the basement floor. None of the Ramseys' shoes matched those prints.

• A palm print on the wine-cellar door where JonBenét's body was found does not match the Ramseys' palm prints and has never been identified.

• A baseball bat found outside the house with fibers consistent with fibers found on the carpet in the basement where JonBenét's body was found did not belong to the Ramseys.

• Brown cotton fibers found on JonBenét's body, the paintbrush used as a garrote, the duct tape and the ligature around her neck did not match anything in the Ramsey home.

• Male DNA found under JonBenét's fingernails and in her underwear does not match that of any Ramsey and has not been identified yet.

• A pubic hair found on the blanket covering JonBenét's body did not match that of any Ramsey.

• Injuries found on the child's body are consistent with the use of a stun gun, according to a forensic pathologist. The Ramseys swore they had never owned or operated a stun gun and none was found in their home. Carnes cited testimony by A. Louis "Lou" Smit, a homicide detective originally hired by the Boulder Police Department to investigate JonBenét's death but who later began working for the Ramseys. Smit has said he believes JonBenét was subdued by a stun gun. "

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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by bandit's mom



Actually, it's a pretty good theory. The pineapple always bothered
me because I couldn't figure out why the Ramseys would lie
about it. It really never occurred to me that it was an idea
to support the intruder theory. It's a pretty lame idea, IMO,
but considering the ransom note was also lame, you just
may be right.

I've pretty much been on the fence on this one for a long time.
Reading this, and a couple of other threads, on the case
over the last couple of weeks and seeing how informed many
of you are about the case, I have to say, IMO, the "guilty's"
are winning this debate, hands down. I'm now pretty
much convinced it was a Ramsey. I'm still not 100% that it
was Patsy, but I have little doubt that she was involved in
the cover up.

The "guilty's" may be "winning" the debate in your opinion on this board but in my opinion a judges opinion who heard and saw the real evidence, not just the gossip and fairy tales means more than posters on a forum.

"Through the prism of a defamation suit, a federal judge in Atlanta has examined the 1996 murder case of 6-year-old Colorado beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey and determined there is "virtually no evidence" to support theories that her parents killed her. "

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

"From: Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan

I have carefully reviewed the Order of United States District Court Judge Julie Carnes in the civil case of Wolf v. John Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey. I agree with the Court's conclusion that "the weight of the evidence is more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with a theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so."
Although issued in the context of a civil case, the Court's ruling is a thoughtful and well-reasoned decision based on the evidence that was presented by the parties in that case. It should be read in its entirety.
John and Patricia Ramsey have been the focus of an exhaustive investigation with regard to the murder of their daughter, JonBenet, for more than six years. People charged with a crime are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in court. Since Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey have not even been charged, much less convicted, they must be presumed innocent and must be treated accordingly.
For several months, my office has been investigating new and other unpursued leads, most of which involve the possibility that an intruder committed this crime. We are proceeding with the full cooperation of the Ramseys, Detective Lou Smit and the Boulder Police Department. We are all focused on the apprehension and successful prosecution of the killer of JonBenet."

http://listserv.co.boulder.co.us/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0304&L=bcpressrelease&T=0&P=576

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by noelsaloy
Can anyone explain to me (whether or not you buy it) the "sex ring" theory, that the parent (or one parent) was somehow involved in it?

"SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. — A private therapist said Friday she stands behind her client who claims to have crucial information that could help investigators in the death of JonBenét Ramsey.

Mary Bienkowski, a licensed marriage, family and child counselor, said her client gave Boulder police specific names of individuals who are witnesses in the killing of JonBenét as well as ongoing sexual and physical abuse of other children.

"If they do their job and investigate what needs to be investigated, the rest of the pieces will fall into place, and nobody is going to like what they find out," she said. "This person wouldn't be coming forward and risking everything if it were not because she wanted the abuse to stop and wanted to protect other children."


Read the whole link

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/26aram1.html

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/16arams.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by noelsaloy
Can anyone explain to me (whether or not you buy it) the "sex ring" theory, that the parent (or one parent) was somehow involved in it?

"
BOULDER — A district judge ruled Thursday that she will review a portion of the JonBenet Ramsey investigation files to determine if any of it should be seen by a Boulder couple who claim they were unfairly linked to the 6-year-old girl’s death.

“The Court is not persuaded that the public’s interest would be served in any fashion by preventing these people access to the now-discredited accusations which had been leveled against them in such an extraordinarily public way,” District Judge Lael Montgomery wrote in her ruling.

Earlier this month, former Ramsey family friend Fleet White Jr. asked Montgomery to order Boulder police to give him investigative records from the murder case detailing accusations that he was involved in a child-sex ring and may have had a part in JonBenet’s death.

White — representing himself and his wife, Priscilla — said the records should be turned over because police deemed the accusations as not credible. Montgomery ruled that the Whites do have a “compelling and legitimate interest” in obtaining the records of the allegations against them."

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail02.asp?ID=30

[Former Juror]

I re-watched that interview when LKL played it a few weeks ago. IMO, John Ramsey answered for her repeatedly because he was afraid she would slip up.

[breezy1234]

In mid-1997, Hoffman began soliciting handwriting experts to tie Patsy Ramsey to the ransom note. Carnes rejected one's being an expert because "she is not qualified to provide expert testimony ... has never taken a certification exam, completed an accreditation course in document examination, or been an apprentice to an ABFDE [American Board of Forensic Document Examiners] certified document examiner or worked in a crime lab."

Carnes also discounted testimony of a second handwriting expert recruited by Hoffman, ruling that he offered "no hint of the methodology" he used in determining that the ransom note "with 100 percent certainty" was written by Patsy Ramsey.

"Both parties agree that the Ransom Note is not an ideal specimen for handwriting analysis, primarily due to the type of writing instrument, a broad fiber-tip pen, used to draft the note. This type of pen distorts and masks fine details to an extent not achievable by other types of pen, as for example a ball point pen. (SMF P 243; PSMF P 243.) In addition, the stroke direction used to construct certain letters and subtle handprinting features, such as hesitations and pen lifts, are difficult to ascertain because of the pen used in the Ransom Note. (SMF P 244; PSMF P 244.)" (Carnes 2003:25).
"The Ransom Note was quite long, and in fact is one of the longest ransom notes in the history of kidnapping cases. (PSDMF P 17.) (Carnes 2003:25)
"the longer a document is, the harder it becomes to disguise one's handwriting. (PSDMF P 19.) (Carnes 2003:25)
"the handwriting in the original Ransom Note showed consistency throughout the entire writing. (SMF P 246; PSMF P 246.) One of the most common means to disguise one's handwriting is to attempt to make the script erratic throughout the text." (Carnes 2003:25).
"In sum, for the above reasons, the Ransom Note is not an ideal specimen for handwriting analysis. Nevertheless, the writer does not appear to have been trying to disguise his or her handwriting." (Carnes 2003:25).

"During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) Rather, the experts' consensus was that she "probably did not" write the Ransom Note. (SMF P 196; PSMF P 196.) On a scale of one to five, with five being elimination as the author of the Ransom Note, the experts placed Mrs. Ramsey at a 4.5 or a 4.0. (SMF P 203; PSMF P 203.) The experts described the chance of Mrs. Ramsey being the author of the Ransom Note as "very low." (SMF P 204; PSMF P 204.) The two experts hired by defendants both assert that this evidence strongly suggests that Mrs. Ramsey did not write the Note. (SMF P 254.)" (Carnes 2003:26). "Defendants' experts base their conclusion that Mrs. Ramsey is not the author of the Ransom Note on the "numerous significant dissimilarities" between the individual characteristics of Mrs. Ramsey's handprinting and of that used in the Ransom Note. (SMF P 247.) For example, defendants asserts Mrs. Ramsey's written letter "u" consistently differs from the way the same letter is written throughout the Ransom Note. (SMF P 248.)" (Carnes 2003:27). The expertise and high ethical standards of these experts was summarized by Darnay Hoffman, an attorney for Chris Wolf, who sought to prove that Patsy Ramsey was the note writer, in a fax to Tom Miller, a handwriting expert he had hired (see below): "I spoke with handwriting expert Paul A. Osborn...He refuses to touch the Ramsey case with a ten foot pole. His reasons: he knows the handwriting experts who gave their reports to the defense team and to C.B.I.--four in all. According to Osborn these experts are supposedly top of their field (he won't give me their names) with impeccable ethical credentials. Their verdict: the similarities between Patsy and the ransom note writers handwriting is at the very lowest end of the spectrum, i.e., there is little or no basis for match."

[breezy1234]

"From: Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan

I have carefully reviewed the Order of United States District Court Judge Julie Carnes in the civil case of Wolf v. John Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey. I agree with the Court's conclusion that "the weight of the evidence is more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with a theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so."
Although issued in the context of a civil case, the Court's ruling is a thoughtful and well-reasoned decision based on the evidence that was presented by the parties in that case. It should be read in its entirety.
John and Patricia Ramsey have been the focus of an exhaustive investigation with regard to the murder of their daughter, JonBenet, for more than six years. People charged with a crime are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in court. Since Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey have not even been charged, much less convicted, they must be presumed innocent and must be treated accordingly.
For several months, my office has been investigating new and other unpursued leads, most of which involve the possibility that an intruder committed this crime. We are proceeding with the full cooperation of the Ramseys, Detective Lou Smit and the Boulder Police Department. We are all focused on the apprehension and successful prosecution of the killer of JonBenet."

http://listserv.co.boulder.co.us/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0304&L=bcpressrelease&T=0&P=576

"Indeed, "many people have attempted to capitalize on and profit from the widespread interest in JonBenét's murder," Carnes' order stated, among them, Wolf, who attempted to secure his own book deal, and Thomas, "the chief theorist behind [Wolf's] claims." Wolf, the order pointed out, "has appeared before the media and profited from discussing and critiquing the murder investigation."


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

[breezy1234]

Melinda Ramsey stated: "I'm John Ramseys daughter. I grew up with him, he raised me and I saw him raise JonBenet and I don't understand why they don't believe me --- That he is the most caring father in the world. He has never, ever, ever abused us in any way. I just wish I could say something to convince them."
"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. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." (PMPT pg 306; quote and source provided by Internet poster The Punisher)
Autopsy findings could be explained by toileting practices
Bedwetting is not uncommon even among 6-year olds
JBR appeared very well-adjusted psychologically; this is unlikely were she an abuse victim

JBR's pediatrician denied there had been any sexual abuse and he was in the best position to know.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Lianasmom


Thomas comes across as extremely arrogant in that interview -- ordering John to not speak in place of Patsy. John Ramsey should have stood up and bashed his face in. If someone talked to me like that my husband would have. John showed great restraint imo. That exchange did not take place in a court of law while under oath, but was supposed to be a discussion between the parties -- not just Thomas and Patsy. I can understand from that exchange why in the end Thomas had to pay the Ramseys a settlement out of their defamation suit against him. It shows Thomas is out of control and lacks discretion and good judgment.


:patriot: Exactly and the judge in the civil suit agrees.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
FormerJuror: ITA...I believe that John thought Patsy would slip up big time. He was VERY afraid of that happening.

What you "believe" is not evidence. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
Breezy quoting Melinda: Melinda Ramsey stated: "I'm John Ramseys daughter. I grew up with him, he raised me and I saw him raise JonBenet and I don't understand why they don't believe me --- That he is the most caring father in the world. He has never, ever, ever abused us in any way. I just wish I could say something to convince them."


Breezy, you actually think John would have molested JonBenet right in front of Melinda if he did it. Come on. That proves nothing.

Her point was that John didn't molest her or the other children. :rolleyes: Nothing proves anything in this case. What Melinda said is what she said. What Thomas said was a lot of hot air that he couldn't back up in court but you quote him as if he is God.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
Lianasmom says:John Ramsey should have stood up and bashed his face in.


Man, you Ramsey supporters get violent when someone goes against you. Now I see why all of you like Patsy so much.

Just shows John AND Patsy let the liar Thomas rant on and on and DIDN'T bash the jerk in the face. :rolleyes:

[rashomon]

Originally posted by noelsaloy
Can anyone explain to me (whether or not you buy it) the "sex ring" theory, that the parent (or one parent) was somehow involved in it?
I don't believe the Ramseys were the types who would have allowed anyone else to 'use' their daughter for that.
But I do think it possible that someone within the family was abusing JB sexually. Dr. McCann, a world-renowned expert on child abuse, when reviewing slides of the damage done to JB's genitals said that JB in all probability suffered from chronic sexual abuse.
Of the seven doctors of the medical panel who were asked to offer their opinion, five agreed with Dr. McCann's assessment.

What I found strange in Patsy is that she complained to her housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh about having lost interest in sex, and asked her how she could revive her sex life. Pugh recommended buying some videos.
While I know that some women tell their housekeepers a lot, but a multimillionaire's wife confiding such intimate things to her housekeeper is very odd imo.

Noelsaloy, you asked if possibly Burke watched his parents in some kinky sex game (erotic asphyxiation) and tried it on JB too, with deadly results.
But how would the head bash come in then? I also have difficulty seeing six-year-old JB as the willing participant in such sex games.

I personally believe that Patsy would never have forgiven Burke if he had killed her daughter, even accidentally. She would not have covered up for him, but suffered a total nervous breakdown instead. And if John had killed JonBenet, I believe Patsy would have killed John too.
I believe that the only person Patsy Ramsey would ever have covered up for is herself.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Why did Thomas visit the Rameys' former home in Atlanta? What did he expect to find there? Why did he question friends of John's oldest daughter Beth who was killed in a wreck? PM/PT.

Because he was looking for ANYTHING to use against the Ramseys. JMO, of course.

Exactly and if Melinda or anyone even hinted at sexual or physical abuse Thomas would have jumped up it.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
Patsy & John are the jerks not Steve Thomas. Patsy is the one that is the murderer not Steve Thomas. Remember that.:rolleyes:

YOU remember that is YOUR opinion NOT the opinion of those who have an open mind and can understand the evidence and don't buy the fairy tales put out by people that can't back up what they say in court.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
Breezy:Just shows John AND Patsy let the liar Thomas rant on and on and DIDN'T bash the jerk in the face.


See what I mean. They get violent. I'm glad I'm on this board & I don't have to see them in person. They would probably attack me if I didn't agree with them.;)


:lol: WHO here is getting violent? You are just like your hero Thomas, you make up fairy tales and but are afraid to back up what you say. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Look how Thomas dances around the truth and "doesnt' know" or "can't recal" when he wants to avoid the truth. Strange somone with such a selective memory can find fault and expects grief wracked parents to remember every tiny detail at the time of their daughters murder though, huh?

Was that some sort of a civil

2 lawsuit?

3 A. Exactly.

4 Q. Were you a defendant in that

5 matter?

6 A. The city and myself and other

7 officers, yes.

8 Q. And where was that?

9 A. The City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado.

10 Q. Were you sued for a violation of

11 civil rights?

12 A. No, I don't think that was the

13 basis of the suit.

14 Q. What was the basis?

15 A. We stopped a car we believed to

16 be stolen. It turned out not to be and the

17 people felt wronged by that.

18 Q. So you were sued as a defendant

19 along with others and the City of Wheat

20 Ridge, Colorado?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. Do you know how that case was

23 resolved?

24 A. I think it settled.

25 Q. Moneys paid to the plaintiff?





25



1 A. That's my understanding.

2 Q. On your behalf as well as the

3 city's behalf?

4 A. I don't know.

5 Q. But that was -- was that filed in

6 the Wheat Ridge or the county of Wheat Ridge?

7 A. I don't know.

8 Q. But in Colorado?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Were you deposed?

11 A. That's what I just said, no. I

12 don't -- I don't know that I had to give any

13 testimony in that.

14 Q. I thought you said you were

15 present for deposition; I may have

16 misunderstood. I don't know if you were

17 there watching someone in attendance or

18 whether you were actually deposed and you're

19 not sure of which; is that right?

20 A. I recall being in a setting

21 similar to this where the other parties were

22 on the other side of the table and there was

23 some Q and A, but I think it was the other

24 side.

25 Q. Other than that lawsuit, have you





26



1 ever been sued in any other matters?

2 Obviously we know about the John and Patsy

3 Ramsey lawsuit against you. Other than those

4 two cases, have you ever been sued in a

5 civil case?

6 A. I don't recall any other, no,

http://www.acandyrose.com/09212001thomas-depo.htm

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


And I take credit for all of my opinions, don't you, Breezy?
(Wouldn't you be embarassed to NOT be able to take credit for what you think?) JMO, of course.

Yes I agree.

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by rashomon

I don't believe the Ramseys were the types who would have allowed anyone else to 'use' their daughter for that.

Thanks for the links, Breezy. And I agree with your above quote, Rashomon. And as for all "conspiracy" situations, the more people who are in the know, the faster the details come out. One or two people may keep mum, but for several people to never tell a friend something, a spouse, the police...that's difficult.

As for Patsy being, well, basically crazy. I've read about women who torture their kids, like Sybil's mom, or the woman who killed Suesan (spelled that way) and her other daughter because she thought they were the devil, or whatever... I know that happens, but it seems that there would have been evidence of other strange behavior in Patsy.

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
FYI - there is another CTV Board - Current Crimes & Old/Cold Cases - that has a thread about the Ramsey case.

Thanks! Do you know what it's called or have a link?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by noelsaloy


Thanks! Do you know what it's called or have a link?

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=8286058#post8286058

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Former Juror

And, fed Jonbenet pineapple before she was brutally killed? I just don't buy it.
Fed JonBenet pineapple and then waited for one to two hours in that house (without any fear of being caught) before killing her. Totally absurd.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Will05
FormerJuror: ITA...I believe that John thought Patsy would slip up big time. He was VERY afraid of that happening.
My thoughts exactly, Will.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
Breezy, you're in fantasyland. Keep believing Patsy & John's fairy tale. You bought it hook, line & sinker. At least keep an open mind about the case.

I don't remember asking for your opinion of what I "bought" but thanks anyhow. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


What a stretch this idea is. If John Ramsey had any idea that Patsy was the murderer and might slip up and say something to incriminate herself on a national TV show, do you actually believe he would have agreed for them to be interviewed by Larry King, much less Steve Thomas? LOL.

Haven't you noticed most of their ideas are "stretches"? I can't figure out if they can read minds why they are wasting time on a message board. They could solve all the worlds murders, wars and problems. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


Thank you for posting a credible link and a snippet of truth amongst all the musings. This whole sad story brings to mind the days of witch hunts.

That is the truth. No matter what other evidence came out showing a possible intruder, it was discarded and not even checked out and not even reported but Thomas's and the BPD story got told and retold by the media and others who wanted to make a buck writing books and tabloid story's. Very sad that after all these years, peoples desire to destory others on lies and suspicions hasn't changed.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234

What you "believe" is not evidence. :rolleyes:
Breezy, this is no courtroom but a discussion board, and personal opinions and speculations are part of a true crime discussion, if you like it or not. You for example 'believe' that the Ramseys are innocent. That is not evidence either, but you are of course free to voice your opinion here, just like everybody else.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

Breezy, this is no courtroom but a discussion board, and personal opinions and speculations are part of a true crime discussion, if you like it or not. You for example 'believe' that the Ramseys are innocent. That is not evidence either, but you are of course free to voice your opinion here, just like everybody else.

Thanks for the news flash. FYI a TV show or book is not a courtroom either and that is where his "beliefs" came from. Thanks for giving me the option to voice my opinion though. :rolleyes:

[rashomon]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hohum


What a stretch this idea is. If John Ramsey had any idea that Patsy was the murderer and might slip up and say something to incriminate herself on a national TV show, do you actually believe he would have agreed for them to be interviewed by Larry King, much less Steve Thomas? LOL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget how arrogant the Ramseys are. They had gotten away with the crime so far, and I think they inwardly thumbed their nose at all the idiots and cowards in Boulder LE which had enabled them to get away with it.
Steve Thomas of course was not one of these idiots, which is why I think John told Patsy he would protect her in the interview and attack Thomas whenever it should get tough.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234

Thanks for the news flash. FYI a TV show or book is not a courtroom either and that is where his "beliefs" came from. Thanks for giving me the option to voice my opinion though. :rolleyes:
Have you read these books yourself, Breezy? If not, how can you give your opinion about something you don't know?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rashomon

Have you read these books yourself, Breezy? If not, how can you give your opinion about something you don't know?

I give my opinion on court transcripts and evidence, not books, sorry.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Breezy, please just keep posting your links and disregard the baiting. All that discussion "innocence/presumption of innocence" got the other thread bogged down - posts were deleted - and finally everyone just quit posting there. I appreciate the information you provide. TIA

Thanks, you are right. All the baiting, word games and name calling gets the discussion deleted, going in circles and getting no where. I can't understand why some will insist "theories" are better than facts. Strange how so many WANT to believe "books" written for money rather than court transcripts, the fact the GJ did not indict and the fact that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Oh well, to each his own. :shrug:

[noelsaloy]

So let me see if I can understand the major theories:

1- Accident/Cover-up
2- "Friendly" Intruder
3- Sex Ring with parents' semi-knowledge

Does that sound right? If so, I'm thinking Breezy and Rosyred are fans of #2 and Rashoman of #1?

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by noelsaloy
So let me see if I can understand the major theories:

1- Accident/Cover-up
2- "Friendly" Intruder
3- Sex Ring with parents' semi-knowledge

Does that sound right? If so, I'm thinking Breezy and Rosyred are fans of #2 and Rashoman of #1?

My "theory" agrees with the judge and the present DA..

"Through the prism of a defamation suit, a federal judge in Atlanta has examined the 1996 murder case of 6-year-old Colorado beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey and determined there is "virtually no evidence" to support theories that her parents killed her.

U.S. District Judge Julie E. Carnes, a former federal prosecutor, ruled that there is "abundant evidence" to support assertions by JonBenét's parents, John B. and Patricia P. "Patsy" Ramsey, [/b]"that an intruder entered their home at some point during the night of Dec. 25, 1996, and killed their daughter." [/b]

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

"D.A. Keenan concurs with order of District Court Judge Carnes

From: Boulder County District Attorney Mary Keenan

I have carefully reviewed the Order of United States District Court Judge Julie Carnes in the civil case of Wolf v. John Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey. I agree with the Court's conclusion that "the weight of the evidence is more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with a theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so."
Although issued in the context of a civil case, the Court's ruling is a thoughtful and well-reasoned decision based on the evidence that was presented by the parties in that case. It should be read in its entirety.
John and Patricia Ramsey have been the focus of an exhaustive investigation with regard to the murder of their daughter, JonBenet, for more than six years. People charged with a crime are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in court. Since Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey have not even been charged, much less convicted, they must be presumed innocent and must be treated accordingly.
For several months, my office has been investigating new and other unpursued leads, most of which involve the possibility that an intruder committed this crime. We are proceeding with the full cooperation of the Ramseys, Detective Lou Smit and the Boulder Police Department. We are all focused on the apprehension and successful prosecution of the killer of JonBenet."

http://listserv.co.boulder.co.us/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0304&L=bcpressrelease&T=0&P=576

[noelsaloy]

...that it was an intruder (or "friendly" intruder) too, but NOT because I think "Oh, they were such nice people..." I believe that people always have reasons for killing other people whether or not they act on them. I could even see the possibility that there was sexual abuse going on, but that there still was an intruder.

Things are not always either/or. People discuss the ransom note, for example, as either 100% real or 100% bogus: either parents covering up OR a real foreign faction. I don't think it's that simple.

[nutmeg22]

This may be way off base, but the pineapple thing has bothered me. Couldn't JonBenet gotten the pineapple herself? She was a very smart little girl and could easily have come downstairs because she was hungry. I don't necessarily think whoever killed her fed her pineapple first. Not a big deal, jmo

[rashomon]

Originally posted by breezy1234

I give my opinion on court transcripts and evidence, not books, sorry.
Imo any discussion of the Ramsey case without having read at least the two basic books about the case (Thomas'and Schiller's) won't lead anywhere. For these books offer a very good overall picture of the case (but it doesn't man you have to agree with everything that is in them).

You have quoted Judge Carnes countless times, but remember that she got most of her info from team Ramsey.
That the grand jury didn't indict doesn't mean much either, for a GJ where the main suspects John and Patsy didn't even testify is a farce anyway. Steve Thomas, the detective with the most insight into the case, wasn't allowed to testify there either.

There exist such things as miscarriage of justice, Breezy.
Criminal profiler Gregg McCrary said that e. g. Alex Hnter should have been charged with prosecutorial malfesince and obstruction of justice.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


There are many possible scenarios and we will never know exactly what happened, but here is one. An intruder known to JonBenet (who by the way has plans to kidnap and or murder her) lures her downstairs on the premise of a treat of some sort. Perhaps he/she even asked what JB would like and she requested pineapple. In any event, the perpetrator of this crime gets the bowl and the pineapple, and knowing what they intended of course did not touch the bowl. For instance they might have held it with a hand towel or dishcloth. Why do I not think it's strange that Patsy would have her fingerprints on the bowl? You don't think John Ramsey emptied the dishwasher do you? Yes the Ramsey's had a housekeeper, but that doesn't mean she did every single thing in a household of 4. This is just an example of one way the night could have played out in respect to JonBenet consuming the pineapple. Heck, now that you mention it maybe the murderer knew that JonBenet liked fresh pineapple and bought her a treat.


I agree, that's surely a possibility.

And as you say, we'll never know. Well unless someone confesses one day.

Isn't this why the DA was so reluctant to push this case... because there was reasonable doubt & he knew they couldn't win? :shrug:

[LI_Mom]

Here's something that really bothers me about the Ramseys.

You wake up around 5:00 am or so & find your daughter has been kidnapped during the night from her bedroom on the 2nd floor.

You peek in & see your son is still asleep & then you go downstairs to call 911 to report the crime.

It doesn't make sense that you wouldn't wake up your son & ask him if he saw or heard anything unusual during the night. Or whether he saw or heard JonBenet get up?


What parent would asuume their child couldn't possibily know anything that might be helpful & just let him sleep?

It makes NO SENSE to me.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
Here's something that really bothers me about the Ramseys.

You wake up around 5:00 am or so & find your daughter has been kidnapped during the night from her bedroom on the 2nd floor.

You peek in & see your son is still asleep & then you go downstairs to call 911 to report the crime.

It doesn't make sense that you wouldn't wake up your son & ask him if he saw or heard anything unusual during the night. Or whether he saw or heard JonBenet get up?


What parent would asuume their child couldn't possibily know anything that might be helpful & just let him sleep?

It makes NO SENSE to me.

He was 9 years old. Would you really scare him by asking him questions about a kidnapping? Patsy was hysterical so why on earth scare Burke by seeing his mother that way before they even knew what had happened? Do you think if he saw or heard anything he wouldn't have woke his parents or do you think he could go peacefully back to sleep? It makes no sense to me to wake a sleeping child to ask him if he saw a kidnapper. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


O/T, but true (or parents in general) e.g., Danielle van Dam, Jessica Lunsford, the Groene children come to mind.....

Good thing Thomas and the BPD weren't on those cases or the parents would still be under umbrellas and the killers would be free.

[Lianasmom]

Why do people insist that Alex Hunter as DA didn't pursue the case? It looks like he had a whole slew of qualified people that he went out of his way to obtain when the case was before the GJ. I highly doubt all those people would have banked their reputation on a case they were secretly trying to sabotage or get out of prosecuting....

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/primer/primer3_pro.html

[Solace]

Originally posted by debbmos


Please show a link that the DA Alex Hunter was to weak to bring charges. Thank you

Hi there, wellllll, I don't know if I have the time to look for a link but you can read about this in Perfect Murder/Perfect Town and you can also read S. Thomas' book which speaks of nonstop corruption in the DA's office. I bet I could dig it up but you can take a look at these for example. Of course there are those who do not believe one word of S. Thomas' book. I happen to believe him. Alex Hunter is portrayer in Perfect Murder Perfect Town as speaking to a wanna be reporter by the name of Shapiro and giving him information which he should not have been doing. He has a long history of not indicting. You have to do some research on this man if you are interested. He is not what he makes himself out to be.

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


He was 9 years old. Would you really scare him by asking him questions about a kidnapping? Patsy was hysterical so why on earth scare Burke by seeing his mother that way before they even knew what had happened? Do you think if he saw or heard anything he wouldn't have woke his parents or do you think he could go peacefully back to sleep? It makes no sense to me to wake a sleeping child to ask him if he saw a kidnapper. :shrug:

Well, lets see. My daughter is missing and a note says she will be beheaded if I don't come up with the ransom money. Now, I am hysterical, but there is no reason to go wake up her nine year old brother because we don't want to scare him. I DONT THINK SO. By the way, he admits he was not sleeping, he was pretending.

I would like to suggest that the pro-Ramsey folks might want to think if it were their child when they are posed a question of this sort. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD LET ANOTHER CHILD SLEEP IF THEY WERE IN THE HOUSE WHEN A SIBLING WAS KIDNAPPED, unless that child was a baby and even then the parents are going to grab them and keep them within eye sight. WITHIN EYESIGHT.

Which brings me to a thought, the Ramseys didn't feel this need, Probably because they knew there was nothing to worry about. They had no intention of killing Berke.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234



He was 9 years old. Would you really scare him by asking him questions about a kidnapping? Patsy was hysterical so why on earth scare Burke by seeing his mother that way before they even knew what had happened? Do you think if he saw or heard anything he wouldn't have woke his parents or do you think he could go peacefully back to sleep? It makes no sense to me to wake a sleeping child to ask him if he saw a kidnapper.



If MY 6 year old child was kidnapped in the middle of the night, you can BET I'd question every single person that was in the house.

The last thing I'd be worried about is whether they might get "scared" because I asked if they saw or heard anything at all that might help the police find my baby.

And I sure wouldn't wait nearly TWO HOURS for the child to wake on his own, either.

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


If MY 6 year old child was kidnapped in the middle of the night, you can BET I'd question every single person that was in the house.

The last thing I'd be worried about is whether they might get "scared" because I asked if they saw or heard anything at all that might help the police find my baby.

And I sure wouldn't wait nearly TWO HOURS for the child to wake on his own, either.

Couldn't agree with you more. I bet those that disagree would have a change of heart if it were their children or grandchildren. We are talking about parents here, are we not.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


Well, according to board rules you should post a link if you are quoting/using info from someone else - or if you are just stating an opinion you should say something like imo (in my opinion), jmo (just my opinion) so that readers know you aren't claiming fact but rather stating an opinion. JMO

A few pro-Ramsey posters keep repeating this & here's a ~~ LINK ~~ (http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=261842) but suprisingly, what they are claiming about the 'rules' is NOT even true.


It's unreasonable to expect laymen to always be able to track down links or which specific book they read something in..... IMO.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Hi there, wellllll, I don't know if I have the time to look for a link but you can read about this in Perfect Murder/Perfect Town and you can also read S. Thomas' book which speaks of nonstop corruption in the DA's office. I bet I could dig it up but you can take a look at these for example. Of course there are those who do not believe one word of S. Thomas' book. I happen to believe him. Alex Hunter is portrayer in Perfect Murder Perfect Town as speaking to a wanna be reporter by the name of Shapiro and giving him information which he should not have been doing. He has a long history of not indicting. You have to do some research on this man if you are interested. He is not what he makes himself out to be.

IMO the non stop coruption and ineptitude was in the police force, expecially Steve Thomas.

"Carnes also criticized Boulder police, saying that "a series of events compromised the crime scene" and that its officers, including Thomas, had little or no experience in homicide investigation.

In addition, police adopted a suggestion by the FBI "to publicly name [the Ramseys'] as suspects and apply intense media pressure to them so that they would confess to the crime." The police department's attempt to "smoke out" the Ramseys as their daughter's killers utilized the media as a tool, according to Carnes' order. "In addition to this intentional use of the press, a number of leaks of confidential information, at various stages of the murder investigation, served to hamper the ability of the Boulder Police Department to conduct an effective investigation into the crime."

Indeed, "many people have attempted to capitalize on and profit from the widespread interest in JonBenét's murder," Carnes' order stated, among them, Wolf, who attempted to secure his own book deal, and Thomas, "the chief theorist behind [Wolf's] claims." Wolf, the order pointed out, "has appeared before the media and profited from discussing and critiquing the murder investigation."

Carnes reserved special criticism for Thomas, the former Boulder detective upon whose theories the Wolf complaint was based. "Whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas' theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support," she wrote.

"Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case. In short, the plaintiff's evidence that the [Ramseys] killed their daughter and covered up their crime is based on little more than the fact that defendants were present in the house during the murder," Carnes wrote.

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


Do some research on the man you "believe". He wrote a book for MONEY. He settled with the Ramsey's rather than to try to prove his "theory". He was a narcotics detective, NOT a homicide detective. He was involved in a town in Colorado having to pay damages to someone for his "mistake". He admitted under oath when forced to testify that he leaked all the crapola that spoonfed the hungry gossips crucifying the Ramseys. If he was so sure of his theory and so sure he could prove it WHY did he leak anonymously? IMO the man you "believe" is a opertunist who THOUGHT he could get rich on the backs of a dead little girl and her grieving parents. He should be ashamed of himself but those kind never are it seems.

" lead detective in the JonBenet Ramsey homicide case was the primary source for a scathing 1997 magazine article that rocked the investigation.
Steve Thomas, who quit the Boulder Police Department in frustration in 1998, admitted in a September 2001 deposition to being an anonymous police informant for the Vanity Fair article, "Who Killed JonBenet?" by Ann Louise Bardach.

"The article, published in September 1997, aged the Boulder District Attorney's Office as incompetent, deferential to Ramsey defense attorneys and obstructing police efforts to make an arrest. It profoundly shaped views of prosecutors' involvement that persist to this day.

The article set off an intense and ultimately frustrated search for the source of the leak. Lie-detector tests were cancelled after the police union told management it would violate employees' contracts.

Had Thomas been discovered, he would have been removed from the case and possibly fired, testified current Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner in a Nov. 26, 2001, deposition.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1965510,00.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


If MY 6 year old child was kidnapped in the middle of the night, you can BET I'd question every single person that was in the house.

The last thing I'd be worried about is whether they might get "scared" because I asked if they saw or heard anything at all that might help the police find my baby.

And I sure wouldn't wait nearly TWO HOURS for the child to wake on his own, either.

Then you must not think your child at 9 years old is smart enough to tell you if he saw or heard anything and you must think they have no feelings to be able to go back to sleep if he did hear or see something. :shrug: We all think differntly and react differently and know our own children better than anyone else.

If Patsy had woke Burke up it would be said she did it to coach him on what to say so she was wrong if she did and wrong if she didn't. :shrug:

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I don't remember asking for your opinion of what I "bought" but thanks anyhow. :rolleyes:

I love your opinion Will. And I thought that is what it is all about here opinions. Or am I wrong?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


Couldn't agree with you more. I bet those that disagree would have a change of heart if it were their children or grandchildren. We are talking about parents here, are we not.


IMO, anyone who will not even concede THIS point is very likely to be someone who is personally related to the Ramseys, either through blood or friendship.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Couldn't agree with you more. I bet those that disagree would have a change of heart if it were their children or grandchildren. We are talking about parents here, are we not.


Yes we are talking about parents here who were going crazy with worry wondering where their daughter was. :rolleyes: It's wonderful some of you know exactly how you would react and what you would do and say but some of us have never been in that situation to say one way or the other. I have never lost anyone to kidnapping or murder but I have lost people I love to death and I know for a fact in that situation, your mind is not functioning as it normally would.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



IMO, anyone who will not even concede THIS point is very likely to be someone who is personally related to the Ramseys, either through blood or friendship.

Wrong again. I am not related to them nor even met them.

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


IMO the non stop coruption and ineptitude was in the police force, expecially Steve Thomas.

"Carnes also criticized Boulder police, saying that "a series of events compromised the crime scene" and that its officers, including Thomas, had little or no experience in homicide investigation.

In addition, police adopted a suggestion by the FBI "to publicly name [the Ramseys'] as suspects and apply intense media pressure to them so that they would confess to the crime." The police department's attempt to "smoke out" the Ramseys as their daughter's killers utilized the media as a tool, according to Carnes' order. "In addition to this intentional use of the press, a number of leaks of confidential information, at various stages of the murder investigation, served to hamper the ability of the Boulder Police Department to conduct an effective investigation into the crime."

Indeed, "many people have attempted to capitalize on and profit from the widespread interest in JonBenét's murder," Carnes' order stated, among them, Wolf, who attempted to secure his own book deal, and Thomas, "the chief theorist behind [Wolf's] claims." Wolf, the order pointed out, "has appeared before the media and profited from discussing and critiquing the murder investigation."

Carnes reserved special criticism for Thomas, the former Boulder detective upon whose theories the Wolf complaint was based. "Whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas' theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support," she wrote.

"Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case. In short, the plaintiff's evidence that the [Ramseys] killed their daughter and covered up their crime is based on little more than the fact that defendants were present in the house during the murder," Carnes wrote.

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


Do some research on the man you "believe". He wrote a book for MONEY. He settled with the Ramsey's rather than to try to prove his "theory". He was a narcotics detective, NOT a homicide detective. He was involved in a town in Colorado having to pay damages to someone for his "mistake". He admitted under oath when forced to testify that he leaked all the crapola that spoonfed the hungry gossips crucifying the Ramseys. If he was so sure of his theory and so sure he could prove it WHY did he leak anonymously? IMO the man you "believe" is a opertunist who THOUGHT he could get rich on the backs of a dead little girl and her grieving parents. He should be ashamed of himself but those kind never are it seems.

" lead detective in the JonBenet Ramsey homicide case was the primary source for a scathing 1997 magazine article that rocked the investigation.
Steve Thomas, who quit the Boulder Police Department in frustration in 1998, admitted in a September 2001 deposition to being an anonymous police informant for the Vanity Fair article, "Who Killed JonBenet?" by Ann Louise Bardach.

"The article, published in September 1997, aged the Boulder District Attorney's Office as incompetent, deferential to Ramsey defense attorneys and obstructing police efforts to make an arrest. It profoundly shaped views of prosecutors' involvement that persist to this day.

The article set off an intense and ultimately frustrated search for the source of the leak. Lie-detector tests were cancelled after the police union told management it would violate employees' contracts.

Had Thomas been discovered, he would have been removed from the case and possibly fired, testified current Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner in a Nov. 26, 2001, deposition.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1965510,00.html

So I take it you believe that "LEAKING" is wrong. Well, your good friend Alex Hunter did nothing but leak to Shapiro from the get, and at a time in a crucial investigation. In 1998, things were so bad with what he had leaked that he did speak to Vanity Fair. You might want to read the article. It is interesting. You might want to actually find out about Lou Smit who had information that he withheld from Steve Thomas and the others on the case for over a year. I guess that would be okay, since Lou thinks they are innocent

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


I love your opinion Will. And I thought that is what it is all about here opinions. Or am I wrong?

Opinions about the CASE, not about other posters. :rolleyes:

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Then you must not think your child at 9 years old is smart enough to tell you if he saw or heard anything and you must think they have no feelings to be able to go back to sleep if he did hear or see something. :shrug: We all think differntly and react differently and know our own children better than anyone else.

If Patsy had woke Burke up it would be said she did it to coach him on what to say so she was wrong if she did and wrong if she didn't. :shrug:

Come on, you MUST be joking.

A child at 9 has to be "smart" to know whether he saw or heard anything during the night?

And why on earth would I be concerned that my surviving child be able to drift back to sleep for a couple more hours? Sorry. I'm frantic. I'm frightened. The house is full of strangers & friends anyway, so I really don't have time to worry whether my son can catch a few more winks.


And it's a silly argument to suppose people would have just claimed she woke Burke to coach him when her INACTIONS are more damaging to their case than anything we might come up with to explain why she woke Burke.

Second guessing the Ramseys for making SOUND DECISIONS makes the person look foolish. Second guessing the Ramseys for making TERRIBLE DECISIONS is the way strong circumstantial cases are built.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


So I take it you believe that "LEAKING" is wrong. Well, your good friend Alex Hunter did nothing but leak to Shapiro from the get, and at a time in a crucial investigation. In 1998, things were so bad with what he had leaked that he did speak to Vanity Fair. You might want to read the article. It is interesting. You might want to actually find out about Lou Smit who had information that he withheld from Steve Thomas and the others on the case for over a year. I guess that would be okay, since Lou thinks they are innocent

HUH? when did Alex Hunter become my good friend? :rolleyes:

I guess you should put the books down (unless you are in to fairy tales) and read the real evidence about the case.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Come on, you MUST be joking.

A child at 9 has to be "smart" to know whether he saw or heard anything during the night?

And why on earth would I be concerned that my surviving child be able to drift back to sleep for a couple more hours? Sorry. I'm frantic. I'm frightened. The house is full of strangers & friends anyway, so I really don't have time to worry whether my son can catch a few more winks.


And it's a silly argument to suppose people would have just claimed she woke Burke to coach him when her INACTIONS are more damaging to their case than anything we might come up with to explain why she woke Burke.

Second guessing the Ramseys for making SOUND DECISIONS makes the person look foolish. Second guessing the Ramseys for making TERRIBLE DECISIONS is the way strong circumstantial cases are built.

You see it your way, I see it mine. :shrug: Build all the circumstances you wish to, but nothing now known will prove they or she murdered JonBenet and that was proven by a judge, a DA and a grand jury.

I'm glad you are so controlled that you would know exactly the right ""sound decisions" to make in the case you find a ransom note and your child missing but unfortunaltely not everyone is as controlled as you are. Most people have emotions that take control in a situation like that.

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You see it your way, I see it mine. :shrug: Build all the circumstances you wish to, but nothing now known will prove they or she murdered JonBenet and that was proven by a judge, a DA and a grand jury.

I'm glad you are so controlled that you would know exactly the right ""sound decisions" to make in the case you find a ransom note and your child missing but unfortunaltely not everyone is as controlled as you are. Most people have emotions that take control in a situation like that.

LI Mom,

I agree with you LIMom.

And I believe you were saying the opposite of being controlled, that you would be franctic and no one is going to sleep if there is a kidnapping going on. Breezy on the other hand said there is no point to wake the sleeping child. That sounds controlled to me and totally, totally unrealistic.

We all know that everyone would be frantic including Breezy, but gee, that is JMO, of course.

[LI_Mom]

Here's another thing that strikes me as VERY odd concerning Patsy.

According to the Ramsey's own book....

Much was said about John's deep grief at losing his daughter Beth in the tragic car crash. (I totally believe that he was devestated by her death.)


While the Ramseys are staying with their friends, the Stines, Patsy comments that they watched videos to entertain the boys & to take all their minds off what was going on.

(page: 154-155) Talking about Susan Stine, Patsy says:

"Often she would say to the boys, "Count every single car that crashes & tell me at the end of the movie how many police cars & how many other cars you saw get destroyed." Watching these outrageous & funny films shifted our minds for the moment away from our grief & our mounting troubles with the police & the media."


That passage really made me wonder how compassionate or emotionally balanced Patsy was. Does the wife of a man who lost his eldest daughter in a car crash really find it relaxing or fun to have her son counting car crashes in movies to forget about his little sister's murder?

Rather than admonish Susan for opening up a wound for Burke or the family, Patsy describes it as a way to FORGET??

Very, very odd, imo.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


LI Mom,

I agree with you LIMom.

And I believe you were saying the opposite of being controlled, that you would be franctic and no one is going to sleep if there is a kidnapping going on. Breezy on the other hand said there is no point to wake the sleeping child. That sounds controlled to me and totally, totally unrealistic.

We all know that everyone would be frantic including Breezy, but gee, that is JMO, of course.

Exactly and that was my point if you had read it.

breezy1234 quote:


Yes we are talking about parents here who were going crazy with worry wondering where their daughter was. It's wonderful some of you know exactly how you would react and what you would do and say but some of us have never been in that situation to say one way or the other. I have never lost anyone to kidnapping or murder but I have lost people I love to death and I know for a fact in that situation, your mind is not functioning as it normally would.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


LI Mom,

I agree with you LIMom.

And I believe you were saying the opposite of being controlled, that you would be franctic and no one is going to sleep if there is a kidnapping going on. Breezy on the other hand said there is no point to wake the sleeping child. That sounds controlled to me and totally, totally unrealistic.

We all know that everyone would be frantic including Breezy, but gee, that is JMO, of course.


Maybe people in NY think differently than where Breezy is from? lol


IMO, it doesn't really make a diiference how emotionally or unemotionally a person reacts because we all DO react differently. The important indicator is the ACTIONS a person takes when confronted with an emergency. Not HOW they perform the actions.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Exactly and that was my point if you had read it.

breezy1234 quote:


Yes we are talking about parents here who were going crazy with worry wondering where their daughter was. It's wonderful some of you know exactly how you would react and what you would do and say but some of us have never been in that situation to say one way or the other. I have never lost anyone to kidnapping or murder but I have lost people I love to death and I know for a fact in that situation, your mind is not functioning as it normally would.


Yet, they weren't worrying enough to ask Burke?

It doesn't add up. I don't care if they screamed at him or asked him in a monotone voice but NOT asking him is totally illogical.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



Maybe people in NY think differently than where Breezy is from? lol


IMO, it doesn't really make a diiference how emotionally or unemotionally a person reacts because we all DO react differently. The important indicator is the ACTIONS a person takes when confronted with an emergency. Not HOW they perform the actions.

Actions and how they perform the actions are one and the same as I see it. :shrug:

No more word games for me thanks, it has nothing to do with the case and better minds than mine have come to the conclusion there is no evidence to support an arrest let alone a conviction of either of the Ramseys. :seeya:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



Yet, they weren't worrying enough to ask Burke?

It doesn't add up. I don't care if they screamed at him or asked him in a monotone voice but NOT asking him is totally illogical.

Too bad you can't report to this board if something tramatic ever happens to you or one of your family members and then you could tell us how "logical" you handled everything. As for myself I freely admit I don't know how I would act, react, what I would do or say or how logical I would be. AS I said before when I lost loved ones to death my mind was functioning but really just going through the motions without thinking. Too bad not everyone is a logical as you are but they aren't.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Too bad you can't report to this board if something tramatic ever happens to you or one of your family members and then you could tell us how "logical" you handled everything. As for myself I freely admit I don't know how I would act, react, what I would do or say or how logical I would be. AS I said before when I lost loved ones to death my mind was functioning but really just going through the motions without thinking. Too bad not everyone is a logical as you are but they aren't.

Yes, but it's not important how I "guess" I might react in a given situation.

What IS important is how Patsy & John DID react in the situation. We're not guessing here... we KNOW they did not wake up their remaining child for info OR even to make sure he was not in danger. They left him alone upstairs to continue sleeping.

[Solace]

Originally posted by bandit's mom



Actually, it's a pretty good theory. The pineapple always bothered
me because I couldn't figure out why the Ramseys would lie
about it. It really never occurred to me that it was an idea
to support the intruder theory. It's a pretty lame idea, IMO,
but considering the ransom note was also lame, you just
may be right.

I've pretty much been on the fence on this one for a long time.
Reading this, and a couple of other threads, on the case
over the last couple of weeks and seeing how informed many
of you are about the case, I have to say, IMO, the "guilty's"
are winning this debate, hands down. I'm now pretty
much convinced it was a Ramsey. I'm still not 100% that it
was Patsy, but I have little doubt that she was involved in
the cover up.


I love what you posted. Solace (a believer in the Ramseys guilt)

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
Oh how I wish these naive ppl could see the truth. If they only could see what liars & con artists the Ramseys' are. If they could only see but they can't becz the wool has been pulled over their eyes. Poor, poor Breezy. If she could only see the truth. Poor, misguided Breezy. The TRUTH shall set you free girl.


Btw, you bash Steve Thomas but he was heavily recruited by the FBI. Go read his book Breezy. You might, just might learn something & you can finally get your head out of the sand.

HIS book? It is full of BS so why should I assume anything he says is truth? :rolleyes:

Go tell the judge "poor, poor judge Carnes" and "the truth shall set her free" :lol:

"Carnes reserved special criticism for Thomas, the former Boulder detective upon whose theories the Wolf complaint was based. "Whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas' theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support," she wrote.

"Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case. In short, the plaintiff's evidence that the [Ramseys] killed their daughter and covered up their crime is based on little more than the fact that defendants were present in the house during the murder," Carnes wrote.

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

[LI_Mom]

I'm not 100% convinced it WAS a Ramsey but I think they sure did everything a guilty person WOULD do.

I think they were arrogant to an extreme & I also think they were very, very stupid.

Guilty or not guilty, I have no symapthy for them.

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Exactly and that was my point if you had read it.

breezy1234 quote:


Yes we are talking about parents here who were going crazy with worry wondering where their daughter was. It's wonderful some of you know exactly how you would react and what you would do and say but some of us have never been in that situation to say one way or the other. I have never lost anyone to kidnapping or murder but I have lost people I love to death and I know for a fact in that situation, your mind is not functioning as it normally would.


Ahhh Breezy, here we go again. Controlled would be what you stated - letting your child sleep -, why do you deny what you said in the beginning. You said what use would it do to wake the other child (not verbatim, but I think you remember and I don't feel like looking for your post). So stop playing on words and admit that you said you would let the child sleep if your other child was kidnapped (that is pretty controlled Breezy), which by the way is absurd any which way you look at it. Why this is JMO of course.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Yes, but it's not important how I "guess" I might react in a given situation.

What IS important is how Patsy & John DID react in the situation. We're not guessing here... we KNOW they did not wake up their remaining child for info OR even to make sure he was not in danger. They left him alone upstairs to continue sleeping.

You really don't get it, do you? Have you ever heard of Monday morning quarterbacking? Hindsight? Retrospect?

IMO you ARE guessing what you THINK they should have done in a very stressful situation. As I said before, not everyone thinks as "logical" as you THINK you would in the same situation. :shrug:

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I'm not 100% convinced it WAS a Ramsey but I think they sure did everything a guilty person WOULD do.

I think they were arrogant to an extreme & I also think they were very, very stupid.

Guilty or not guilty, I have no symapthy for them.

And it only took them 3 or 4 hours to lawyer up. That is because they were so interested in finding the killer that they put off talking to the police until April. I know there are those that would have us believe that Patsy and John spoke to the police the day of the 26th and the 27th. On the 26th they answered questions with people all around and then left shortly after JB was found . On the 27th Patsy was so loaded, she couldn't even talk to John.

BUT THEY WERE REAL INTERESTED IN FINDING THE KILLER. So they talked 4 months later.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace



Ahhh Breezy, here we go again. Controlled would be what you stated - letting your child sleep -, why do you deny what you said in the beginning. You said what use would it do to wake the other child (not verbatim, but I think you remember and I don't feel like looking for your post). So stop playing on words and admit that you said you would let the child sleep if your other child was kidnapped (that is pretty controlled Breezy), which by the way is absurd any which way you look at it. Why this is JMO of course.

I STILL say that. It would serve NO purpose to wake up Burke and scare him. That isn't "controlled" that is not thinking of anything excpet where your daugther is after you KNEW Burke was safe and asleep IMO. You people are a riot. Don't waste your time here, write comedy mystery novels. Thomas has nothing over some of you, you can dream up sillier stuff that proves nothing better than he can.


Once again.

breezy1234 quote:


Yes we are talking about parents here who were going crazy with worry wondering where their daughter was. It's wonderful some of you know exactly how you would react and what you would do and say but some of us have never been in that situation to say one way or the other. I have never lost anyone to kidnapping or murder but I have lost people I love to death and I know for a fact in that situation, your mind is not functioning as it normally would.

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You really don't get it, do you? Have you ever heard of Monday morning quarterbacking? Hindsight? Retrospect?

IMO you ARE guessing what you THINK they should have done in a very stressful situation. As I said before, not everyone thinks as "logical" as you THINK you would in the same situation. :shrug:

LI Mom,

If I were you, I would think only once about what Breezy is trying to pull, which is she knows she was caught saying the absurd and is now trying to change it so it looks like you said it. That is just not working here.

Breezy would have you believe that she thinks it is very normal under the stressful situation of the kidnapping that the Ramseys don't even ask Berke if he heard anything, which they are lying about, because he is on the tape asking what they found. But Breezy believes that it would be perfectly normal to let a child sleep even though he may know something or may have been terrorized by the intruder himself.

Nice going Breezy. This is just MO

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


And it only took them 3 or 4 hours to lawyer up. That is because they were so interested in finding the killer that they put off talking to the police until April. I know there are those that would have us believe that Patsy and John spoke to the police the day of the 26th and the 27th. On the 26th they answered questions with people all around and then left shortly after JB was found . On the 27th Patsy was so loaded, she couldn't even talk to John.

BUT THEY WERE REAL INTERESTED IN FINDING THE KILLER. So they talked 4 months later.

"Curiously, pundits regularly railed on the Ramseys for hiring lawyers. In the world of the media, their own right to often-irresponsible speech trumped the Ramseys' constitutional right to hire counsel, not to mention the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. The Ramseys were in a no-win situation. They were accused of murder and later battered for lawyering up after being accused - something people accused of crimes routinely do.

And, while high-profile cases tend to leak like a sieve, the Ramsey case was a flood of Biblical proportions. Beat reporters desperate to feed the nation's biggest story had plenty of confidential police sources who fed them information designed to make the Ramseys look like suspects.


If Patsy Ramsey were to be prosecuted for her daughter's mother, the trial would rival that of O.J. Simpson. To put it bluntly, the media wanted the Ramseys to be guilty. Even if only unwittingly, reporters and talk show hosts were helping the police in their anti-Ramsey campaign. Incompetence and gullibility, however, do not excuse their conduct or account for the damage it inflicted on a family already victimized by cancer and murder.

The media, of course, doesn't write about itself, even if it is part of the story. The media's role was a central part of the story, but went unreported. The public wasn't told how the news was being shaped by police using gullible reporters.

Police were leaking lots of information against the Ramseys, but not actual evidence. They didn't have any damning evidence to leak. In fact, the evidence in the case did -and still does - point far away from the Ramseys. The police knew that back then, but apparently didn't leak any exculpatory information to the media.


Chief among them was Boulder detective Steve Thomas, who resigned in frustration and later wrote a book directly accusing Patsy of accidentally killing her daughter in a rage caused by JonBenet wetting the bed. He theorized that Patsy covered up the death with a lengthy, phony ransom note and a staged sex assault.

Thomas, who had never investigated a homicide prior to JonBenet's murder, openly accused Patsy during a face-to-face meeting on the Larry King show. The Ramseys later sued Thomas and his publishers, who paid an undisclosed out-of-court settlement as Thomas faded back into obscurity.

Most of those who made handsome livings by falsely accusing Patsy Ramsey in print and on the airwaves -and there were many - are still around. Millions of people still depend on them for the truth every day, both in Colorado and across the nation.

Freedom of speech, one of the great principles upon which our nation is built, protects them from accountability, but not from moral responsibility for the damage they caused.

The media "experts" who dictate public opinion owe the Ramseys an apology. So do those police officers who fingered them to the exclusion of all others for reasons still unknown.

The media didn't give Patsy Ramsey cancer, but it certainly helped make her last decade on earth a living hell by pandering to the whims of a misguided, inept police investigation.

http://denver.yourhub.com/Story.aspx?contentid=98034

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


LI Mom,

If I were you, I would think only once about what Breezy is trying to pull, whicis she knows she was caught saying the absurd and is now trying to change it so it looks like you said it. That is just not working here.

Breezy would have you believe that she thinks it is very normal under the stressful situation of the kidnapping that the Ramseys don't even ask Berke if he heard anything, which they are lying about, because he is on the tape asking what they found. But Breezy believes that it would be perfectly normal to let a child sleep even though he may know something or may have been terrorized by the intruder himself.

Nice going Breezy. This is just MO

You are gossiping again or really lying becasue i did provide the link many times so you KNOW better. Repetition for you AGAIN.

What Experts Say About the "Enhanced" Tape

Both the FBI and Secret Service reportedly examined the tape to determine whether extraneous sounds at the end of the tape were human voices. They were unable to identify any such voices (NBC News 2003).
At the request of BPD, Aerospace Corporation which reportedly had more advanced equipment for such analysis, conducted a test of the 911 tape. The official report from Aerospace was given to BPD in May 1997 (Source?), but has never been released to the public.
However, purported findings from that report were leaked by Steve Thomas in his book and one by
Henry Lee: "Subsequently, independent experts at two different labs were hired by NBC News and they too were unable to identify unknown voices at the end of the tape:
“I would say my findings are much more in parallel with the FBI’s findings. There’s not enough there to give any sort of conclusive, intelligible argument,” says Frank Piazza of Legal Audio in New York City (NBC News 2003).
David Mariasy from Team Audio in Toledo, Ohio, agrees. “When it was suggested that we look for these other lines of dialogue and there’s two or three other people after the hang up, that didn’t happen,” he says (NBC News 2003).
Tricia Griffith, forum owner of Forums for Justice, commissioned an analysis by Professional Audio Laboratories in Spring Valley, NY. This analysis was conducted on a third generation copy of the tape. The revised transcript from this analysis showed a few new words at the beginning of the tape and, following the keyboard typing heard on the end of the tape, has an "unknown female" saying "Help me, Jesus" three times in succession. This lab found no evidence of Burke's or John's voices at the end of the tape nor did it find any evidence of alteration of the tape.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


And it only took them 3 or 4 hours to lawyer up. That is because they were so interested in finding the killer that they put off talking to the police until April. I know there are those that would have us believe that Patsy and John spoke to the police the day of the 26th and the 27th. On the 26th they answered questions with people all around and then left shortly after JB was found . On the 27th Patsy was so loaded, she couldn't even talk to John.

BUT THEY WERE REAL INTERESTED IN FINDING THE KILLER. So they talked 4 months later.

Exactly! Almost as soon as her body was carried upstairs, they had lawyers. They didn't act as if they were hired to give legal advice but to defend them against formal murder charges.

And the lawyers launched into an attack against the police & media almost immediately.

The Ramseys freely chose to treat the police as their worst adversaries rather than the only people who could help them solve the crime. Listening to the lawyers either saved them from being charged or it was the biggest mistake of their lives.

It was a real slap in the face for them to do a CNN interview before they would agree to do a FORMAL police interview. IMO, that was what cemented the public's opinion that they were playing games. It's totally logical that the police thought they were guilty as sin.

And remember the British documentary they agreed to do? And they still had the nerves to whine that the media wouldn't leave them alone? :rolleyes:

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


"Curiously, pundits regularly railed on the Ramseys for hiring lawyers. In the world of the media, their own right to often-irresponsible speech trumped the Ramseys' constitutional right to hire counsel, not to mention the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. The Ramseys were in a no-win situation. They were accused of murder and later battered for lawyering up after being accused - something people accused of crimes routinely do.

And, while high-profile cases tend to leak like a sieve, the Ramsey case was a flood of Biblical proportions. Beat reporters desperate to feed the nation's biggest story had plenty of confidential police sources who fed them information designed to make the Ramseys look like suspects.


If Patsy Ramsey were to be prosecuted for her daughter's mother, the trial would rival that of O.J. Simpson. To put it bluntly, the media wanted the Ramseys to be guilty. Even if only unwittingly, reporters and talk show hosts were helping the police in their anti-Ramsey campaign. Incompetence and gullibility, however, do not excuse their conduct or account for the damage it inflicted on a family already victimized by cancer and murder.

The media, of course, doesn't write about itself, even if it is part of the story. The media's role was a central part of the story, but went unreported. The public wasn't told how the news was being shaped by police using gullible reporters.

Police were leaking lots of information against the Ramseys, but not actual evidence. They didn't have any damning evidence to leak. In fact, the evidence in the case did -and still does - point far away from the Ramseys. The police knew that back then, but apparently didn't leak any exculpatory information to the media.


Chief among them was Boulder detective Steve Thomas, who resigned in frustration and later wrote a book directly accusing Patsy of accidentally killing her daughter in a rage caused by JonBenet wetting the bed. He theorized that Patsy covered up the death with a lengthy, phony ransom note and a staged sex assault.

Thomas, who had never investigated a homicide prior to JonBenet's murder, openly accused Patsy during a face-to-face meeting on the Larry King show. The Ramseys later sued Thomas and his publishers, who paid an undisclosed out-of-court settlement as Thomas faded back into obscurity.

Most of those who made handsome livings by falsely accusing Patsy Ramsey in print and on the airwaves -and there were many - are still around. Millions of people still depend on them for the truth every day, both in Colorado and across the nation.

Freedom of speech, one of the great principles upon which our nation is built, protects them from accountability, but not from moral responsibility for the damage they caused.

The media "experts" who dictate public opinion owe the Ramseys an apology. So do those police officers who fingered them to the exclusion of all others for reasons still unknown.

The media didn't give Patsy Ramsey cancer, but it certainly helped make her last decade on earth a living hell by pandering to the whims of a misguided, inept police investigation.

http://denver.yourhub.com/Story.aspx?contentid=98034


Interesting post. Means zero!

THey lawyered up on the afternoon of the discovery of JB's body. Patsy lied in her deposition with Tom Haney. She said she saw the heart on JB's hand the morning of the 26th. She reiterated it over and over about three times. Tom Haney was shocked because JB's body had not been discovered until after 1:00 p.m.

Patsy recanted the following day saying she probably saw it in her mind when she read the autopsy report (1998 depo). John at the same time is being interviewed and says "we did not read the autopsy reports).

Patsy killed her baby and then covered it up and had to stay stoned in order to deal with it. She said to her friend that evening "we did not mean for this to happen". Yes Patsy said that.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Exactly! Almost as soon as her body was carried upstairs, they had lawyers. They didn't act as if they were hired to give legal advice but to defend them against formal murder charges.

NOT.............provide a link!!



And the lawyers launched into an attack against the police & media almost immediately.

NOT.............provide a link!!



The Ramseys freely chose to treat the police as their worst adversaries rather than the only people who could help them solve the crime. Listening to the lawyers either saved them from being charged or it was the biggest mistake of their lives.

NOT.............provide a link!!

It was a real slap in the face for them to do a CNN interview before they would agree to do a FORMAL police interview. IMO, that was what cemented the public's opinion that they were playing games. It's totally logical that the police thought they were guilty as sin.

And remember the British documentary they agreed to do? And they still had the nerves to whine that the media wouldn't leave them alone? :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace



Interesting post. Means zero!

THey lawyered up on the afternoon of the discovery of JB's body. Patsy lied in her deposition with Tom Haney. She said she saw the heart on JB's hand the morning of the 26th. She reiterated it over and over about three times. Tom Haney was shocked because JB's body had not been discovered until after 1:00 p.m.

Patsy recanted the following day saying she probably saw it in her mind when she read the autopsy report (1998 depo). John at the same time is being interviewed and says "we did not read the autopsy reports).

Patsy killed her baby and then covered it up and had to stay stoned in order to deal with it. She said to her friend that evening "we did not mean for this to happen". Yes Patsy said that.

Interesting post. Means zero!
:rolleyes:

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


You are gossiping again or really lying becasue i did provide the link many times so you KNOW better. Repetition for you AGAIN.

What Experts Say About the "Enhanced" Tape

Both the FBI and Secret Service reportedly examined the tape to determine whether extraneous sounds at the end of the tape were human voices. They were unable to identify any such voices (NBC News 2003).
At the request of BPD, Aerospace Corporation which reportedly had more advanced equipment for such analysis, conducted a test of the 911 tape. The official report from Aerospace was given to BPD in May 1997 (Source?), but has never been released to the public.
However, purported findings from that report were leaked by Steve Thomas in his book and one by
Henry Lee: "Subsequently, independent experts at two different labs were hired by NBC News and they too were unable to identify unknown voices at the end of the tape:
“I would say my findings are much more in parallel with the FBI’s findings. There’s not enough there to give any sort of conclusive, intelligible argument,” says Frank Piazza of Legal Audio in New York City (NBC News 2003).
David Mariasy from Team Audio in Toledo, Ohio, agrees. “When it was suggested that we look for these other lines of dialogue and there’s two or three other people after the hang up, that didn’t happen,” he says (NBC News 2003).
Tricia Griffith, forum owner of Forums for Justice, commissioned an analysis by Professional Audio Laboratories in Spring Valley, NY. This analysis was conducted on a third generation copy of the tape. The revised transcript from this analysis showed a few new words at the beginning of the tape and, following the keyboard typing heard on the end of the tape, has an "unknown female" saying "Help me, Jesus" three times in succession. This lab found no evidence of Burke's or John's voices at the end of the tape nor did it find any evidence of alteration of the tape.

I wouldn't think of gossiping about you Breezy. Berke is on the tape. He is there and he is asking what was found. So your links mean zero once again.

Hey this is a forum and you can believe whatever you want, but I call it as I see it and I see you backing out of getting caught in your own words. Just my opinion Breezy. No harm intended. I am sure you understand that. But I believe she did it. I believe Berke is on tape and I believe John spoke to him.

Patsy wrote the note with her left hand and rambled on and on, just like someone who is stoned would do.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


I wouldn't think of gossiping about you Breezy. Berke is on the tape. He is there and he is asking what was found. So your links mean zero once again.

Hey this is a forum and you can believe whatever you want, but I call it as I see it and I see you backing out of getting caught in your own words. Just my opinion Breezy. No harm intended. I am sure you understand that. But I believe she did it. I believe Berke is on tape and I believe John spoke to him.

Patsy wrote the note with her left hand and rambled on and on, just like someone who is stoned would do.

All I can do is shake my head at how people can be brainwashed so easily. ALL these people said Burke coud NOT be heard on the tape but Thomas who has been proven a liar is right and has made money or tired to off this case is is right and all of them are wrong.:no: :lol:

As I told you before you can believe whatever you want to, no skin off my nose but you really are getting sillier and siller with your refusal to believe the evidence, a judge, a GJ, A DA, even FBI people and wish to instead believe the proven liar Thomas.:seeya:

[LI_Mom]

I see how this works.... anything or any person that supports the Ramseys is accurate reporting &/or fact but anything or anyone that points to their guilt is just more slander against the poor Ramseys. :rolleyes:

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


It would seem that everyone is aware of this but you. I know you dislike S. Thomas so I won't quote him. In his book and in his movie, Lawrence Schiller quotes John as saying we are not ready to answer questions, give us more time, let us get in touch with you. He also analyzes the movie and speaks all through it. I tuned in and yes he does confirm that the lawyers were there within hours and the lawyer (Mike Bryon (sp is wrong, but it is close) called Detective Arndt and said he advised the Ramseys to not give any interviews; she puts him on speaker so everyone can hear it.

Now why would a father who just lost his 6 year old child to a murder that he says is an intruder and a sick one at that, why would he not help the police as much as possible and please don't tell me that it was because the police withheld or tried to withhold the body. Because the Ramseys wouldn't speak on the 27th.

Why is that? His little girl is dead and he doesn't want to talk to the police and try to help find the killer. Strange is an understatement. Mark Klass underwent hours and hours in his agony just to get the police to start looking for the real killer, and he advised the Ramseys to do the same if they really believed their was an intruder. They refused to take a lie detector test. Patsy failed two of them. And the beat goes on. She finally got it right when she hired the right person. But she would not work with one who wanted her tested for drugs before he tested her. God these people get sleezier and sleezier the more I talk about them.

They just have money. They have zero class. They deserve everything they get, but JonBenet did not.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I see how this works.... anything or any person that supports the Ramseys is accurate reporting &/or fact but anything or anyone that points to their guilt is just more slander against the poor Ramseys. :rolleyes:

That is not how it works. It works with EVIDENCE pro or con. There is NO evidence the Ramsey's are guilty except they were in the home. .:rolleyes: DNA doesn't match, pubic hair doesn't match, animal doesn't match, shoe print doesnt' match and on and on. Read the judges ruling if you want some facts. I have posted it over and over again. If you refuse to read it, so be it. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


It would seem that everyone is aware of this but you. I know you dislike S. Thomas so I won't quote him. In his book and in his movie, Lawrence Schiller quotes John as saying we are not ready to answer questions, give us more time, let us get in touch with you. He also analyzes the movie and speaks all through it. I tuned in and yes he does confirm that the lawyers were there within hours and the lawyer (Mike Bryon (sp is wrong, but it is close) called Detective Arndt and said he advised the Ramseys to not give any interviews; she puts him on speaker so everyone can hear it.

Now why would a father who just lost his 6 year old child to a murder that he says is an intruder and a sick one at that, why would he not help the police as much as possible and please don't tell me that it was because the police withheld or tried to withhold the body. Because the Ramseys wouldn't speak on the 27th.

Why is that? His little girl is dead and he doesn't want to talk to the police and try to help find the killer. Strange is an understatement. Mark Klass underwent hours and hours in his agony just to get the police to start looking for the real killer, and he advised the Ramseys to do the same if they really believed their was an intruder. They refused to take a lie detector test. Patsy failed two of them. And the beat goes on. She finally got it right when she hired the right person. But she would not work with one who wanted her tested for drugs before he tested her. God these people get sleezier and sleezier the more I talk about them.

They just have money. They have zero class. They deserve everything they get, but JonBenet did not.

Repetition, repetition.

"According to Carnes' order, the Ramseys did attempt to cooperate with law enforcement authorities investigating their daughter's death. "During the course of the investigation, defendants signed over one hundred releases for information requested by the police, and provided all evidence and information requested by the police."

Carnes added, "Despite widespread criticism that defendants failed to cooperate in the murder investigation, defendants note that they agreed, on at least three occasions, to be interviewed separately by representatives of the police and of the Boulder County district attorney's office."


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

The judge was lying, huh???:rolleyes:

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Exactly! Almost as soon as her body was carried upstairs, they had lawyers. They didn't act as if they were hired to give legal advice but to defend them against formal murder charges.

And the lawyers launched into an attack against the police & media almost immediately.

The Ramseys freely chose to treat the police as their worst adversaries rather than the only people who could help them solve the crime. Listening to the lawyers either saved them from being charged or it was the biggest mistake of their lives.

It was a real slap in the face for them to do a CNN interview before they would agree to do a FORMAL police interview. IMO, that was what cemented the public's opinion that they were playing games. It's totally logical that the police thought they were guilty as sin.

And remember the British documentary they agreed to do? And they still had the nerves to whine that the media wouldn't leave them alone? :rolleyes:


Yup LI Mom, when it suits them they are happy to do interviews. Notice Patsy wore the same suit the day after she was interviewed by Steve Thomas, after he questioned her about wearing the same clothes on the 26th.

She gets asked the question and requests an interview with the press and guess what, Patsy has the same clothes on as yesterday. Right, this is a woman who does not leave the house without makeup on. She has tons of clothes and wears the same thing. I DO NOT THINK SO, NOT IN THIS LIFETIME.

I wonder what she is saying right now, if there is any truth to an after life. She is in big trouble and probably in need of some of those very accessible tranquilizers that she used during her lifetime and that most likely aided and abetted in the anger she displayed toward JB.

Got to run. Please come back LI Mom, I have not seen you here before (my mistake maybe) but you have offered so much to this Board today and it was a real pleasure reading your posts. Hope to see you again. Solace

[noelsaloy]

First I'll say I have no STRONG opinion either way, but I will say this: My father is a lawyer and all my 35 years he has pounded it into my head that I should NEVER answer police questions without a lawyer, REGARDLESS of my guilt or innocence. He has also always told me never to allow a police officer to search my car, even if I know there is nothing incriminating in it, because, "someone may have put something in there...." In fact, he's always told me to make sure there are witnesses hearing me say, "No, you may not search my car," or, "I want a lawyer."

So, in a similar situation, because of what I've been taught, I think I would be inclined to mistrust police, and "lawyer up" right away. When you grow up around lawyers, this is what you do, and I think the Ramseys had a lot of lawyer friends.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by noelsaloy
First I'll say I have no STRONG opinion either way, but I will say this: My father is a lawyer and all my 35 years he has pounded it into my head that I should NEVER answer police questions without a lawyer, REGARDLESS of my guilt or innocence. He has also always told me never to allow a police officer to search my car, even if I know there is nothing incriminating in it, because, "someone may have put something in there...." In fact, he's always told me to make sure there are witnesses hearing me say, "No, you may not search my car," or, "I want a lawyer."

So, in a similar situation, because of what I've been taught, I think I would be inclined to mistrust police, and "lawyer up" right away. When you grow up around lawyers, this is what you do, and I think the Ramseys had a lot of lawyer friends.

It is just common sense that ANY American should know, understand and do, raised around lawyers or not. Unfortunately some people don't know their constitutional rights and are willing to let "people" like Thomas scare them out of utilizing them.

Judge Carnes notes that BPD "did, however, question defendants jointly at various times on December 26, 27 and 28, and, soon thereafter, began to focus the investigation on defendants as the main subjects. (SMF PP 54, 71-72; PSMF PP 54, 71-72.)" (Carnes 2003:31). "During the course of the investigation, defendants signed over one hundred releases for information requested by the police, and provided all evidence and information requested by the police. (SMF P 61; PSMF 61.) Upon request, within days after the murder and in the months that followed, defendants provided the police with historical handwriting samples and supervised written exemplars. (SMF P 55; PSMF P 55.) Defendants also gave hair, including pubic hair, and DNA samples to the police. (SMF P 56, 60; PSMF P 56, 60.) Despite widespread criticism that defendants failed to cooperate in the murder investigation, defendants note that they agreed, on at least three occasions, to be interviewed separately by representatives of the police or the Boulder County District Attorney's Office. (SMF P 62; PSMF P 62.)" (Carnes 2003:32).

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by noelsaloy
First I'll say I have no STRONG opinion either way, but I will say this: My father is a lawyer and all my 35 years he has pounded it into my head that I should NEVER answer police questions without a lawyer, REGARDLESS of my guilt or innocence. He has also always told me never to allow a police officer to search my car, even if I know there is nothing incriminating in it, because, "someone may have put something in there...." In fact, he's always told me to make sure there are witnesses hearing me say, "No, you may not search my car," or, "I want a lawyer."

So, in a similar situation, because of what I've been taught, I think I would be inclined to mistrust police, and "lawyer up" right away. When you grow up around lawyers, this is what you do, and I think the Ramseys had a lot of lawyer friends.


In principal, I totally agree that it is best to have a lawyer to protect your legal rights.


Maybe hiring separate lawyers for all 3 family members PLUS public relations experts was a bad tactical move? It sure backfired, didn't it?

And then there were the lawyers they had in Atlanta for friends & family back there.


I think we have to define the Ramsey's goal. IF it was to solve the crime, then in order to do that, they have to have a good relationship with the people who are in a position to achieve that goal: the police.

IF the lawyers were there only to protect their clients, why couldn't they arrange to be present during any interview in case they thought the client was incrimminating him/herself?

The lawyers made unreasonable demands, imo, knowing full well that the police would object to them but hoping they would agree out of sheer frustration. (For example: asking the police to fax the questions they needed answers to.)



Thanks for the kind words, Solace. I've enjoyed the discussion also. And while, it's always a little more enjoyable (well, a LOT, maybe. lol) to agree with people, I also respect Breezy's passion & opinions.

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by breezy1234


It is just common sense that ANY American should know, understand and do, raised around lawyers or not.

And yet, all you have to do is watch Court TV to see how stupid most people are! It seems that so many people who do get convicted have volunteered all sorts of things, and you always see them talking to detectives with absolutely no regard for their own rights....

Anyway, the "Lawyering up" aspect doesn't convince me one way or another about their guilt or innocence; it only convinces me that they were wise in that aspect. Although according to some sources, it appears they did, indeed, cooperate fully until they felt they were being persecuted.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


ROFL.........backfired how? None of them are in jail, right?

Well, I DID say, IF the Ramsey's goal was to solve their daughter's murder & bring someone to justice, then they didn't ever reach that goal, did they?

IF their goal was to avoid being charged with a crime, they succeeded beautifully.

They lose either way, don't they? Plus there will always, always be a cloud of suspiscion over all their heads because of the antagonistic position they took from the onset.

50 years from now, some people will still be thinking Burke might have been guilty or covered up some knowledge about the case. That's losing, in my book. BIG TIME.

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
You said you're new to the boards. Are you familiar with acronyms used here? If not, this will help. If you are, disregard.

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=248485
Thanks! That's helpful. I don't see "ROFL..."

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Repetition, repetition.

"According to Carnes' order, the Ramseys did attempt to cooperate with law enforcement authorities investigating their daughter's death. "During the course of the investigation, defendants signed over one hundred releases for information requested by the police, and provided all evidence and information requested by the police."

Carnes added, "Despite widespread criticism that defendants failed to cooperate in the murder investigation, defendants note that they agreed, on at least three occasions, to be interviewed separately by representatives of the police and of the Boulder County district attorney's office."


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

The judge was lying, huh???:rolleyes:

So the judge in the civil suit announces that the defendants DID cooperate fully because..... "defendants note that they agreed" to cooperate?


It sure would be nice if EVERY defendant could use that logic. It's true that I cooperated because I said I cooperated. lol


Interestingly, Carnes doesn't say WHEN they cooperated or what type of agreements might have been made before they would 'cooperate.' Just that they cooperated.




This is interesting too, isn't it?

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


"Carnes wrote that police made many mistakes during the course of the investigation, including the department’s failure to interview Patsy and John Ramsey separately on the day JonBenet’s body was found."

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by Solace


And it only took them 3 or 4 hours to lawyer up.

Actually, it's very common and not unusual at all for people of wealth to have lawyers at their disposal. And it's my understanding at least one lawyer came to them first. John Ramsey was a very successful businessman and undoubtedly dealt with lawyers frequently. Not unusual in the least and certainly not wrong.

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin
Breezy, please just keep posting your links and disregard the baiting. All that discussion "innocence/presumption of innocence" got the other thread bogged down - posts were deleted - and finally everyone just quit posting there. I appreciate the information you provide. TIA

ITA. All the "Patsy didn't wake Burke up so therefore the Ramseys killed JB," "Burke was really up that morning so therefore the Ramseys killed JB," "JB ate pineapple so therefore the Ramseys killed JB," and "Patsy wore the same clothes the next morning so therefore she killed JB" are just desperate stretches because they have no real evidence. Breezy, your links produce much more solid information and the Ramsey accusers are just trying to throw you off, and it's very obvious. Thanks for providing all the credible information via your links.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


So the judge in the civil suit announces that the defendants DID cooperate fully because..... "defendants note that they agreed" to cooperate?


It sure would be nice if EVERY defendant could use that logic. It's true that I cooperated because I said I cooperated. lol


Interestingly, Carnes doesn't say WHEN they cooperated or what type of agreements might have been made before they would 'cooperate.' Just that they cooperated.




This is interesting too, isn't it?

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


"Carnes wrote that police made many mistakes during the course of the investigation, including the department’s failure to interview Patsy and John Ramsey separately on the day JonBenet’s body was found."

Yep interesting and what I have been saying all along. The BPD AND Thomas were keystone cops who didn't know what they were doing but ya can't blame the Ramsey's or find them guilty because of that. :shrug:

EVERY defendant should use their constitutional rights and IMO they cooperated more than they were required to.................until they realized they were the only ones under the umbrella and the keystone cops wern't even trying to investigate or get anyone else to "cooperate".

Do you mean this "agreement" the police TRIED to set? I wouldn't have co-operated with these jerks either. How low can they get, trying to hold a child's body hostage. :cuss:

"County coroner John Meyer on Friday shed some light on one of the accusations leveled by the Ramseys -- that Boulder police held their daughter's body hostage in an attempt to get an interview.
Meyer said detectives asked Dec. 28 about the possibility of not releasing JonBenet's body for burial until they could interview the Ramseys.
Meyer, who had completed his autopsy and forensic testing, declined the police request.

"The Ramseys were interviewed on the 26th, the Ramseys were interviewed on the 27th. On the 27th they give samples of physical evidence, blood, hair and fingerprints. When they returned from Atlanta, the Ramseys gave five handwriting samples, voluntarily. To say that the Ramseys had not cooperated in this investigation is a gross mischaracterization."

The samples of handwriting that John and Patsy provided to the police were later found to bear no similarities to those on the ransom note.

The Ramseys desire to cooperate with the police did not last long. Their attitude towards them changed dramatically when they got back to Boulder and learned from Mike Bynum that the previous week, the police had refused to release JonBenet's body until John and Patsy agreed to be interrogated. Even though Bynum had been successful in having the body released in time for the funeral, the police continued to press for additional interviews. After hearing this, John and Patsy Ramsey finally realized that the police, to use John's words - "Weren't there to help us, they were there to hang us." They became very suspicious and untrusting of the police and made further moves to defend themselves."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/allegations_4.html

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Lianasmom


ITA. All the "Patsy didn't wake Burke up so therefore the Ramseys killed JB," "Burke was really up that morning so therefore the Ramseys killed JB," "JB ate pineapple so therefore the Ramseys killed JB," and "Patsy wore the same clothes the next morning so therefore she killed JB" are just desperate stretches because they have no real evidence. Breezy, your links produce much more solid information and the Ramsey accusers are just trying to throw you off, and it's very obvious. Thanks for providing all the credible information via your links.

I agree, all the stretches are getting downright silly and IMO they are making fools of themselves. They have bought what Thomas and others who have or tried to make money off this case and will not allow themselves to understand there is nothing that even comes close to suggest the Ramsey's are guilty no matter what. They won't throw me off because the facts speak for themselves and all their silly suspicions prove nothing. When their hero had his chance in court to prove his "theories" he chickened out because he KNEW he was full of hot air.

You're welcome re links. I wish I had ALL the links through the years but I lost so many and many are no longer on line. :(

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


I don't blame them. One of John's lawyers was a personal friend who approached him about handling the media, etc. the first few days. He asked John if it would be OK if he did that, John did not approach him first. I can't believe all these rumors are still being spread. If people are going to discuss the case they should at least have accurate facts and not continue to spread rumors. From this I can see why the Ramsey's would want/need a lawyer.

That one you quoted is full of misinformation and he swears by it and refuses to read anything that proves him wrong. He read the Thomas book and thinks it is gospel. :shrug:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


I got the book Perfect Murder from the library today and I think it is fascinating. Especially the quotes from many sources that are quoted in italics throughout the book, many giving personal memories of JB or Patsy or John. The author doesn't try to convince or convict anyone but just writes the facts. Interestingly the Steve Thomas book has gone missing from our library. :mad:

Probably someone needed paper in the outhouse. That is about all his book is good for IMO.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by hohum


LOL, I would still like to read it, but I'm not going to buy it. Perhaps I can borrow it on an interlibrary loan from another library. Do you think the Boulder library has it. BTW, does anyone know what Steve Thomas is doing now?

He's a carpenter. He could never be in LE again, he is a disgrace IMO.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


No, he did not sneeze on her fingernails, but it could and most likely did transfer when JB touched it. Just like anyone picks up DNA just by sliding one's hand across one's arm.

Touched what? Are you saying she touched her underwear and the DNA that "maybe" was sneezed on got under her fingernails too? :lol: It's a wonder ANY DNA can be used in court with that kind of thinking. :rolleyes:

[Former Juror]

I HAVE read every single book on this case, watched every movie and watched every interview possible. I have considered all of the evidence available to the public, and IMO, Patsy is 100% guilty.

Continually saying that people who believe in Patsy's guilt don't know the facts of this case is just absolutely wrong. Sure, those of you that support the Ramseys have every right to do so, but the posts here stating there is no evidence at all pointing to John and Patsy are, IMO, laughable.

[Solace]

Originally posted by Will05



I totally agree!!

I agree also.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
All of you bash Steve Thomas but none of you ever say that he was heavily recruited by the FBI. Is there silence in the room? Yeah that's what I thought.

As I said before the ONLY place that gossip can be found is in his book and it's been proven he is a liar so WHY should anything in his book be believed?

The only silence is the air space between his ears. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Former Juror
I HAVE read every single book on this case, watched every movie and watched every interview possible. I have considered all of the evidence available to the public, and IMO, Patsy is 100% guilty.

Continually saying that people who believe in Patsy's guilt don't know the facts of this case is just absolutely wrong. Sure, those of you that support the Ramseys have every right to do so, but the posts here stating there is no evidence at all pointing to John and Patsy are, IMO, laughable.

I dare say you have NOT read the facts of the case but of course it is your right to beleive fairy tales all you want to. Thomas had his chance to prove his fairy tales in court twice and he chickend out. Go "laugh" at the judge and tell her there is evidence pointing at the Ramsey's. Tell her your fairy tales and she will say the same thing to you she said to Thomas.............

"Federal Judge: 'No Evidence' That Ramseys Killed JonBenét"

"Carnes reserved special criticism for Thomas, the former Boulder detective upon whose theories the Wolf complaint was based. "Whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas' theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support," she wrote. ".

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05


No the FACTS are in his book. My oh my I never realized how naive & ignorant Breezy is. It's amazing.:lol:

The fairy tales are in his book. Oh my I never realized any adult still believed in fairy tales. :rolleyes:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
RosyPalm says:Patsy's dead. She went to her grave looking forward to seeing her daughter again. John & Burke are continuing on with their lives as best they can. They are not under a cloud of suspicion with me.


Yeah Patsy may have been looking forward to seeing her daughter again to apologize for MURDERING her.

:rolleyes: How childish. IMO it is you that will need to apologize.

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I dare say you have NOT read the facts of the case but of course it is your right to beleive fairy tales all you want to. Thomas had his chance to prove his fairy tales in court twice and he chickend out. Go "laugh" at the judge and tell her there is evidence pointing at the Ramsey's. Tell her your fairy tales and she will say the same thing to you she said to Thomas.............

"Federal Judge: 'No Evidence' That Ramseys Killed JonBenét"

"Carnes reserved special criticism for Thomas, the former Boulder detective upon whose theories the Wolf complaint was based. "Whereas Detective Smit's summary testimony concerning the investigation is based on evidence, Detective Thomas' theories appear to lack substantial evidentiary support," she wrote. ".

Why are you focusing on Thomas? I didn't mention his name. :shrug: His is ONE book I read. I have read every other book as well.

As far as the judge, there was no trial. So, her opinion means as much as yours or mine does...diddly squat.

[Former Juror]

The closed-mindedness is what bothers me.

Ignore the ransom note.

Ignore where the pen and paper came from.

Ignore the handwriting analysis.

Ignore where the paintbrush came from.

Ignore the pineapple.

Ignore the fiber evidence.

Ignore Patsy's wearing of the same outfit.

Ignore the 911 call.

Ignore how the body was found by John and Fleet White.

Ignore the fact they refused to take a LE lie detector test.

Ignore the quick flight to Atlanta.

Ignore the fact that other underwear from the same manufacturer had DNA on them.

:read: :read:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
I never believed a grown adult could believe the fairy tale, fantasyland intruder theory put forth by the Ramseys'. But ignorant ppl do. Pathetic.

:rolleyes: Yeah right, tell the judge and the DA they are ignorant.:rolleyes: You're just like Thomas all mouth and no substance.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05



Yeah Breezy who cares about the judge? Her opinion is as good as ours. ssakcaj.

Oh really? That is really funny. The opinion of a judge that heard the evidence and the opinions of posters on a forum holds the same weight???:lol:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Former Juror
The closed-mindedness is what bothers me.

Ignore the ransom note.

Ignore where the pen and paper came from.

Ignore the handwriting analysis.

Ignore where the paintbrush came from.

Ignore the pineapple.

Ignore the fiber evidence.

Ignore Patsy's wearing of the same outfit.

Ignore the 911 call.

Ignore how the body was found by John and Fleet White.

Ignore the fact they refused to take a LE lie detector test.

Ignore the quick flight to Atlanta.

Ignore the fact that other underwear from the same manufacturer had DNA on them.

:read: :read:

Some of your "ignores" aren't even true so I DO ignore them. The others that are true prove NOTHING when you consider the "other "suspects" that BPD did ignore.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
I gave facts that you contine to ignore. Breezy's like an ignorant little child rolling her eyes.

Who cares about the judge. She was not the trial judge. The DA Alex Hunter was too weak to bring an indictment. If this case went to trial the Ramseys' would be behind bars right now. Of course, Patsy would be taken out in a pinebox. Too bad she didn't die in prison.:rolleyes:

It was in court never could anyone prove the Ramseys guilty. Then too the GJ did not indict. Can't go to trial with no evidence. Patsy asked to be tried for murder if they thought she was guilty but no one took her up on the offer. Why didn't one of you know it alls who know all the evidence based on books take her up on it? :lol:

The last few sentences were the most hateful ones I read from you. You must be really getting desperate.

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Some of your "ignores" aren't even true so I DO ignore them. The others that are true prove NOTHING when you consider the "other "suspects" that BPD did ignore.

Everything I posted was true. That's the problem; you won't even admit to the truth. If it looks bad for the Ramseys, you call it a lie.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
Breezy: Was the judge on the hypothetical trial of the Ramseys'? It's her OPINION. you do know what an OPINION is don't you?

Looks like Breezy is a bit afraid of Former Juror.

No what is an opinion? :rolleyes: You do know what a judge is don't you? They do not give opinions based on fairy tale "books" like you. They listen to witnesses and EVIDENCE from BOTH sides and then form an opinion based on that EVIDENCE. Steve or anyone else had their chance then to say whatever they wanted to prove their guilt and he did NOT! :rolleyes:

Afraid of a psoter that repeats gossip? Surely you jest. :lol:

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Former Juror


Everything I posted was true. That's the problem; you won't even admit to the truth. If it looks bad for the Ramseys, you call it a lie.

No it is NOT true. I have proven most of those things as gossip over and over with evidence. Try to catch up.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
Breezy is so ignorant of the facts it's funny.:lol:

Prove it. I am not going to sit here and try to educate you kiddies any more for a while. I've got better things to do than play with kids who like to make mud pies and throw them at others including a judge. Enjoy because one day you HAVE to grow up and stop reading fairy tales and thinking they are true.:seeya:

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by breezy1234


No it is NOT true. I have proven most of those things as gossip over and over with evidence. Try to catch up.

It is true. I have read everything, including every inch of this thread, plus ALL of the books as I've stated. You cannot dispute what I posted. You might not view it in the same light as I do. But, you can't blanketly call them lies.

If you think the evidence that an intruder killed Jonbenet is stronger than the evidence against the Ramseys, that is perfectly fine. But, you are claiming there is NO evidence against the Ramseys, and that is just completely untrue.

[Solace]

Originally posted by Former Juror


It is true. I have read everything, including every inch of this thread, plus ALL of the books as I've stated. You cannot dispute what I posted. You might not view it in the same light as I do. But, you can't blanketly call them lies.

If you think the evidence that an intruder killed Jonbenet is stronger than the evidence against the Ramseys, that is perfectly fine. But, you are claiming there is NO evidence against the Ramseys, and that is just completely untrue.

The evidence is clear. Not even Lawrence Schiller is good enough for Breezy and by the way Lawrence Shiller says Steve Thomas is the most knowledgeable person on the facts of this case.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


I think Will05's use of the term "rosypalm" on a forum such as this speaks to his level of maturity. JMO

I agree. Some "people" who insist that fairy tales are true, who change names, call names, close their eyes shut tight and won't look at facts and generally act immature are best ignored because all they want is attention. When they see their tantrums and acting up gets them nowhere they eventually go away and try the same thing on other forums where others of the same immature ways are posting. :shrug:

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


I agree. Some "people" who insist that fairy tales are true, who change names, call names, close their eyes shut tight and won't look at facts and generally act immature are best ignored because all they want is attention. When they see their tantrums and acting up gets them nowhere they eventually go away and try the same thing on other forums where others of the same immature ways are posting. :shrug:

The facts are presented in a clear light and for once we are seeing more people joining the Board who realize the truth. That is refreshing. There is one recent poster who says she just joined and has been reading the pro Ramseys and the anti Ramseys and she says the pro Ramseys are losing their argument.

And that is what I am seeing right here and now with every post that Breezy and Rosy makes. Give some facts Rosy and Breezy and quote some people that actually in the middle here and not the likes of Lin Wood and the ridiculous Judge who gets all her information from Lin Wood who by the way says he made more money "off" the Ramseys than in all of his practice. Wonderful human being. Like attracts like, any way you look at it.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
Shortly after 5:45 a.m., Dec. 26, Patsy Ramsey called the police to say JonBenét was missing and that a ransom note had been left. Despite the fact that the ransom note said that JonBenét would be "beheaded" if the Ramseys called the police or the FBI, Patsy Ramsey did not inform the police dispatcher of this threat. She also proceeded to call and summon to her home two couples and the family's minister despite the kidnapper's warning that "If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies."

Within seven minutes, police officers Karl Veitch and Rick French arrived in police cars at the 15-room Ramsey home located at 755 15th Street. A cursory search of the house was made, including the basement. By the time Det. Linda Arndt arrived at 8 a.m., Fleet and Priscilla White, John Fernie and his wife, Barbara, (also close friends of the Ramseys), and the minister were all at the Ramsey residence.

Police quickly determined there were no obvious signs of a break-in; in particular, there were no footprints in the snow surrounding the house and no signs of a forced entry anywhere in the 6,500-square foot house that sat on half an acre in the prestigious University Hill section of Boulder. The temperature that morning was 9 degrees. A light dusting of snow had fallen and frost had formed during the night and it lay on top of an earlier crusty snow in spotty patches on the grass outside the house. One of the early Boulder police officers at the scene noted that when he walked on the driveway and sidewalks, his steps left no visible footprints.

"Carnes also wrote at length criticizing media reports that reported on a lack of snowy footprints and that the window well into the basement wasn’t accessible.

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


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

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Will05
Below is part of a letter from Fleet White who USED to be good friends with the Ramseys' and has shown respect for Steve Thomas.



Recently, Boulder police detective Steve Thomas, an investigator on the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, left the department in disgust. In his August 6 letter of resignation, he publicly accused the district attorney of obstructing the police investigation and allowing politics to "trump" justice. He asked that a special prosecutor be brought in to handle the case.

We knew JonBenet and her parents very well and have been closely involved in the investigation as witnesses. During the past year, we have also come to know and respect Mr. Thomas and were saddened and discouraged by his departure from the investigation. We share Mr. Thomas' view regarding the district attorney and his contention that overwhelming pressure brought to bear on the district attorney and police leadership from various quarters has thwarted the investigation and delayed justice in the case. While it is unlikely that the district attorney has been corrupted by Ramsey defense attorneys, it is certain that the district attorney and his prosecutors have been greatly influenced by their metro area district attorney advisers and by defense attorneys' chummy persuasiveness and threats of reprisals for anyone daring to jeopardize the civil rights of their victim clients. Indeed, the district attorney and the Ramsey attorneys have simultaneously rebuked the police for "focusing" their investigation on the Ramseys when in fact police were simply following evidence. During the course of the investigation, the district attorney has used inexplicable methods including the recruitment of magazine writers and tabloids to leak information concerning the case and to needle witnesses, "suspects", and police detectives. He has provided evidence to Ramsey defense attorneys at their request but denied reasonable requests by witnesses for their own statements to police. He has thoroughly alienated police detectives and key witnesses whose cooperation is vital to the investigation and prosecution. His public statements regarding the investigation have been erratic, evasive, and misleading. They have also been profoundly damaging to the case. Understandably, public confidence in the district attorney's handling of the investigation was low even before Mr. Thomas' letter

Earlier this month, former Ramsey family friend Fleet White Jr. asked Montgomery to order Boulder police to give him investigative records from the murder case detailing accusations that he was involved in a child-sex ring and may have had a part in JonBenet’s death.

White — representing himself and his wife, Priscilla — said the records should be turned over because police deemed the accusations as not credible. Montgomery ruled that the Whites do have a “compelling and legitimate interest” in obtaining the records of the allegations against them.

Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner objected to the release of the records, saying the JonBenet Ramsey case was still open and that the accusations against White were part of that investigation. According to Montgomery, the portion of the Ramsey case that includes the accusations against the White’s consists of approximately 40 pages of documents, photos, video and audio tapes. The file Montgomery will review also includes medical information and identities of witnesses who have otherwise never been disclosed. The entire Ramsey murder case contains tens of thousands of documents and other pieces of evidence.

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail02.asp?ID=30

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234


Earlier this month, former Ramsey family friend Fleet White Jr. asked Montgomery to order Boulder police to give him investigative records from the murder case detailing accusations that he was involved in a child-sex ring and may have had a part in JonBenet’s death.

White — representing himself and his wife, Priscilla — said the records should be turned over because police deemed the accusations as not credible. Montgomery ruled that the Whites do have a “compelling and legitimate interest” in obtaining the records of the allegations against them.

Boulder police Chief Mark Beckner objected to the release of the records, saying the JonBenet Ramsey case was still open and that the accusations against White were part of that investigation. According to Montgomery, the portion of the Ramsey case that includes the accusations against the White’s consists of approximately 40 pages of documents, photos, video and audio tapes. The file Montgomery will review also includes medical information and identities of witnesses who have otherwise never been disclosed. The entire Ramsey murder case contains tens of thousands of documents and other pieces of evidence.

http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail02.asp?ID=30


And your point is what Breezy????

[breezy1234]

The day was Jan. 8, 1997. Arndt was at the Child Advocacy Center in Niwot where JonBenet's older brother Burke - now 19 - was being interviewed by a child psychologist.

"Patsy and I were alone for over an hour, and she shared a lot of things in that conversation. She did, and I did," Arndt recalled.

"And one of the things she demanded of me, she looked me in the eye and grabbed my hand and said, 'Promise me, promise me you will stay on this case and you will find out who did this to JonBenet.'

"I don't remember my words, but I gave her my word that I would. And I cannot hold her story any longer."

"There's no way to undo the wrong that was done (to the Ramsey family). But (it was) just to acknowledge what you could or couldn't do, and apologize for any error on my part and to offer myself in any way that was helpful to her."

Arndt would not discuss her theories of the case, saying only that she doesn't hold the "prevailing view" within the Boulder Police Department, which increasingly keyed on Patsy Ramsey.

"I'm able to confirm a lot of things that Patsy was maintaining for 10 years," Arndt said.

[Solace]

Originally posted by Solace



And your point is what Breezy????

Breezy, Will is doing a number here. Are you paying attention; I hope so because you are getting "owned" big time.

[breezy1234]

Originally posted by Solace


Breezy, Will is doing a number here. Are you paying attention; I hope so because you are getting "owned" big time.

Yeah Will is doing a number alright, a BIG ZERO! :rolleyes:

[Solace]

Originally posted by breezy1234
The day was Jan. 8, 1997. Arndt was at the Child Advocacy Center in Niwot where JonBenet's older brother Burke - now 19 - was being interviewed by a child psychologist.

"Patsy and I were alone for over an hour, and she shared a lot of things in that conversation. She did, and I did," Arndt recalled.

"And one of the things she demanded of me, she looked me in the eye and grabbed my hand and said, 'Promise me, promise me you will stay on this case and you will find out who did this to JonBenet.'

"I don't remember my words, but I gave her my word that I would. And I cannot hold her story any longer."

"There's no way to undo the wrong that was done (to the Ramsey family). But (it was) just to acknowledge what you could or couldn't do, and apologize for any error on my part and to offer myself in any way that was helpful to her."

Arndt would not discuss her theories of the case, saying only that she doesn't hold the "prevailing view" within the Boulder Police Department, which increasingly keyed on Patsy Ramsey.

"I'm able to confirm a lot of things that Patsy was maintaining for 10 years," Arndt said.

This is the same Det. Arndt who said she was positive that John Ramsey did this thing, that she hoped she had enough bullets in her gun the morning he brought JB up from the cellar. The same Det. Arndt who let John bring JB up from the cellar and the same Det. ARndt who then proceeded to destroy the evidence by covering up JB; the same Det. Arndt who said if she goes down, she will kill herself.

If it had not been for Det. Arndt, we might just have had a semblance of a chance of getting the guilty party. By the way she is writing a book. Sounds like it is right up your alley Breezy.

Breezy, you are kidding with this, aren't you?

[Solace]

Originally posted by Will05
Solace: She isn't even reading what I'm posting. This is what I'm talking about. These ppl ignore all the facts of the case. :rolleyes:

I know Will, but we must go on as if there is some hope here.

[Solace]

Originally posted by Lianasmom


Actually, it's very common and not unusual at all for people of wealth to have lawyers at their disposal. And it's my understanding at least one lawyer came to them first. John Ramsey was a very successful businessman and undoubtedly dealt with lawyers frequently. Not unusual in the least and certainly not wrong.

Do you know how absurd that sounds. It is very common and not unusual for people of wealth to have lawyers at their disposal. So what, so what. These wealthy people you speak of do have brains, do they not. If they did nothing wrong, they could have easily been interviewed with their lawyers when they were asked instead of putting it off with unreasonable demands until it ended up taking 4 months. Come on if you are going to argue this point, at least give me something that is reasonable.

[Solace]

Originally posted by Will05



Can't have it both ways.:rolleyes:

I think you might be right Will.

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


So the judge in the civil suit announces that the defendants DID cooperate fully because..... "defendants note that they agreed" to cooperate?


It sure would be nice if EVERY defendant could use that logic. It's true that I cooperated because I said I cooperated. lol


Interestingly, Carnes doesn't say WHEN they cooperated or what type of agreements might have been made before they would 'cooperate.' Just that they cooperated.




This is interesting too, isn't it?

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


"Carnes wrote that police made many mistakes during the course of the investigation, including the department’s failure to interview Patsy and John Ramsey separately on the day JonBenet’s body was found."

I did not see Breezy reply to the above. Anything wrong Breezy?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by noelsaloy

Thanks! That's helpful. I don't see "ROFL..."

Click here (http://www.stands4.com/) for a great Acronym search tool.

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by Solace


Do you know how absurd that sounds. It is very common and not unusual for people of wealth to have lawyers at their disposal. So what, so what. These wealthy people you speak of do have brains, do they not. If they did nothing wrong, they could have easily been interviewed with their lawyers when they were asked instead of putting it off with unreasonable demands until it ended up taking 4 months. Come on if you are going to argue this point, at least give me something that is reasonable.

Absurd? You are so misguided, that's what's absurd, Will, Solace, whatever your name is. What part of the Boulder police botched the investigation and focused the blame on the Ramseys therefore failing to find the real killer don't you understand? For one, the Ramseys had lawyers coming to them, and because there is nothing unusual or wrong for people to get legal counsel especially when they are getting wrong treatment from the police, why wouldn't they have lawyers? Would you be stupid enough to say "no thanks, don't want to give the wrong impression to morons?" And btw, the Ramseys were questioned by the Boulder PD two days after JB's murder at which time they gave hair, blood and handwriting samples so don't believe all the erroneous lies otherwise.

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by Lianasmom


Absurd? You are so misguided, that's what's absurd, Will, Solace, whatever your name is. What part of the Boulder police botched the investigation and focused the blame on the Ramseys therefore failing to find the real killer don't you understand? For one, the Ramseys had lawyers coming to them, and because there is nothing unusual or wrong for people to get legal counsel especially when they are getting wrong treatment from the police, why wouldn't they have lawyers? Would you be stupid enough to say "no thanks, don't want to give the wrong impression to morons?" And btw, the Ramseys were questioned by the Boulder PD two days after JB's murder at which time they gave hair, blood and handwriting samples so don't believe all the erroneous lies otherwise.

Yes, the Boulder PD botched the investigation. But, the botching began the moment they entered the home. The house was not secure. They allowed the Ramseys and friends free reign. They talked to the Ramseys 'together'. They even instructed John to do another 'search'. And, we all know what happened after that.

So, yes, you are right that it was botched, but it was NOT because they focused on the Ramseys so early. IMO, it was because Linda Arndt and company didn't focus on them soon enough. Had they been suspect of a millionaire and his wife the first moment they entered that house, we would not be discussing this case right now.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Former Juror
The closed-mindedness is what bothers me.

Ignore the ransom note.

Ignore where the pen and paper came from.

Ignore the handwriting analysis.

Ignore where the paintbrush came from.

Ignore the pineapple.

Ignore the fiber evidence.

Ignore Patsy's wearing of the same outfit.

Ignore the 911 call.

Ignore how the body was found by John and Fleet White.

Ignore the fact they refused to take a LE lie detector test.

Ignore the quick flight to Atlanta.

Ignore the fact that other underwear from the same manufacturer had DNA on them.

:read: :read:

I'd add to your list:

Ignore that the DA was known to plea bargain murder cases and rape cases in order to avoid going to trial.

Ignore that the DA had avoided trials for so many years, there was nobody with decent trial experience to even TRY the Ramseys or anyone else.

Ignore that fact that the police faxed a long list of questions to the Ramsey lawyers & asked THEM to get answers to questions the police needed answered. (Hunter was pretty shocked when he heard Arndt made such a terrible blunder, btw. Maybe THAT was when the entire case was lost for good.)

Ignore the fact that rather than agree to interviews with the police, the Ramseys agreed to go on CNN.

Ignore the fact that the Ramseys didn't simply hire ONE LAWYER per family member, Patsy had TWO and John had THREE lawyers.

Ignore the fact that the Ramseys would only agree to speak to police or investigators who were in contact with their own defense team & would agree to their conditions ahead of time.

[Solace]

Originally posted by Lianasmom


Absurd? You are so misguided, that's what's absurd, Will, Solace, whatever your name is. What part of the Boulder police botched the investigation and focused the blame on the Ramseys therefore failing to find the real killer don't you understand? For one, the Ramseys had lawyers coming to them, and because there is nothing unusual or wrong for people to get legal counsel especially when they are getting wrong treatment from the police, why wouldn't they have lawyers? Would you be stupid enough to say "no thanks, don't want to give the wrong impression to morons?" And btw, the Ramseys were questioned by the Boulder PD two days after JB's murder at which time they gave hair, blood and handwriting samples so don't believe all the erroneous lies otherwise.

Don't get nervous Lianasmom, you are addressing Solace. Absolutely nothing wrong with getting counsel. But using counsel to sidestep is a different story especially WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SIDESTEPPING ARE SAYING THERE IS AN INTRUDER AND BY COOPERATING (WITH THEIR LAWYERS PRESENT), they would be able to take the heat off them and put it where it belongs (according to them) on an intruder.

Their child has been brutally murdered and sexually assaulted. Now if what they say is true, they have another child to think of and I would think that they would be extremely interested in having the interviews at length immediately to get the police looking for an intruder. Which brings me to another point, if they were so worried about an intruder, why did they let Berke leave with Fleet White earlier that morning. I would not have let him out of my sight and you would not have either and if you deny that, I would question your honesty.

As far as their being questioned, this is not true. They were NOT QUESTIONED. They gave samples only. Their lawyer refused to have them submit to questioning. So lets be truthful here. And also Patsy was to out of it to be questioned prior to this, so her husband says, they needed more time.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by breezy1234


It was in court never could anyone prove the Ramseys guilty. Then too the GJ did not indict. Can't go to trial with no evidence. Patsy asked to be tried for murder if they thought she was guilty but no one took her up on the offer. Why didn't one of you know it alls who know all the evidence based on books take her up on it? :lol:



That's a pretty brave challenge from someone who knows through her lawyer's contacts with the DA's office that they couldn't make a case due to police incompetence on the scene AND the fact that within days of the murder Arndt tipped off the defense team as to what discprencies the police found in the Ramsey's original statements to the investigators.

The same Arndt who moved the body to under the Christmas tree AFTER John carried it upstairs & placed it on the floor. The same Arndt who later developed "amnesia" about the case and couldn't remember a thing.

Every murderer should have a detective like Linda Arndt on their side. :D


And oddly.... the Ramseys felt she was an asset to their side.

Call me crazy, but if it were ME, I'd be pretty angry & disgusted that such an incompetent person bungled the crime scene & made it almost impossible to convict the person responsible for killing my baby.

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


That's a pretty brave challenge from someone who knows through her lawyer's contacts with the DA's office that they couldn't make a case due to police incompetence on the scene AND the fact that within days of the murder Arndt tipped off the defense team as to what discprencies the police found in the Ramsey's original statements to the investigators.

The same Arndt who moved the body to under the Christmas tree AFTER John carried it upstairs & placed it on the floor. The same Arndt who later developed "amnesia" about the case and couldn't remember a thing.

Every murderer should have a detective like Linda Arndt on their side. :D


And oddly.... the Ramseys felt she was an asset to their side.

Call me crazy, but if it were ME, I'd be pretty angry & disgusted that such an incompetent person bungled the crime scene & made it almost impossible to convict the person responsible for killing my baby.

LIMom: That is probably why Patsy became so close to Linda Arndt; she realized she had an idiot in her midst and did not want her getting away. She wanted to be kept informed. Arndt would visit her and not report what was said to the other detectives.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by Solace


LIMom: That is probably why Patsy became so close to Linda Arndt; she realized she had an idiot in her midst and did not want her getting away. She wanted to be kept informed. Arndt would visit her and not report what was said to the other detectives.

Yes & the Ramsey lawyers were not about to miss this golden opportunity to latch onto ALL the people involved who were sympathetic to the Ramsey cause and to drive a wedge between the police & the DA if they could. They played everyone like a violin.

I think they also took advantage at the guilt Linda Arndt felt at having botched the job from the beginning.

Brilliant lawyers.

Too bad JonBenet was beside the point.

[LI_Mom]

The Ramseys biggest gripe was that the media portrayed them in a bad light.


What do they do?

When John Ramsey returns to work & complains the media is camped outside so he then moves to a building directly across the street :rolleyes: where he can work.

Over there, his friends think it's a good idea to throw water balloons at the media. John got a real kick at how they antagonized the media.

I guess they all thought that was a swell way to gain symapthy from the press & cause them to stop hounding the Ramsey family & to help look for the 'real killers?'

Yep. They sure were concentrating on focusing their efforts at getting this case solved.

[Solace]

Originally posted by LI_Mom


Yes & the Ramsey lawyers were not about to miss this golden opportunity to latch onto ALL the people involved who were sympathetic to the Ramsey cause and to drive a wedge between the police & the DA if they could. They played everyone like a violin.

I think they also took advantage at the guilt Linda Arndt felt at having botched the job from the beginning.

Brilliant lawyers.

Too bad JonBenet was beside the point.

Absolutely, they divided and conquered!

[Solace]

Originally posted by hohum


LOL, amidst that circus of an investigation how absurd would it be not to have a lawyer. I would have done the very same thing. The Ramsey's were dealing with their grief. The lawyers were taking care of the rest. Anyone who can afford a lawyer should have one in a similar situation. I think many people who followed this case are/were resentful/jealous of the Ramsey's money.

I think many people saw a little girl who was six years old and being used to play in pageants. It was sexual and it was over the top for a child. Her childhood was completely taken away from her.

That is what most people felt. Most people are not that cynical as you say to care more that they were jealous of the money rather than care about the six year old, 40 pound little girl who had been savagely killed.

And I bet if you ask most people, INCLUDING THE DA'S OFFICE, they would tell you Patsy did this crime. You do realize that Hunter and Hoffstrom and all the rest believed she did it, don't you?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Is Arndt the one who found herself at the Ramsey house as the only officer and a house full of people?

Yes.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


LOL, amidst that circus of an investigation how absurd would it be not to have a lawyer. I would have done the very same thing. The Ramsey's were dealing with their grief. The lawyers were taking care of the rest. Anyone who can afford a lawyer should have one in a similar situation. I think many people who followed this case are/were resentful/jealous of the Ramsey's money.

Of course, it's smart to hire a lawyer.

Then you & your lawyer go to the police station ASAP & sit down & answer every question the police might have. After all, THAT'S how the case gets solved & how the police know what leads they must follow & what leads are dead ends.


Why did Patsy need TWO lawyers and John THREE lawyers?

That's not overkill for innocent parents who only want to find the killers of their daughter?

[Former Juror]

Originally posted by hohum


Well no wonder mistakes were made. Why on earth would 1 lone officer be left at a house with all those people? It's ridiculous and beyond negligence on the part of the police department.

But, it doesn't prove the Ramseys innocent. In fact, it is more proof that they did it, IMO.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Well no wonder mistakes were made. Why on earth would 1 lone officer be left at a house with all those people? It's ridiculous and beyond negligence on the part of the police department.

Remember this was 6:00 am on the day after Christmas.

Boulder's police & DA were not very professional compared to most jurisdictions in the nation.

[Solace]

Originally posted by Former Juror


But, it doesn't prove the Ramseys innocent. In fact, it is more proof that they did it, IMO.

Det. Arndt was with three couples and most of them were with Patsy who was wailing away in some sort of stupor and John was with Fleet. Det. Arndt was not on Tremont Avenue in the South Bronx, New York City at a Bodega trying to hold it together amidst two warring gangs. I could have done it. Definitely. No one is moving from the solarium and no one is checking anything and no one is going downstairs until more the police arrive. That is that. And Former Juror is right, it does not prove that the Ramseys are innocent.

[Solace]

Originally posted by hohum


It's what they could afford. If a woman can buy 2 pair of shoes would she only buy 1 pair? It's a simplistic comparison but makes the point.

You are avoiding the question.

[noelsaloy]

...explain a couple of things to me?

Again, I don't know nearly as much as you all do about the case since I haven't read the books yet...

but what I don't understand it this: I would totally believe an accident/cover-up scenario if it weren't for 2 nagging details... the garrote and the "ransom" note.

If a person (father, Burke, mother, whoever) accidentally bangs JB on the head, or pushes her into something, or whatever, why choose the most complicated and heartwrenching method to finish the job? Why take the time to fashion a garrote and then do this up close and personal strangling thing? If I wanted to cover up something that happened (and it's my child) I would use pillow soffocation or even another head blow. Something fast and that doesn't require me to construct a tool....

And why write a lengthy not with all sorts of strange details? Why not write a short note that simply says "we've got her" and "we want X." In fact, why write a note at all? Why not just call 911 and say she's missing?

Why not take the body to a remote location?

Like I said, I don't have my mind made up either way, and if somebody can give me a plausible scenario to explain these above issues, I could believe it's the parents. I'm not a delicate-oh-but-they're-such-sweet-people type. I don't have any troub;e believing that parents kill, molest, and rape... just not this way.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


I agree that JonBenet on the runway is not how the average person raises their daughter. That part of her life provided endless fodder for the press. I can't remember which of the books but I did read that John Ramsey was not a fan of his daugher participating. But by all accounts JonBenet wanted to participate, was not forced into it, and was a natural ham according to her father. You must have only focused on the pictures of JB in her pageant outfits because I saw lots of pictures of a darling little girl just being a little girl. AND, I did not say that "they were jealous of the money rather than care about the six year old." This is exactly how a statement gets twisted and I think for accuracy sake posters should not misquote statements.

There were also accounts by people that said JonBenet's participation in the pageants went beyond what the average child was doing.

According to Schiller's book, the grandmother (Nedra) came off as being quite pushy when asked what if JonBenet didn't WANT to participate? She said (paraphrase), 'Then we'll just tell her she has to.'

The child would often show up WAY overdressed & 'sexed up' for the type of pageants they were used to outside the southern circuit.

John DID put his foot down & tell Patsy that he would not allow JonBenet to attend a pageant in Las Vegas. He didn't approve of that one, at all.


Interestingly, Patsy herself said that JonBenet fell in love with the pageant idea when she was a very young. (Of course, since her grandmother, mother & aunt pushed her towards that goal since the very beginning)

Patsy described how once JonBenet put on a 'show' for guests in her house. She'd change into outfit after outfit & strut around & light up the room. BUT it was all JonBenet's choice & even when the adults said that was enough, JonBenet just had to don another outfit & keep going.

What made me suspect Patsy was leaving things out was that JonBenet was only 3 years old at the time & I found it hard to believe she was dressing herself in endless outfits without any help from a prodding adult.

[Solace]

Originally posted by noelsaloy
...explain a couple of things to me?

Again, I don't know nearly as much as you all do about the case since I haven't read the books yet...

but what I don't understand it this: I would totally believe an accident/cover-up scenario if it weren't for 2 nagging details... the garrote and the "ransom" note.

If a person (father, Burke, mother, whoever) accidentally bangs JB on the head, or pushes her into something, or whatever, why choose the most complicated and heartwrenching method to finish the job? Why take the time to fashion a garrote and then do this up close and personal strangling thing? If I wanted to cover up something that happened (and it's my child) I would use pillow soffocation or even another head blow. Something fast and that doesn't require me to construct a tool....

And why write a lengthy not with all sorts of strange details? Why not write a short note that simply says "we've got her" and "we want X." In fact, why write a note at all? Why not just call 911 and say she's missing?

Why not take the body to a remote location?

Like I said, I don't have my mind made up either way, and if somebody can give me a plausible scenario to explain these above issues, I could believe it's the parents. I'm not a delicate-oh-but-they're-such-sweet-people type. I don't have any troub;e believing that parents kill, molest, and rape... just not this way.

So that is what gets you the garrote. Maybe that is why Patsy did it intentionally, because no-one would believe that a mother would do that. .

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


LOL, I could think of a few other things to throw at the media. I hope when they threw the water balloons it was freezing outside. What a way to make a living. I bet there were some poor kids murdered the same day as JB who did not receive more than an obituary mention in the paper. I wonder why the media was not interested in them?

To me, it points to how STUPID the Ramseys were.

When your goal is to solve the murder of your child, you should NOT antagonize people who have it in their power to drag you through the mud.

You do NOT give the press more fodder or reason to think you are 'the enemy.'

You embrace them & ask them to help you in any way they can. You appeal to them as grieving parents... not people who have lost their self control.


I found it very shocking that the Ramseys would include this incident in their book. Too stupid for words.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


It's what they could afford. If a woman can buy 2 pair of shoes would she only buy 1 pair? It's a simplistic comparison but makes the point.


They could have afforded a dozen more.

The question was WHY would they need so many defense lawyers between the two of them?

It's laughable that they would hire FIVE ATTORNEYS and then whine that the public didn't believe they were completely innocent.

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by Solace


So that is what gets you the garrote. Maybe that is why Patsy did it intentionally, because no-one would believe that a mother would do that. .

That would be a pretty brilliant woman! My question was not rhetorical. I'm asking someone to believes the Ramseys are guilty to explain those two things. How do you envision it playing out? Like I said, if those things could be explained I'd be convinved.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by noelsaloy
...explain a couple of things to me?

Again, I don't know nearly as much as you all do about the case since I haven't read the books yet...

but what I don't understand it this: I would totally believe an accident/cover-up scenario if it weren't for 2 nagging details... the garrote and the "ransom" note.

If a person (father, Burke, mother, whoever) accidentally bangs JB on the head, or pushes her into something, or whatever, why choose the most complicated and heartwrenching method to finish the job? Why take the time to fashion a garrote and then do this up close and personal strangling thing? If I wanted to cover up something that happened (and it's my child) I would use pillow soffocation or even another head blow. Something fast and that doesn't require me to construct a tool....

And why write a lengthy not with all sorts of strange details? Why not write a short note that simply says "we've got her" and "we want X." In fact, why write a note at all? Why not just call 911 and say she's missing?

Why not take the body to a remote location?

Like I said, I don't have my mind made up either way, and if somebody can give me a plausible scenario to explain these above issues, I could believe it's the parents. I'm not a delicate-oh-but-they're-such-sweet-people type. I don't have any troub;e believing that parents kill, molest, and rape... just not this way.


That garrote bothers everyone. Even the FBI said they had never before heard of a parent using such a device. (Not that that means there is not a first time for everything)


Here's a tidbit from Linda (the housekeeper)....

she said that Burke used to have a pocketknife & would whittle all over the house. He'd make a mess & then just leave the knife laying around. Patsy didn't know how to get him to stop & Linda finally took the knife away from him & hid it in the cabinet where the Pullups were kept on the children's floor.


Is it possible that Burke made that garrote one day while he was playing in the basement? (His train room was down in the basement) It might be the type of thing a bored boy might do.... not to use as a weapon against a person but to emulate something he saw on a video?

Maybe that just happened to be laying around in the basment & was handy?



As far as the note, people have said that Patsy often used to use acronyms in her personal letters. She might sign as PRJR (their initials)

The note was signed:

Victory!
S.B.T.C (no period at end of C)


Was that Subic Bay Training Center? Some accounts say there was no such training center when John was statipned there.

Was it Saved By The Cross? Everyone knows that Patsy became very, very religious following her cancer scare.


The length of the note is certainly weird. The writer spent a lot of time creating that masterpiece. And why would he/she leave the note on the stairs but then go all the way down to the basement to molest a child he was about to take out of the house anyway? What if someone found the note before he left?

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



That garrote bothers everyone. Even the FBI said they had never before heard of a parent using such a device. (Not that that means there is not a first time for everything)


Here's a tidbit from Linda (the housekeeper)....

she said that Burke used to have a pocketknife & would whittle all over the house. He'd make a mess & then just leave the knife laying around. Patsy didn't know how to get him to stop & Linda finally took the knife away from him & hid it in the cabinet where the Pullups were kept on the children's floor.


Is it possible that Burke made that garrote one day while he was playing in the basement? (His train room was down in the basement) It might be the type of thing a bored boy might do.... not to use as a weapon against a person but to emulate something he saw on a video?

Maybe that just happened to be laying around in the basment & was handy?



As far as the note, people have said that Patsy often used to use acronyms in her personal letters. She might sign as PRJR (their initials)

The note was signed:

Victory!
S.B.T.C (no period at end of C)


Was that Subic Bay Training Center? Some accounts say there was no such training center when John was statipned there.

Was it Saved By The Cross? Everyone knows that Patsy became very, very religious following her cancer scare.


The length of the note is certainly weird. The writer spent a lot of time creating that masterpiece. And why would he/she leave the note on the stairs but then go all the way down to the basement to molest a child he was about to take out of the house anyway? What if someone found the note before he left?

Thanks for answering! What you said about the garrote is the most plausible conjecture I've heard. And if the note was written by a woman in a crazed fit.... If that's the case, then John, necessarily, would have nothing to do with it because I think he would see the note and say, "Whoh, that's too much; keep it simple...." What's with the lack of a period at the end of the C? What could that mean?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by noelsaloy


Thanks for answering! What you said about the garrote is the most plausible conjecture I've heard. And if the note was written by a woman in a crazed fit.... If that's the case, then John, necessarily, would have nothing to do with it because I think he would see the note and say, "Whoh, that's too much; keep it simple...." What's with the lack of a period at the end of the C? What could that mean?

I always thought the note was too emotional for a man to dictate. And knowing that John lost his first daughter in a car accident, I think he would have been more likely to be frozen with grief & not thinking clearly enough to plot & plan extensively in a coverup.

I don't know what they make of the missing period after that final C.


Ooops. I did make a mistake though. It was not Linda but Judith Philips who reported what Nedra said about JonBenet's pageants.....

Page 191, Schiller book: Judith & Nedra



"Well Judith, we're just getting JB into a few pageants."

"Why would you do something like that?"

"You know she's not too young to get started."

"And what if JB isn't willing?" I asked. "What if she says, 'I'm not going to do it!' How would you respond to that?"

"Oh Judith, we would never consider her saying no. We would tell JB, 'You must do it. You will be a Miss Pageant.'"

It was sort of eerie. A little scary. The inevitability of it - from grandmother to mother & now to daughter.

[noelsaloy]

My own theory that I've come up comes from my interest in abnormal psychology (My brother has a psych degree and we've talked about this.)

My brother used to work with schizophrenics and described a lot of curious things to me. One is hypergraphia, or excessive writing. Another is a fascination with government agencies and authorities (FBI, etc.) Also many schizophrenics are obsessed with technology and electronics. They also are obsessed with sex.

The letter (to me anyway) screams paranoid schizophrenic: Hypergraphia, government entities, and electronics....

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by noelsaloy
My own theory that I've come up comes from my interest in abnormal psychology (My brother has a psych degree and we've talked about this.)

My brother used to work with schizophrenics and described a lot of curious things to me. One is hypergraphia, or excessive writing. Another is a fascination with government agencies and authorities (FBI, etc.) Also many schizophrenics are obsessed with technology and electronics. They also are obsessed with sex.

The letter (to me anyway) screams paranoid schizophrenic: Hypergraphia, government entities, and electronics....


Yes, it sure was wordy! :lol:


I can't remember what electronics were discussed in the note. Other than a quick reference to the 'small foreign faction' monitoring them & warning them not to contact ANYONE.

Of course, this is after they tell them to contact the bank to get the $118,000. :D

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



Yes, it sure was wordy! :lol:


I can't remember what electronics were discussed in the note. Other than a quick reference to the 'small foreign faction' monitoring them & warning them not to contact ANYONE.

Of course, this is after they tell them to contact the bank to get the $118,000. :D

There's a part about "monitoring for electronic devices." I've said before that the note needs not be either 100% true or a 100% fabrication/diversion. What I envision (and of course this is all a theory is this:

People who kill kids and women/serial killers have a rich fantasy life. They have all these details that they've gone over in their heads about how they want something to play out. The note is so rife with fantasy. I see the person fantasizing about "an attache case" because "an attache case" seems so sophisticated and cloak and dagger to him. He imagines himself as a part of a "foreign faction." He imagines himself one-uping "a fat cat." and "scanning" him "for electronic devices." These are all details of his fantasy.

He may have been someone who worked with John and knew about the 118k. He may have not have yet been diagnosed or maybe was (under)medicated. He originally planned to kidnap JB, left the note upon bringing her downstairs, but something went wrong in the basement. He killed her there (intentionally or accidentally) and then left without retreiving the note (either in a hurry or forgot it).

According to my brother, such mentally ill people do have scattered episodes where intentions and plans change rapidly from moment to moment. Those who target children are also often impotent and use fingers/objects. Their impotence is part of what makes them target children because they feel powerless and need a weak victim.

[LI_Mom]

I certainly wouldn't rule out that possibilty.


The only thing that seems hard to understand is why an intruder would take the chance that his note is found BEFORE he leaves the house.

This is a person who has been all over the house, upstairs on the 2nd floor & then downstairs in the kitchen area writing the note & while there's a back door right near the kitchen area, he still heads down to a dark basement where he has no easy access.

I just don't think this intruder was a disorganized person. He left no fingerprints or traceable DNA evidence except for a few spots in JB's panties which were also found in unopened packages of panties just like the ones JB owned.

And a lone pubic hair found on a blanket that was a potential match to JB's half sister who was a frequent guest in the home.

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by LI_Mom
I certainly wouldn't rule out that possibilty.


The only thing that seems hard to understand is why an intruder would take the chance that his note is found BEFORE he leaves the house.

Putting it on the stairs as he descends with JB is the natural thing to do if he plans on going out the basement. He can't go back to leave it while she's waiting down there. He thinks he's going to be out in a flash through the window with her.

Anyway, this kind of offender gets off on risky behavior. It's part of the thrill. Of course, he also doesn't stop, which makes me think he's in prison, dead, or institutionalized at this point. I think there's also memory loss with certain mental diseases.

As for the DNA, I agree it's not terribly impressive. My mother works in Emory doing research, using PCR (polymerase chain reaction) technology, so of course I've discussed this part with her! I agree that DNA can get transferred through innocent, casual contact. She could have gotten it from someone (maybe another kid) at the party, and the underwear could have many explanations. Like you say, skin cells from a worker at the manufacterer, or she's in the bathroom at the party, pulls them up and they brush against the toilet where someone else has been...

Did they find any foreign fingerprints (or partials) on the note?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by noelsaloy


Putting it on the stairs as he descends with JB is the natural thing to do if he plans on going out the basement. He can't go back to leave it while she's waiting down there. He thinks he's going to be out in a flash through the window with her.

Anyway, this kind of offender gets off on risky behavior. It's part of the thrill. Of course, he also doesn't stop, which makes me think he's in prison, dead, or institutionalized at this point. I think there's also memory loss with certain mental diseases.

As for the DNA, I agree it's not terribly impressive. My mother works in Emory doing research, using PCR (polymerase chain reaction) technology, so of course I've discussed this part with her! I agree that DNA can get transferred through innocent, casual contact. She could have gotten it from someone (maybe another kid) at the party, and the underwear could have many explanations. Like you say, skin cells from a worker at the manufacterer, or she's in the bathroom at the party, pulls them up and they brush against the toilet where someone else has been...

Did they find any foreign fingerprints (or partials) on the note?


It makes more sense for an intruder to get out as quickly & easily as possible... through a back or side door and NOT try to squeeze a 6 year old kid through a small basement window. This is an intruder that worked very hard at NOT leaving any evidence... why take the chance of entering yet another floor of the house?


I don't remember much about prints on the note.


http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/07/16-1.html


Fingerprint tests on Ramsey note inconclusive

By ALLI KRUPSKI
Camera Staff Writer

Wednesday, July 16, 1997

Authorities have completed fingerprint testing on the ransom note discovered in JonBenet Ramsey's home, but the results don't positively identify the author of the document, sources said Tuesday.

The Daily Camera previously reported that early examinations of palm print testing of the note - as well as DNA testing of forensic evidence - did not immediately produce conclusive results.

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation informed investigators about the fingerprint testing results.

"The problem is even if you find someone's fingerprints on the note, it doesn't mean they wrote the note," a source close to the investigation said. "So there's no real way you can indisputably say who wrote this note, because there are a lot of different explanations for finding fingerprints."

Pete Mang, an inspector with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, said he couldn't comment on details of the CBI fingerprint analysis report.

"The results have been turned over to the Boulder Police Department," Mang said Tuesday.

Police gathered handwriting, blood, hair and fingerprint samples from the Ramseys and others after John Ramsey and a friend found John's 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet, strangled in the family home on Dec. 26. About eight hours earlier, Patsy Ramsey, the girl's mother, discovered a ransom note demanding $118,000 and called authorities.

Since the homicide, Patsy Ramsey has supplied investigators with five handwriting samples. Analyses of the handwriting samples have eliminated John Ramsey as author of the note, but haven't excluded the former

Officials hoped fingerprints on the note might point to a suspect, but some experts said Tuesday that fingerprints don't always determine who committed an act.

"The only thing that occurs when the identification of latent print material (takes place) is to say this person at some point made contact with this object," said Douglas Monsoor, a supervising criminologist at the Lakewood Police Department.

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by LI_Mom



It makes more sense for an intruder to get out as quickly & easily as possible... through a back or side door and NOT try to squeeze a 6 year old kid through a small basement window. This is an intruder that worked very hard at NOT leaving any evidence... why take the chance of entering yet another floor of the house?[/i]

Wasn't the alarm on? If his intention is to take her with him he would leave the note, then try to take her out through the window from whence he came. (In my scenario, everything works out until they get to the basement. At that point, he's already deposited the note.) As for not leaving evidence, I don't think he tried hard not to, rather the botched investigation made him lucky.

Just as an aside: If you ever look at the handwriting of Cary Stayner it looks a lot like the handwriting in the note... even the letter "a" with the tail on top! Not that I think that's the guy but it's kind of spooky!

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by noelsaloy


Wasn't the alarm on? If his intention is to take her with him he would leave the note, then try to take her out through the window from whence he came. (In my scenario, everything works out until they get to the basement. At that point, he's already deposited the note.) As for not leaving evidence, I don't think he tried hard not to, rather the botched investigation made him lucky.

Just as an aside: If you ever look at the handwriting of Cary Stayner it looks a lot like the handwriting in the note... even the letter "a" with the tail on top! Not that I think that's the guy but it's kind of spooky!


The Ramseys never used the alarm. As a matter of fact, one of them mentioned the alarm in their book & said one of the kids set it off once & the noise was SO loud & upsetting, they never used it again.

When they moved back to Atlanta & bought a house, they had an alarm installed & set it off to see what would happen. They said the police never called or showed up. I think they said they never used that alarm either & then later mentioned they had a break in at THAT home.

I'd have to double check whether they stopped using that alarm completely though, I won't swear to that but I DO remember feeling their explanation about alarms was VERY, VERY odd for a family that had a tragedy like they did.




I know nothing about Staynor's handwriting. Interesting. That's quite a tragic case also. His parents sure had more than their share of heartache with their 2 sons. I wonder how the surviving children are coping with life? I can't even imagine what they must have been through.

[Solace]

Originally posted by noelsaloy


That would be a pretty brilliant woman! My question was not rhetorical. I'm asking someone to believes the Ramseys are guilty to explain those two things. How do you envision it playing out? Like I said, if those things could be explained I'd be convinved.

I am on my way out now but I will give it a shot and maybe convince you. But has to be tomorrow.

[noelsaloy]

Originally posted by Solace


I am on my way out now but I will give it a shot and maybe convince you. But has to be tomorrow.

Thanks! I like to hear other people's theories.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


Wasn't John at home when the burglar broke in or he came home and found the burglar. I wonder if the burglar recognized him?

I was mistaken. The incident I was thinking of happened in Michigan, not Atlanta.

Patsy returned home, her mother & sister are sitting in her driveway & tell her the alarm had gone off hours earlier. Patsy says she got tired waiting for the police to show up so she entered the house herself (with frying pan in hand) & went from room to room & closet to closet to make sure nobody was still inside. She makes a point of explaining how deathly scared she was.

It was hard to keep from laughing at that account. Her kid's been murdered. Her house is broken into & she can't bother to wait for the police... she has to rush in like Wonder Woman? Yeah, right. I'll buy your swamp land, just stop tellling me stories! :D :D:




The incident when John found an intruder was a completely different time. I believe THAT was the Atlanta break in.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


I just read this in the Schiller book. I bet Patsy's mother Nedra said the same thing to she and her sister while they competed for the Miss West Virginia title. And so it got passed down to JonBenet.

Yes, my point was that I got the feeling that Nedra (grandma) was very controlling & not a very nice person.

I think Patsy was a little less rough around the edges than her mother was but she was far from being the type to fall apart. Patsy more than held her own in interviews & could get quite aggressive.

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by hohum


I think you have just made your case on these very important points about why the parents might not be guilty. If they just left her in the basement, such as where she was found, they did not need to strangle her. The whack on the head was enough to kill her. The long note points to an intruder. The experts seem to be in agreement that the note was so much longer than the typical ransom note which usually says something like we have your daugher, give us x amount of money and you will get her back. We will call you. To continue writing for 2 and 1/2 pages would be risky and might reveal some details helpful to the police. And should have. Only an intruder would use the paper already in the house knowing it could not be traced to them. I don't think the parents would have used something as obvious as a pad laying right near the stairs and then put it back in it's place to be found by the police. They would have tried to hide it.

One thing about the whack on the head that is interesting. The lack of blood.

It's very possible the head injury came AFTER the whack on the head. Remember she had pinpoint bleeding in her eyes, so she was still alive when she was strangled.


IMO, the only Ramsey I think who might be guilty of sexually 'playing' with JB is her brother. That would explain the absense of public hair on the scene and it would explain why the penetration with the wooden stick.

What if Patsy or John came downstairs & saw Burke abusing JB & one of them picked up a golf club & went to get him off her & hit JB instead?

When the Ramseys went to Atlanta for the funeral, one of the few items they took from the house was an old set of golf clubs. Could that have been what hit JB?

[LI_Mom]

BOTH parents would cover up IF their own son was the one that precipitated JB's accidental murder.

NOT waking him up & asking him if he knew anything is just TOO questionable.

It sounds more like they screamed at him to get in his room & NOT do or say a thing until they called him downstairs again.

After setiing up the scene, they call 911.

Hours later, they wake him up & ship him off to Fleet White's house. The kid is SO traumatized they know he won't say a word beyond what they tell him to say.


How do they get rid off any incrimminating evidence (IF there is any?).... they put it in their pockets when they walk out the door to go stay with their friends.

Nobody frisked them. The police let family members come back & take whatever they needed anyway.


Nobody in that family was going to send Burke or the parents to jail. It was just a terrible, terrible accident.

[LI_Mom]

(From the Ramsey book)

FACT: Ramsey's arrive home & JB is asleep.

John carries her upstairs & removes her coat & shoes.

Patsy comes in & finishes getting her ready for bed while John goes downstairs to help Burke finish up with some new toy.

The 2 guys go upstairs around 9:30 & John gets him ready for bed & then goes upstairs to the 3rd floor where Patsy is already in bed. John sets his alarm for 5:30 & read for a while before turning out the light.


Patsy & John wake up. John is in the shower but Patsy's shower is broken so she throws on the same clothes she wore the night before. Remember they are taking a private plane to their summer house in Michigan.

*** Patsy's account ***

Don't need one this morning, I think to myself. Just put my clothes on. And, of course my makeup. I remember my mother's words. "Never leave the house without your makeup." Plus we are going to meet Melinda's fiancer, Stewart, so I want to make a good impression.

Got to be at the airport by 6:30 or so. Going to push us to get everyone going because time is so short. I reach for my clothes & start dressing.





Need to get a few things together for the trip, I think to myself. Not much, since we've already got clothes & most necessary items at the house in Charlevoix. I quickly shove some laundry into a plastic garbage sack that will go on the airplane as-is.



I hurry down the spiral staircase to the bottom floor [kitchen level, NOT the basement] and stop.

What's this? I wonder. I turn around to look at three pieces of paper on a step near the bottom. I bendover. Must be a note from the cleaning lady, Linda, I think.
---


[Next she shouts for John who comes down in his underwear & takes the note and puts it on the floor in the back hall & reads it on his hands & knees.]


What do we do? I stammer.

He shouts. "Call the police!"

"Are you sure?"

"Yes. Call them!"

---

[Shes calls 911. Then she calls her friends, the Fernies. Next she calls the Whites.]

[The house is soon full of people....]

*** John's account ***

I remember Burke, asleep in his bedroom. I don't want him to get up in the midst of this madness & wonder what is going on. I ask fleet WQhite if Burke can go to his house & be with Fleet Jr. He agrees.

I wake Burke up & as gently as possible tell him that JB is missing & that he is going to his friend Fleet's house for a while.

Burke looks distressed & begins to cry, so I know he understands the gravity of our predicament.

I help him get dressed, and momentarily he & Fleet are leaving the house, Burke carrying his new Nintendo 64 game under his arm.


------


There is such a distachment the way Patsy thinks & writes her portion of the book. Here she tells how she is overly conscious about her appearance & wants to make a good impression & in the same breath says she threw on clothes she wore the day before. And packs dirty laundry in gargabe bags for a vacation?


Notice even after the house is full of people, the Ramseys don't think to ask Burke if he heard or saw ANYTHING unusual during the night. He knows his sister is missing, he starts to cry & all they think to do is rush him out the door?

[Lianasmom]

Originally posted by noelsaloy
...explain a couple of things to me?

Again, I don't know nearly as much as you all do about the case since I haven't read the books yet...

but what I don't understand it this: I would totally believe an accident/cover-up scenario if it weren't for 2 nagging details... the garrote and the "ransom" note.

If a person (father, Burke, mother, whoever) accidentally bangs JB on the head, or pushes her into something, or whatever, why choose the most complicated and heartwrenching method to finish the job? Why take the time to fashion a garrote and then do this up close and personal strangling thing? If I wanted to cover up something that happened (and it's my child) I would use pillow soffocation or even another head blow. Something fast and that doesn't require me to construct a tool....

And why write a lengthy not with all sorts of strange details? Why not write a short note that simply says "we've got her" and "we want X." In fact, why write a note at all? Why not just call 911 and say she's missing?

Why not take the body to a remote location?

Like I said, I don't have my mind made up either way, and if somebody can give me a plausible scenario to explain these above issues, I could believe it's the parents. I'm not a delicate-oh-but-they're-such-sweet-people type. I don't have any troub;e believing that parents kill, molest, and rape... just not this way.

You've raised very legitimate questions. I remember when this happened I thought to myself if they killed her, why in the world the parents didn't take the body to a nearby field. The only answer I've gotten was that because this was their child that they loved, the Ramseys couldn't bear to put her out in the cold snow, yet the same people want us to accept that the parent(s) overkilled her just for the sake of a cover-up. The fact that the body was found in the basement has caused so many people to suspect the Ramseys, and yet it would have been so much more believable (had they truly been responsible for her death) to go all the way in devising a cover-up by getting rid of the body. They could have even done it so that she would be found quickly.

As for the ransom note, why in the world would Patsy take a risk of writing a 2 1/2 page note with every word increasing chances of her handwriting being matched. Surely, John would have advised her of how stupid that was, and you're right, why write one at all?

Finally, it is unimaginable that one parent could kill the child and the other parent go along as if it was just one of those things. You would think it would have been a matter of time before they split up and maybe even one ending up telling all.

[Amy]

Originally posted by hohum
One thing I can't reconcile is that (I think it was Schiller's book) it was reported that Patsy sang a song to JonBenet while she was putting her to bed. Now if this is true why would you sing to a child who is asleep? Also can you really change a child's clothes without waking them up?? She or someone took the red turtleneck off JB and put on the Barbie PJs. Did anyone else read this? I wish I could find the quote about this, will look for it.

We do a lot of things out of habit. If one sings a song to one's child every night, one might do that, even if said child is asleep.

As for changing a child's clothes without awakening him/her--if it's been a really long day, and the child is exhausted, it could be done.